![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a work in progress. Status and dates may not be correct. The list refers to current and former British territories as far as Britain is concerned, so it may not reflect a universal neutral POV. For example, Falkland Islands is listed as a British overseas territory, but it has been claimed by Argentina.
The source of this table mostly originates from the WorldStatesmen site. Whereas dates and status are unclear, other sources were referenced. Input and suggestion are welcomed. -- Kvasir 07:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
British Nationality Act 1981:
The United Kingdom's dependent territories on 1 January 1983 were Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands and Dependencies, Gibraltar, Hong Kong (not been a dependent territory since 30 June 1997), Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St. Christopher and Nevis (not been a dependent territory since 18 September 1983), St. Helena and Dependencies, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, Turks and Caicos Islands and Virgin Islands.
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were the "Dependencies" of the Falkland Islands, but were not dependent territories during the period 3 October 1985 - 3 December 2001.
Since 26 February 2002, the British dependent territories have been officially known as "British overseas territories" and British Dependent Territories citizens(hip) as "British overseas territories citizens(hip)". -- Kvasir 10:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sections completed, up for correction and edits. -- Kvasir 22:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sections completed, up for correction and edits. -- Kvasir 16:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Section completed, up for correction and edits. -- Kvasir 02:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Section completed, up for correction and edits. -- Kvasir 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Years to be wikified with relevant treaties, acts, and other events. Data to be verified. -- Kvasir 20:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Isn't "annexation" the word used to describe the Statute of Rhuddlan and Acts of Union 1536-1543? -- Kvasir 15:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Kvasir - nice work. The only obvious gaps I noticed were Hong Kong and India (when did parts eg Kashmir become part of the Raj?). Good luck! (JD)
What's the source for Rupert's Land being part of the Province of Quebec from 1774 to 1783? I've never heard of this and suspect it's an error. Indefatigable 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
This article lists ALL territories associated with the British Empire and England, even for temporary war-time occupation. Personal unions are certainly included here for the case of some Dutch provinces and german states. For the Dutch provinces they were under William III of Orange with England sharing the same monarch. Please be clear that this or the article by no means imply that England ruled over the Dutch. -- Kvasir 06:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
What sharing monarch?The Netherlands were a republic at the time.You don't seem to get the concept of a stadholder. We weren't part of the British empire, and so the Netherlands will not be included on this map.
Sander 11:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the empire that was British. Because England had begun establishing overseas colonies before the union with Scotland, it is fair, accurate and reasonable to include those possessions in this article. As the second paragraph says, "The rise of the British Empire has its origin in the 15th century during the reign of King Henry VIII of England." So why on earth are medieval English regal possessions in France listed in this article? It is utterly ridiculous and highly misleading to do so. Neither word, "Britain" nor "Empire" makes absolutely any sense whatsoever in this context. If one is going to include them then the article should be renamed to "Territories ruled by England and Britain". Gsd2000 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
But at the same time Gsd2000, England's invasion of Ireland in the 16th Century was most certainly linked with beginning of English involvement in Ireland with the Papal Bull in the 1100s, Henry II's invasion of Ireland and the Norman involvement in Ireland from the landing of knights to the coming of Norman, French, Welsh, English, etc. settlers (Old English or Cambro-Normans or whatever you call them) claiming land after the Norman invasion. And of course Britain's handing back of Hong Kong was linked to the 16th Century invasion of Ireland which in turn was linked to 10th Century Anglo-Norman involvement in Ireland. And of course Norman involvement in Ireland only really picked up, after the Norman invasion of England, which in turn later links England with the Angevin territories in France.
As for the post-world war II military occupations (in addition to the fact that the occupations and the war intimately involved the Empire as a whole), we can take the example of Japan. Britain (and Australia, India, New Zealand and Canada) were there in Japan in 1945 because there was a war of imperial conquest from 1941-1945 by Japan (I know Japan started earlier, like around 1937, but I'm dealing with Japan v. British Empire here). Japan attempted to acquire Britain's colonies in Asia by force, and Britain, in alliance with many other countries beat Japan back and occupied her afterwards. If there were no British colonies in Asia = No war by Japan against Britain. Germany is different, the causes that resulted in the military occupation of Berlin in 1945 were many, but among them was WWI and one of the causes (not the main cause) of WWI ( causes of world war I) was colonial rivalry. Another cause, was that after WWII started, one of the aims of the Axis powers was to knock Britain out of the war and annex some of her colonies (Italy and Japan especially wished to do so).
With the personal unions, although Sander may seem to jealously guard the fact that the Netherlands were never ruled from London (and no one said they were and I don't for one minute believe that they were ever a part of the Empire), he cannot disprove that the Netherlands were not associated with England and Scotland and by extension the English Empire. King William III, when he became King, removed the traditional palace guards and replaced them with Dutch guards (much to the annoyance and dislike of many in England) and during his campaigns, the English and Dutch Fleets acted in concert. In addition he at times appointed Dutch commanders to lead English (and Scottish) battalions during campaigns against France(again much to the annoyance of English commanders) which took place in Europe and in overseas colonies. If William III had not been there, then it is doubtful that England would have become so involved militarily in northwest Europe. With the Hannoverian kings, Britain again became involved in Europe and Hannover became so linked with Britain that at one point they had a (not the only) flag with the Union Jack with a white-horse-on-red-field superimposed (see Flags of the World website). Add to that that various new titles were proposed for George I including Emperor of the British and Irish and Emperor of the British and Hanoverian Dominions (both suggested in 1801).
A serious historical work may not write on this, because such a work would have to span volumes (think Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" or something along those lines). And writing volumes is not only lengthy, but much more expensive than writing a single book on British society from 1588 - present (besides, any one book that was that long would probably not have very many readers). Anon 12:55 pm April 16, 2006
A less wordy title that encompasses the meaning of this could just be "Evolution of the English and British Empires". Anon 1:11 pm April 16, 2006
Excellent point on the Seven Year's War and the idea of metropoles vs. periphery. But wasn't there some kind of agreement that colonial conflicts would not affect the status of peace in Europe (but not vice versa) during that time? Can't remember the name of it for the life of me, but I do seem to remember hearing it in history class, way back in high school. Had the agreement not existed though, then there could have been attempts at colonizing opposing metropoles. Outside of Europe though, metropoles were treated rough-shod by the British, French and Spanish, especially in the Americas (think Aztecs and Incas) and Africa (eastern Africa and the Boer States). Okay, about signing...doesn't put "Anon etc" mean signing? And if Gsd2000 will remember, there was some talk about "having the courage to sign...". Since that appeared to be an attempt to goad, so I ignored it. I assume electronically signing will give a permanent talk page (though I see no need for a talk page, since all the discussions are here anyway). Anon 11:58 am April 18, 2006.
The graph lists the British Empire as loosing Canada in 1940-1949. I can't guess why that'd be, eh? 1867, 1931 or 1982 are all plausible years for Canadian Independance - 1940-1949 is not. Others may be similarly wrong (for example, Australia is also listed as 1940-1949, which is a choice I can't figure out) WilyD 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The infomation for 2007 dose not show some current territory such as Gibraltar and aktoria and dicelia and the cayman islands, although I may be wrong ThaBigCheese99 ( talk) 22:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What a splendid piece of work. However, a better term is needed to describe the current status of Scotland and Wales. Guinnog 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Besides the overall sense of fanboy Anglomania, one major problem with the map on this page is the position of Louisiana, which has been shifted west several hundred kilometers, thus artificially increasing the size of British territory represented on the American mainland. Compare Image:LouisianaPurchase.png and Image:Map of territorial growth 1775.jpg; the course of the southern Mississippi actually follows a longitude parallel to the western shore of Lake Huron. I've hand-drawn a much more accurate representation of the Louisiana boundary at Image:Spanish Empire.png, and this could be used to solve the above problem. I will do so myself if no one objects. Albrecht 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The German state of Hanover was not part of the British Empire, so I have removed it from the list. It was never under the authority of the Westminster parliament, either in theory or in practice, and retained its own government and other institutions. It merely shared its head of state with Great Britain. Silverhelm 03:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
This article's name doesn't accurately represent its contents; I'm also a firm believer that Wikipedia articles that are lists should be clearly identified as such in their title. Unless anyone can come up with a better name, I propose renaming it to List of territories of the British Empire. Silverhelm 12:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
Not listed. Should it be in? Jooler 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The following list has been edited together from two separate blocks of commented-out material now removed from the article. The details need to be checked before being used to add missing entries to the main article.
---List begins---
Some early territorial claims for England that were abandoned and not settled.
Goustien (
talk)
18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
---List ends---
Silverhelm 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
Hold on? Why are British Somaliland and New York on the list? Are you saying that the details for those territories need to be checked out before they are re-added to the list? Shame that, since I was going to start adding to the North American colonies, but now I'm not so sure. 72.27.83.104 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Silverhelm, you are doing a splendid job at reformatting the tables on the page making them more user friendly and organized. I have to ask however, why remove some of the material? For instance you removed the territories held by England only in the Middle Ages, but why? The page is supposed to list the "territories that have been under the political control of the United Kingdom and/or its predecessor states" which includes England, Scotland (and also Ireland). Therefore if anything I thought instead of removing the Middle Age English territories you would have added the various areas controlled by Scotland (prior to the Act of Union) since those areas are not listed (e.g. Nova Scotia, various settlements in eastern North America and the Darien colony - all colonization attempts that were separate from English colonialism). If this list isn't going to include such territories that were controlled by the predecessor states but not necessarily by the United Kingdom afterwards, then it should probably only list those territories controlled by the United Kingdom (i.e. post 1707 Act of Union) and any territories lost by England prior to such time, including the Tangier garrison and Calais and the Channel Islands (which are some of those Middle Age territories as well and just happened to be retained after the Hundred Years War) should be left out. Perhaps you could do something for the map as well, since the fellow who made the current revision of the map deleted a whole lot of territories that were even non-controversial like Suriname ("Willoughbyland" region), Tangier, Heligoland, Ionian Islands, and the areas of Libya controlled by the UK for the Trust Territory period (but oddly enough he/she retained the British Cameroons and Tanganyika which were also trust territories). 72.27.83.104 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Silverhelm, good to know you intend to reorganize the Rhodesias (and the rest of the list as well). Well since each of the thirteen colonies will be listed separately then that means any contributor can at least begin the entries and have them expanded and detailed later. As I pointed out earlier, the original intention of the article seemed to include at least the mention of the Middle Age territories and though Kvasir doesn't say it, the article would probably be ultimately better off listing "all territories controlled by England/Britain from the start of the Kingdom of England" and listing "all territories controlled by Scotland/Britain from the start of the Kingdom of Scotland" (since these two countries formed the basis of Britain - Ireland also formed part of the United Kingdom later, but I can't recall any Kingdom of Ireland that had control of territories outside of the Kingdom). Perhaps the title should have been changed to Evolution of the British Empire and its predecessors? Also maybe the Middle Ages could be put in a separate section, so everything from the beginning of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland until about 1500 being placed in a "Pre-colonial" section or an Angevin section (if the term "Angevin Empire" is used then the word empire should be in quotations to note that it wasn't called an empire at the time, although using "Angevin" for the section would be biased against Scotland). "Pre-colonial" or "Middle Age Europe" seem less biased. As for the Acts and Treaties section, perhaps a stub section could be left in this article (with only the really most significant Acts and Treaties being retained) and a "see main article" link to a new article that had all the Acts and Treaties with the significant ones in bold. You could also use italics. 72.27.83.104 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I see in the map labelled 'The British Empire in 1897’ there is a part of Greenland shown as part of the Empire. The map contains the note ‘This map shows parts of Greenland as part of the British Empire. This region was never occupied by the British and the claim was contested by Denmark, which continued to claim sovereignty over all of Greenland.’ Aside from this note, however, I can find no reference to any part of Greenland being claimed by the British in articles on the Empire or on Greenland. Looking at the map the area appears to be labelled ‘Prudhoe Land’; again I can find no reference to such a territory. If anyone does have any information about this I would find it very helpful if they could put some details on this page. -- Phunting 1000, 29 Dec 2006
User:157.244.201.135 added the following to the article at 20:43 UTC 12 January 2007: "Note to Wikipedia: the following table should be amended by adding British Columbia as a colony from 1858 to 1871 when it became a province of Canada." I moved it here to the talk page. He/she is right: B.C. is missing, as is New Caledonia. Indefatigable 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The anachronous map is good but doesnt show the expansion and decline over time. How about a new page with a series of maps showing the British Empire at different periods, similar to Territorial evolution of the United States? There is already the 1921 map, this could be used as the basis for making other years. -- Astrokey 44 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this article was really intended to be a list, a quick summary of what and what kind of territories that are and were connected to Britian/England. There's really no need for paragraphs to explain what each of the term means. Especially the first 5 paragraphs, there is really no need to discuss Ireland and Hanover specifically either. We already have the main articles for that especially on British Empire. I suggest we return to the original list of different types of Commonwealth/British territories before we move on to the main territory evolution list.
On the other hand. The originally introductory paragraph has been so chopped up and dissected that the originally intent of the article was lost. The purpose of the list must be outlined there. Just want others to comment before I delete those. -- Kvasir 04:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This article should make mention of the above and the acquisition of Bombay and the Tangier Garrison etc. Jooler 23:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Griqualand West was a British colony from declaration in 1873 - absorbtion into Cape Colony 1880. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 ( talk) 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In the list, could the use of green to show independance and red to show British Overseas Territories be a little biased, considering the implications of those colours? I know that imperialism is generally considered to be "bad" (to say the least) but it just seems against the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia to have such a blatantly opinionated feature being used. It just seems unlikely that the red/green dichotomy would be used if it wasn't so obviously for that reason. 82.3.50.60 ( talk) 16:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
46 days at BsAs due British invasions of the Río de la Plata -- Jor70 ( talk) 13:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The entries after the flag are formatted incorrectly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.102 ( talk) 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Suriname, South America was traded back to the Dutch in exchange for Britain taking over New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.209.235.20 ( talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder as a new contributor if I may raise the above question in the context of further improving this interesting article? The point being that we should recognise that in their context differences in the legal status of certain territories was recognised, and therefore I think we should as well. To call a certain territory a "colony" whilst simpler when in fact it is a "protectorate" (or even "colonial protectorate") is strictly speaking inaccurate. Any views? Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
At least one. Bechuanaland is listed as being "Colony" froom 1964-1965. In fact its status never changed from being a "Protectorate" the only thing that happened in 1964 was the disbanding of the High Commission arrangements for administering the remaining territories of Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanland.
I attempted earlier to distinguish between the difference types of "Protectorates". In effect those in Africa and some elsewhere were "Colonial Protectorates" as opposed to "International Protectorates". The distinction is a subtle one but recognised at the time as existing according to legal opinion. Freedom1968 ( talk) 10:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting and very valid points to make from both of you. What continues to perplex me is that although protectorates of the colonial type where run as colonies there are interesting differences which would make no sense in the context of their times if those differences had no meaning in terminology or law. Take for instance Sierra Leone, Gambia, Gold Coast, Nigeria and Kenya. Each of these adminstrative areas were termed "The Colony & Protectorate of.." So you could have a situation where depending on where you were born you were either a British Subject or a British Protected Person. Such a distinction would be meaningless unless it had foundation in law. My second piece of evidence relates to the application of the writ of Habeas Corpus. This did not apply in protectorates (at least in African possessions} until very late in the colonial period - early 1960s I think - by which time most British administered territories had achieved independance. It raises the interesting question about whether "Protectorates" of the colonial type may have eventually disappeared because remaing legal differences were being eroded away.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 12:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Well my "What if?" scenario vis-a-vis colonial protectorates was meant to point out that had they endured a little longer we might well have seen the disappearance of the term protectorate - at least in UK government circles. On the other hand in term on the list you make the arguement that differences where eroding after 1945, but in fact before that those colony/protectorate combinations were administered as a matter of course together whatever their legal status. This is why I think where they exist on the table they should be listed as "Colony @ Proectorate..." rather than seperately. What happened at independence was the legal merger. Incidentally I don't think every protectorate was moved from the FO to the CO in 1905, one or two continued to be under FO supervision for a while longer. This included Egypt in de facto protectorate status from 1882-1914, actual protectorate 1914-1922, and de facto again 1922-1936. The nominal "independence" in 1922 did not become real until 1936. Freedom1968 ( talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If you go the National Archives in Kew, London you will be able to get copies of those Orders in Council which will show which territories where regarded at any one time as "Protectorates" or "Protected States". On this subject the differences between "Protectorates" and "Colonies" is clear but between "Protectorates" and "Protected States" much less so. The devil is in the detail of the agreement with each "Protected State" Generally the agreement would specify that domestic affairs were not a matter of concern for the UK, but external relations and defence generally were. But I stress you have to look at each individual agreement because they all differed in aspects to a slight degree. Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that the British bases on Cyprus have been labelled "Colony, Dependent Territory and Overseas Territory" in the table. In fact this terminology is not correct. They are in fact sovereign military bases and are not treated in the same manner as other British territories because their primary purpose is not settlement, and incidentally something that is explicitly not permitted by the 1960 treaties when the current status of bases was set up. Another quirk of their situation is that unlike other entities in the table their borders have always been free of frontier controls, and Cypriot nationals can cross into them any time they like without hinderance. To make things more complicated their are enclaves within the bases completely under the control of the Republic of Cyprus government.
I suggest that someone might want to amend the table to reflect that, though in view of the contentious nature of the bases in Cyprus, I would expect a little debate on this issue. Freedom1968 ( talk) 16:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on this one because I Still think there is a clear case to be made for a change, based on contemporary and historical sources and analogies. Freedom1968 ( talk) 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
At present the listing has a Legend which suggests that the following have been identified:
!±! | Crown dependency |
![]() |
Part of United Kingdom |
:±: | Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, and Commonwealth realm |
![]() |
Overseas territories |
£ IMP | Currency pegged to the GBP | CYP | Pound sterling derived currency |
!T! | Common law legal system to various extent | [X] | Westminster style parliamentary system |
abc | English as a dominant or an official language | /\\/ | Rule of road drive on the left |
I have a couple of problems with this:
Surely much of this detail is best left to other Wikipedia listings, with this particular listing confining itself to a "See also" section with relevant links?
Also, the Legend has both a symbol and a colour-coding for identifying the Crown dependencies. Clearly this is silly. My preference would be to have just the colour-coding; the explanatory material for the listing already identifies the individual Crown dependencies by name, so that should hopefully get round any usability issues. (Using made-up ASCII symbols seems rather unprofessional, too!)
Andrew Gwilliam ( talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC).
I agree, I favour getting rid of them from the lists and as you suggest putting such info in a separate section. I do however favour keeping the colonial flags. Freedom1968 ( talk) 18:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Two issues with this section:
Andrew Gwilliam ( talk) 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC).
Again I agree this section should more clearly defined/improved or removed. Freedom1968 ( talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to have more than one entry for Hong Kong? Could this not be amalgamated into one with notes in the notes column signifying the changes in territorial extent? Also isn't it more appropriate to mention Japanese occupation there too? Freedom1968 ( talk) 20:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
By any reputable account Iceland was never part of the British Empire from 1940-1944. Yes British forces came to help defend it in 1940 and then left in 1941 when US forces arrived to take over defence duties. The Icelandic people had ruled themselves since 1918 and the remaining link with Denmark was the Monarchy, which disappeared in 1944 when the people voted on a republic. During the period 1940-1944 Iceland retained full responsibility for its own governance. This entry should therefore be deleted. Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have now removed the Iceland entry. See new section for suggestions as to a new article Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Again this is a misinterpretation of historical events. What happened in 1945-1946 in Vietnam was military intervention in a French Colony on behalf of France. As the British had available forces in the area and the French as yet did not, they were able to intervene and restore order after the Vietnamese nationalists declared their indpendence. The area remained a French Colony, so it is I think wrong to include it in this table. Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Entry now deleted from the table. Suggest this is included in a new article on British occupied territories Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a strong case for including in the table the Princely States of the Indian Empire because a) They were not independent b)They owed alleigence the King-Emperor (ie the Kings oF the UK} C)Their unique status: they were not indpendent, they were not colonies or protected states nor even protectorates. They were regarded as "vassal" states which was an older more nebulous type of relationship.
The most interesting example of what this meant was Hyderabad State which in 1947 asserted, for a short time, its independence until 1948 when India invaded it and annexed it Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
562 actually according to most reference books! so it wouldn't be too difficult Freedom1968 ( talk) 07:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
If we include Calais in this table, why should we not then include The Duchy of Normandy and The Duchy of Aquitaine which were both Angevin possessions under Kings Henry II to John? Also at the death of Henry V his son Henry VI succeeded as King of France as well, because the peace treaty with France signed by Henry V stipulated that would happen. Freedom1968 ( talk) 06:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Java was captured from the Dutch in 1811 and was administered until 1816 before it was returned.I think it needs to be included in the table. Freedom1968 ( talk) 06:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The British concession in Shanghai was exterritoral, but still I think qualifies as British administered territory, even when it combined with the US concession. Freedom1968 ( talk) 07:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Dunkirk was captured by a joint Cromwellian/French force in 1658 and sold back to France by Charles II in 1662. Tournai was conquered by Henry VIII in 1513 and like Calais represented briefly in Parliament. It was given up in 1519.
If you agree to the inclusion in the table of these two then I think my suggestion for including Normandy and Aquitaine will need to be reconsidered, particularly because Ireland was aquired at roughly the same time and it is in the table. On the other hand you may take a more doctrinaire approach and argue that this article is about the "British" not the "English" empire. Any views? Freedom1968 ( talk) 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
In view of several entries on the table which did not seem appropriate to a table of British Empire, due to not actually being part of the British Empire, should we have an article listing those territories occupied at some stage? Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone want to add Kuwait 1899-1961, and Qatar 1916-1971? Freedom1968 ( talk) 06:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The definition of dominions begins with: Dominions appeared in the early part of the twentieth century. Then Canada is shown as becoming a dominion in 1867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.216.158 ( talk) 03:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello everybody, after a long gap due to a serious illness that almost killed me I have returned.
I would like to start a new discussion here on the subject of the entries under Europe. First of all you will see I have deleted several entries under that subsection as they really don't seem to qualify for inclusion as members of the British Empire. All were subject to occupation but were never regarded as part of the empire.
I doubt very much the Germans or Italians ever thought of themselves as members of the Empire, however grateful (or not) they were for their liberation. The occupation of those countries was not of course a solely British act, and Allied Control Commissions were set up for both countries. The Dodecanese formally remained under Italian sovreignty until the 1947 peace treaty, although it was clear that they would never be returned to their civilian control and that Greece was expected to gain control.
If you don't agree with these changes then by all means revert the changes, but I think they are fact based, not original research and help tidy up the entries.
Whilst doing those changes I was mystified why the UK in all its forms should be included. The home countries (and here I exclude for special reasons Ireland) of England, Wales and Scotland need to be treated not as colonies or subordinate territories but as a whole. The union of Scotland and England was a union of two sovereign states. Wales was a conquered territory but became an integral part of England. One definition of Empire is the subject to control of territories outside the metropolitan territory of the home country, which is also why I think why should not include the home countries.
That said I am sure my comments will provoke a few thoughts, but I felt it was better to raise them before attempting to delete these entries. If the consensus is that they should remain I will abide by that.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you you kind commments, it's only when you face death that you realise how valuable life is.
I see where you are coming from on the Austria-Hungary point, the "Mother Country" of course was always the starting point of any empire British or otherwise, though I would point out that Empires such Austria-Hungary, The Russian Empire or Chinese Empire were all contained within compact borders (or very largely so) and had few if any overseas territories. The French, German, Japanese and British Empires on the other all had extensive territories separated from the motherland/fatherland.
It is true that the Russian Empire had Port Arthur and the Khanates of Kiva and Bokhara (the later two being nominally protectorates) but largely the whole mass of territory was one block. Ditto for the Chinese Empire, unless you class Tibet as a protectorate rather than a province. Bosnia-Hercegovina, Austria-Hungary's old "colonial" territory was convieniently adjacent to the main empire so was basically part of the AH block.
The other point of note is that overwhelmingly those territories were subordinate to the home country. Scotland was part of the Greater British State after 1707, there was no (legally) suggestion the Scots were subordinate as a result of the union. Even the Welsh were not legally regarded by 1707 as legally subordinate as their indentity was merged effectively with that of England. Ireland does pose problems however, until 1801 of course Ireland was legally a separate realm and the union that took place in 1801 was not one of equals as with the Socts. Many Westminister polticians could not shake the feeling of superiority over the Irish, hence the feeling by Irishmen that they were still a colony in some respects, and some foreign observers seem to concur. In that respect maybe Ireland should be kept in.
However at the end of the day I guess it is debatable either way, but could we not simplify the separate entries covering the UK into one as follows:
43-410 Province of the Roman Empire 410-927 Period of political fragmentation between various Celtic and Germanic kingdoms 927 England united under one king for the first time 1171 Henry II of Kingdom of England conquers Ireland - creation of separate administration of Ireland (The "Lordship of Ireland") 1284 Annexation of last independent Welsh Princpality 1400-c1412 most of Wales briefly independent as the "Principality of Wales" under Owain Glyndwr 1535/1542 Administrative union of Welsh Marcher Lordships and Crown lands with Kingdom of England 1541 Lordship of Ireland raised to the status of a Kingdom as "Kingdom of Ireland" 1603 Personal Union of Kingdom of England with Kingdom of Scotland (both Kingdoms remain politicaly and administratively separate) 1653-1659 Temporary political union of England, Scotland and Ireland under Oliver Cromwell 1707 Political union of Kingdom of England with Kingdom of Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain 1801 Administrative union of Kingdom of Ireland with Kingdom of Great Britain 1922 Political separation of southern Ireland (as the Irish Free State) from Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1927 Title change to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
This may not work I admit but it's just one suggestion. Apologies for any gramatical errors, I suffer from a mild form of dyslexia which I find very frustrating at times, however much I check things
Freedom1968 ( talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about what the actual status of Cyprus was between 1914 and 1925. Between 1878 and 1914 the territory was administered by the UK by agreement with the Ottoman Empire. It was still formally under the sovereignty of the Turkish Empire, so I guess this would make it a leased territory rather like that of the New Territories of Hong Kong beween 1898 and 1997?
However although annexed by the UK in 1914 on the outbreak of war by with the Ottoman Empire, it was not formally declared a Crown Colony like so many other territories following annexation until 1925. Did it have a separate Sui Generis status until 1925 or was it a Protectorate? To add to the confusion I note that according to UK nationality legislation at the time Cypriot inhabitants born on the Island were treated from 1914 as British Subjects as if they had been a British Crown Colony. The issue does not seem clear to me and I would welcome clarification if anyone can provide it. Freedom1968 ( talk) 05:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Notwithstanding previous discussions about Calais on these pages, should it be deleted?
If the lands, such as the Angevin lands in France, are not included because they do not constitute lands traditionally accepted by most sources as being part of the "British Empire" but feudal-Medieval domains, does this not then include Calais? Calais was acquired in 1347 and held until 1558. Apart from Ireland and the Isle of Man this was the only territory (other than the Channel Isles) then held outside of the British Isles by an English monarch. It was the sole remaining territory of the extensive English territories in France (except the Channels Islands). It was lost long before any of the later colonial territories were acquired.
The only other territory held outside of the British Isles and Channel Islands during this time was Tournai (1513-1519) captured by Henry VIII, and held only briefly. I previously suggested it too should be included if Calais was. I accepted the arguement that it should not, but I think for the sake of balance that Calais too should not be included because it was a feudal-Medieval remant of the previous era and it would also be an anachronism to include it. Contemporaries never saw it as a Colony, and indeed it was represented in the English Parliament, unlike later British Colonies.
On reflection if a date has to be assigned to the beginnings of Empire (English, British whatever), then it occurs during the reign of James I & VI (1603-1625). Although English trading activities with India started at very end of Elizabeth's reign (Foundation of the East India Company 1600) and there was Sir Walter Raleigh's abortive attempt at colonisation on Roanake Island (1587), it was only in James's reign that true colonisation really started. The terms "British" and even "Empire" are therefore appropriate from that time, even though politically there was no union between England and Scotland before 1707 (Cromwell's forced union excepted) and even if those living at the time did not use the terms in the way we do today.
Before anyone raises the dreaded OR stamp, let me just say that I have no intention of inserting the above in the article. All of what I write above is from sources already known and accepted, even within Wikipedia. I just think it is worth consideration in the context of the starting point for the article. Freedom1968 ( talk) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone add Sri Lanka because i didn't see it. Steve92341 ( talk) 20:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Sport, Sri Lanka is already there under the Asia section as Ceylon, which was its official name until 1972. You will see that quite a few of the territories listed in the chart use their old colonial names. Where possible it would of course be a good idea to put in the comment column the modern name. Hope that helps. Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This map doesnt seem to have any of the thirteen colonies that later rebelled and formed the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.182.187 ( talk) 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed under the North American section that there are a bunch of colonies missing. For example: New York, New Jersy, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, etc, etc. At one point in time these and others were possessions of Great Briton. So why are they missing from the list? 74.79.34.29 ( talk) 01:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This sentence in the lede is not clear
When the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707 by the union of the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England, the latter country's colonial possessions passed to the new state.
because it suggests that only England's colonies passed to the Kingdom of Great Britain. Didn't Scotland have settlers in Nova Scotia, and did those settlements (although disputed in an ongoing war with France and first nations) pass to the new kingdom? If so, should there be a passing mention? -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 16:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlike England and Ireland, Scotland doesn't get a mention before the accession of James VI to the English throne in 1603. Wasn't it from time to time a feudal vassal state of England in the late medieval, Tudor and Elizabethan times, and if so, doesn't that deserve a brief mention in the list? In any case, should Scotland and Wales get brief mentions. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 17:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The following territories aren't in the list but were territories of the British Empire -- shouldn't they be included? Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Arctic Territories, New Albion, Red River Colony, New Caledonia DanTrent ( talk) 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The article says it went from being a "possession" to a "crown dependency" in 1827. Is there a source with detail for this? I've found several things online saying that exact same thing, but with no further detail as to the law or method, or even date. -- Golbez ( talk) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a work in progress. Status and dates may not be correct. The list refers to current and former British territories as far as Britain is concerned, so it may not reflect a universal neutral POV. For example, Falkland Islands is listed as a British overseas territory, but it has been claimed by Argentina.
The source of this table mostly originates from the WorldStatesmen site. Whereas dates and status are unclear, other sources were referenced. Input and suggestion are welcomed. -- Kvasir 07:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
British Nationality Act 1981:
The United Kingdom's dependent territories on 1 January 1983 were Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands and Dependencies, Gibraltar, Hong Kong (not been a dependent territory since 30 June 1997), Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St. Christopher and Nevis (not been a dependent territory since 18 September 1983), St. Helena and Dependencies, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, Turks and Caicos Islands and Virgin Islands.
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were the "Dependencies" of the Falkland Islands, but were not dependent territories during the period 3 October 1985 - 3 December 2001.
Since 26 February 2002, the British dependent territories have been officially known as "British overseas territories" and British Dependent Territories citizens(hip) as "British overseas territories citizens(hip)". -- Kvasir 10:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sections completed, up for correction and edits. -- Kvasir 22:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sections completed, up for correction and edits. -- Kvasir 16:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Section completed, up for correction and edits. -- Kvasir 02:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Section completed, up for correction and edits. -- Kvasir 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Years to be wikified with relevant treaties, acts, and other events. Data to be verified. -- Kvasir 20:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Isn't "annexation" the word used to describe the Statute of Rhuddlan and Acts of Union 1536-1543? -- Kvasir 15:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Kvasir - nice work. The only obvious gaps I noticed were Hong Kong and India (when did parts eg Kashmir become part of the Raj?). Good luck! (JD)
What's the source for Rupert's Land being part of the Province of Quebec from 1774 to 1783? I've never heard of this and suspect it's an error. Indefatigable 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
This article lists ALL territories associated with the British Empire and England, even for temporary war-time occupation. Personal unions are certainly included here for the case of some Dutch provinces and german states. For the Dutch provinces they were under William III of Orange with England sharing the same monarch. Please be clear that this or the article by no means imply that England ruled over the Dutch. -- Kvasir 06:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
What sharing monarch?The Netherlands were a republic at the time.You don't seem to get the concept of a stadholder. We weren't part of the British empire, and so the Netherlands will not be included on this map.
Sander 11:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the empire that was British. Because England had begun establishing overseas colonies before the union with Scotland, it is fair, accurate and reasonable to include those possessions in this article. As the second paragraph says, "The rise of the British Empire has its origin in the 15th century during the reign of King Henry VIII of England." So why on earth are medieval English regal possessions in France listed in this article? It is utterly ridiculous and highly misleading to do so. Neither word, "Britain" nor "Empire" makes absolutely any sense whatsoever in this context. If one is going to include them then the article should be renamed to "Territories ruled by England and Britain". Gsd2000 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
But at the same time Gsd2000, England's invasion of Ireland in the 16th Century was most certainly linked with beginning of English involvement in Ireland with the Papal Bull in the 1100s, Henry II's invasion of Ireland and the Norman involvement in Ireland from the landing of knights to the coming of Norman, French, Welsh, English, etc. settlers (Old English or Cambro-Normans or whatever you call them) claiming land after the Norman invasion. And of course Britain's handing back of Hong Kong was linked to the 16th Century invasion of Ireland which in turn was linked to 10th Century Anglo-Norman involvement in Ireland. And of course Norman involvement in Ireland only really picked up, after the Norman invasion of England, which in turn later links England with the Angevin territories in France.
As for the post-world war II military occupations (in addition to the fact that the occupations and the war intimately involved the Empire as a whole), we can take the example of Japan. Britain (and Australia, India, New Zealand and Canada) were there in Japan in 1945 because there was a war of imperial conquest from 1941-1945 by Japan (I know Japan started earlier, like around 1937, but I'm dealing with Japan v. British Empire here). Japan attempted to acquire Britain's colonies in Asia by force, and Britain, in alliance with many other countries beat Japan back and occupied her afterwards. If there were no British colonies in Asia = No war by Japan against Britain. Germany is different, the causes that resulted in the military occupation of Berlin in 1945 were many, but among them was WWI and one of the causes (not the main cause) of WWI ( causes of world war I) was colonial rivalry. Another cause, was that after WWII started, one of the aims of the Axis powers was to knock Britain out of the war and annex some of her colonies (Italy and Japan especially wished to do so).
With the personal unions, although Sander may seem to jealously guard the fact that the Netherlands were never ruled from London (and no one said they were and I don't for one minute believe that they were ever a part of the Empire), he cannot disprove that the Netherlands were not associated with England and Scotland and by extension the English Empire. King William III, when he became King, removed the traditional palace guards and replaced them with Dutch guards (much to the annoyance and dislike of many in England) and during his campaigns, the English and Dutch Fleets acted in concert. In addition he at times appointed Dutch commanders to lead English (and Scottish) battalions during campaigns against France(again much to the annoyance of English commanders) which took place in Europe and in overseas colonies. If William III had not been there, then it is doubtful that England would have become so involved militarily in northwest Europe. With the Hannoverian kings, Britain again became involved in Europe and Hannover became so linked with Britain that at one point they had a (not the only) flag with the Union Jack with a white-horse-on-red-field superimposed (see Flags of the World website). Add to that that various new titles were proposed for George I including Emperor of the British and Irish and Emperor of the British and Hanoverian Dominions (both suggested in 1801).
A serious historical work may not write on this, because such a work would have to span volumes (think Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples" or something along those lines). And writing volumes is not only lengthy, but much more expensive than writing a single book on British society from 1588 - present (besides, any one book that was that long would probably not have very many readers). Anon 12:55 pm April 16, 2006
A less wordy title that encompasses the meaning of this could just be "Evolution of the English and British Empires". Anon 1:11 pm April 16, 2006
Excellent point on the Seven Year's War and the idea of metropoles vs. periphery. But wasn't there some kind of agreement that colonial conflicts would not affect the status of peace in Europe (but not vice versa) during that time? Can't remember the name of it for the life of me, but I do seem to remember hearing it in history class, way back in high school. Had the agreement not existed though, then there could have been attempts at colonizing opposing metropoles. Outside of Europe though, metropoles were treated rough-shod by the British, French and Spanish, especially in the Americas (think Aztecs and Incas) and Africa (eastern Africa and the Boer States). Okay, about signing...doesn't put "Anon etc" mean signing? And if Gsd2000 will remember, there was some talk about "having the courage to sign...". Since that appeared to be an attempt to goad, so I ignored it. I assume electronically signing will give a permanent talk page (though I see no need for a talk page, since all the discussions are here anyway). Anon 11:58 am April 18, 2006.
The graph lists the British Empire as loosing Canada in 1940-1949. I can't guess why that'd be, eh? 1867, 1931 or 1982 are all plausible years for Canadian Independance - 1940-1949 is not. Others may be similarly wrong (for example, Australia is also listed as 1940-1949, which is a choice I can't figure out) WilyD 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The infomation for 2007 dose not show some current territory such as Gibraltar and aktoria and dicelia and the cayman islands, although I may be wrong ThaBigCheese99 ( talk) 22:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What a splendid piece of work. However, a better term is needed to describe the current status of Scotland and Wales. Guinnog 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Besides the overall sense of fanboy Anglomania, one major problem with the map on this page is the position of Louisiana, which has been shifted west several hundred kilometers, thus artificially increasing the size of British territory represented on the American mainland. Compare Image:LouisianaPurchase.png and Image:Map of territorial growth 1775.jpg; the course of the southern Mississippi actually follows a longitude parallel to the western shore of Lake Huron. I've hand-drawn a much more accurate representation of the Louisiana boundary at Image:Spanish Empire.png, and this could be used to solve the above problem. I will do so myself if no one objects. Albrecht 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The German state of Hanover was not part of the British Empire, so I have removed it from the list. It was never under the authority of the Westminster parliament, either in theory or in practice, and retained its own government and other institutions. It merely shared its head of state with Great Britain. Silverhelm 03:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
This article's name doesn't accurately represent its contents; I'm also a firm believer that Wikipedia articles that are lists should be clearly identified as such in their title. Unless anyone can come up with a better name, I propose renaming it to List of territories of the British Empire. Silverhelm 12:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
Not listed. Should it be in? Jooler 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The following list has been edited together from two separate blocks of commented-out material now removed from the article. The details need to be checked before being used to add missing entries to the main article.
---List begins---
Some early territorial claims for England that were abandoned and not settled.
Goustien (
talk)
18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
---List ends---
Silverhelm 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
Hold on? Why are British Somaliland and New York on the list? Are you saying that the details for those territories need to be checked out before they are re-added to the list? Shame that, since I was going to start adding to the North American colonies, but now I'm not so sure. 72.27.83.104 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Silverhelm, you are doing a splendid job at reformatting the tables on the page making them more user friendly and organized. I have to ask however, why remove some of the material? For instance you removed the territories held by England only in the Middle Ages, but why? The page is supposed to list the "territories that have been under the political control of the United Kingdom and/or its predecessor states" which includes England, Scotland (and also Ireland). Therefore if anything I thought instead of removing the Middle Age English territories you would have added the various areas controlled by Scotland (prior to the Act of Union) since those areas are not listed (e.g. Nova Scotia, various settlements in eastern North America and the Darien colony - all colonization attempts that were separate from English colonialism). If this list isn't going to include such territories that were controlled by the predecessor states but not necessarily by the United Kingdom afterwards, then it should probably only list those territories controlled by the United Kingdom (i.e. post 1707 Act of Union) and any territories lost by England prior to such time, including the Tangier garrison and Calais and the Channel Islands (which are some of those Middle Age territories as well and just happened to be retained after the Hundred Years War) should be left out. Perhaps you could do something for the map as well, since the fellow who made the current revision of the map deleted a whole lot of territories that were even non-controversial like Suriname ("Willoughbyland" region), Tangier, Heligoland, Ionian Islands, and the areas of Libya controlled by the UK for the Trust Territory period (but oddly enough he/she retained the British Cameroons and Tanganyika which were also trust territories). 72.27.83.104 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Silverhelm, good to know you intend to reorganize the Rhodesias (and the rest of the list as well). Well since each of the thirteen colonies will be listed separately then that means any contributor can at least begin the entries and have them expanded and detailed later. As I pointed out earlier, the original intention of the article seemed to include at least the mention of the Middle Age territories and though Kvasir doesn't say it, the article would probably be ultimately better off listing "all territories controlled by England/Britain from the start of the Kingdom of England" and listing "all territories controlled by Scotland/Britain from the start of the Kingdom of Scotland" (since these two countries formed the basis of Britain - Ireland also formed part of the United Kingdom later, but I can't recall any Kingdom of Ireland that had control of territories outside of the Kingdom). Perhaps the title should have been changed to Evolution of the British Empire and its predecessors? Also maybe the Middle Ages could be put in a separate section, so everything from the beginning of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland until about 1500 being placed in a "Pre-colonial" section or an Angevin section (if the term "Angevin Empire" is used then the word empire should be in quotations to note that it wasn't called an empire at the time, although using "Angevin" for the section would be biased against Scotland). "Pre-colonial" or "Middle Age Europe" seem less biased. As for the Acts and Treaties section, perhaps a stub section could be left in this article (with only the really most significant Acts and Treaties being retained) and a "see main article" link to a new article that had all the Acts and Treaties with the significant ones in bold. You could also use italics. 72.27.83.104 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I see in the map labelled 'The British Empire in 1897’ there is a part of Greenland shown as part of the Empire. The map contains the note ‘This map shows parts of Greenland as part of the British Empire. This region was never occupied by the British and the claim was contested by Denmark, which continued to claim sovereignty over all of Greenland.’ Aside from this note, however, I can find no reference to any part of Greenland being claimed by the British in articles on the Empire or on Greenland. Looking at the map the area appears to be labelled ‘Prudhoe Land’; again I can find no reference to such a territory. If anyone does have any information about this I would find it very helpful if they could put some details on this page. -- Phunting 1000, 29 Dec 2006
User:157.244.201.135 added the following to the article at 20:43 UTC 12 January 2007: "Note to Wikipedia: the following table should be amended by adding British Columbia as a colony from 1858 to 1871 when it became a province of Canada." I moved it here to the talk page. He/she is right: B.C. is missing, as is New Caledonia. Indefatigable 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The anachronous map is good but doesnt show the expansion and decline over time. How about a new page with a series of maps showing the British Empire at different periods, similar to Territorial evolution of the United States? There is already the 1921 map, this could be used as the basis for making other years. -- Astrokey 44 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this article was really intended to be a list, a quick summary of what and what kind of territories that are and were connected to Britian/England. There's really no need for paragraphs to explain what each of the term means. Especially the first 5 paragraphs, there is really no need to discuss Ireland and Hanover specifically either. We already have the main articles for that especially on British Empire. I suggest we return to the original list of different types of Commonwealth/British territories before we move on to the main territory evolution list.
On the other hand. The originally introductory paragraph has been so chopped up and dissected that the originally intent of the article was lost. The purpose of the list must be outlined there. Just want others to comment before I delete those. -- Kvasir 04:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This article should make mention of the above and the acquisition of Bombay and the Tangier Garrison etc. Jooler 23:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Griqualand West was a British colony from declaration in 1873 - absorbtion into Cape Colony 1880. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 ( talk) 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In the list, could the use of green to show independance and red to show British Overseas Territories be a little biased, considering the implications of those colours? I know that imperialism is generally considered to be "bad" (to say the least) but it just seems against the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia to have such a blatantly opinionated feature being used. It just seems unlikely that the red/green dichotomy would be used if it wasn't so obviously for that reason. 82.3.50.60 ( talk) 16:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
46 days at BsAs due British invasions of the Río de la Plata -- Jor70 ( talk) 13:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The entries after the flag are formatted incorrectly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.102 ( talk) 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Suriname, South America was traded back to the Dutch in exchange for Britain taking over New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.209.235.20 ( talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder as a new contributor if I may raise the above question in the context of further improving this interesting article? The point being that we should recognise that in their context differences in the legal status of certain territories was recognised, and therefore I think we should as well. To call a certain territory a "colony" whilst simpler when in fact it is a "protectorate" (or even "colonial protectorate") is strictly speaking inaccurate. Any views? Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Freedom1968 ( talk) 09:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
At least one. Bechuanaland is listed as being "Colony" froom 1964-1965. In fact its status never changed from being a "Protectorate" the only thing that happened in 1964 was the disbanding of the High Commission arrangements for administering the remaining territories of Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanland.
I attempted earlier to distinguish between the difference types of "Protectorates". In effect those in Africa and some elsewhere were "Colonial Protectorates" as opposed to "International Protectorates". The distinction is a subtle one but recognised at the time as existing according to legal opinion. Freedom1968 ( talk) 10:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting and very valid points to make from both of you. What continues to perplex me is that although protectorates of the colonial type where run as colonies there are interesting differences which would make no sense in the context of their times if those differences had no meaning in terminology or law. Take for instance Sierra Leone, Gambia, Gold Coast, Nigeria and Kenya. Each of these adminstrative areas were termed "The Colony & Protectorate of.." So you could have a situation where depending on where you were born you were either a British Subject or a British Protected Person. Such a distinction would be meaningless unless it had foundation in law. My second piece of evidence relates to the application of the writ of Habeas Corpus. This did not apply in protectorates (at least in African possessions} until very late in the colonial period - early 1960s I think - by which time most British administered territories had achieved independance. It raises the interesting question about whether "Protectorates" of the colonial type may have eventually disappeared because remaing legal differences were being eroded away.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 12:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Well my "What if?" scenario vis-a-vis colonial protectorates was meant to point out that had they endured a little longer we might well have seen the disappearance of the term protectorate - at least in UK government circles. On the other hand in term on the list you make the arguement that differences where eroding after 1945, but in fact before that those colony/protectorate combinations were administered as a matter of course together whatever their legal status. This is why I think where they exist on the table they should be listed as "Colony @ Proectorate..." rather than seperately. What happened at independence was the legal merger. Incidentally I don't think every protectorate was moved from the FO to the CO in 1905, one or two continued to be under FO supervision for a while longer. This included Egypt in de facto protectorate status from 1882-1914, actual protectorate 1914-1922, and de facto again 1922-1936. The nominal "independence" in 1922 did not become real until 1936. Freedom1968 ( talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If you go the National Archives in Kew, London you will be able to get copies of those Orders in Council which will show which territories where regarded at any one time as "Protectorates" or "Protected States". On this subject the differences between "Protectorates" and "Colonies" is clear but between "Protectorates" and "Protected States" much less so. The devil is in the detail of the agreement with each "Protected State" Generally the agreement would specify that domestic affairs were not a matter of concern for the UK, but external relations and defence generally were. But I stress you have to look at each individual agreement because they all differed in aspects to a slight degree. Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that the British bases on Cyprus have been labelled "Colony, Dependent Territory and Overseas Territory" in the table. In fact this terminology is not correct. They are in fact sovereign military bases and are not treated in the same manner as other British territories because their primary purpose is not settlement, and incidentally something that is explicitly not permitted by the 1960 treaties when the current status of bases was set up. Another quirk of their situation is that unlike other entities in the table their borders have always been free of frontier controls, and Cypriot nationals can cross into them any time they like without hinderance. To make things more complicated their are enclaves within the bases completely under the control of the Republic of Cyprus government.
I suggest that someone might want to amend the table to reflect that, though in view of the contentious nature of the bases in Cyprus, I would expect a little debate on this issue. Freedom1968 ( talk) 16:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on this one because I Still think there is a clear case to be made for a change, based on contemporary and historical sources and analogies. Freedom1968 ( talk) 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
At present the listing has a Legend which suggests that the following have been identified:
!±! | Crown dependency |
![]() |
Part of United Kingdom |
:±: | Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, and Commonwealth realm |
![]() |
Overseas territories |
£ IMP | Currency pegged to the GBP | CYP | Pound sterling derived currency |
!T! | Common law legal system to various extent | [X] | Westminster style parliamentary system |
abc | English as a dominant or an official language | /\\/ | Rule of road drive on the left |
I have a couple of problems with this:
Surely much of this detail is best left to other Wikipedia listings, with this particular listing confining itself to a "See also" section with relevant links?
Also, the Legend has both a symbol and a colour-coding for identifying the Crown dependencies. Clearly this is silly. My preference would be to have just the colour-coding; the explanatory material for the listing already identifies the individual Crown dependencies by name, so that should hopefully get round any usability issues. (Using made-up ASCII symbols seems rather unprofessional, too!)
Andrew Gwilliam ( talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC).
I agree, I favour getting rid of them from the lists and as you suggest putting such info in a separate section. I do however favour keeping the colonial flags. Freedom1968 ( talk) 18:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Two issues with this section:
Andrew Gwilliam ( talk) 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC).
Again I agree this section should more clearly defined/improved or removed. Freedom1968 ( talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to have more than one entry for Hong Kong? Could this not be amalgamated into one with notes in the notes column signifying the changes in territorial extent? Also isn't it more appropriate to mention Japanese occupation there too? Freedom1968 ( talk) 20:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
By any reputable account Iceland was never part of the British Empire from 1940-1944. Yes British forces came to help defend it in 1940 and then left in 1941 when US forces arrived to take over defence duties. The Icelandic people had ruled themselves since 1918 and the remaining link with Denmark was the Monarchy, which disappeared in 1944 when the people voted on a republic. During the period 1940-1944 Iceland retained full responsibility for its own governance. This entry should therefore be deleted. Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have now removed the Iceland entry. See new section for suggestions as to a new article Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Again this is a misinterpretation of historical events. What happened in 1945-1946 in Vietnam was military intervention in a French Colony on behalf of France. As the British had available forces in the area and the French as yet did not, they were able to intervene and restore order after the Vietnamese nationalists declared their indpendence. The area remained a French Colony, so it is I think wrong to include it in this table. Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Entry now deleted from the table. Suggest this is included in a new article on British occupied territories Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a strong case for including in the table the Princely States of the Indian Empire because a) They were not independent b)They owed alleigence the King-Emperor (ie the Kings oF the UK} C)Their unique status: they were not indpendent, they were not colonies or protected states nor even protectorates. They were regarded as "vassal" states which was an older more nebulous type of relationship.
The most interesting example of what this meant was Hyderabad State which in 1947 asserted, for a short time, its independence until 1948 when India invaded it and annexed it Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
562 actually according to most reference books! so it wouldn't be too difficult Freedom1968 ( talk) 07:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
If we include Calais in this table, why should we not then include The Duchy of Normandy and The Duchy of Aquitaine which were both Angevin possessions under Kings Henry II to John? Also at the death of Henry V his son Henry VI succeeded as King of France as well, because the peace treaty with France signed by Henry V stipulated that would happen. Freedom1968 ( talk) 06:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Java was captured from the Dutch in 1811 and was administered until 1816 before it was returned.I think it needs to be included in the table. Freedom1968 ( talk) 06:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The British concession in Shanghai was exterritoral, but still I think qualifies as British administered territory, even when it combined with the US concession. Freedom1968 ( talk) 07:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Dunkirk was captured by a joint Cromwellian/French force in 1658 and sold back to France by Charles II in 1662. Tournai was conquered by Henry VIII in 1513 and like Calais represented briefly in Parliament. It was given up in 1519.
If you agree to the inclusion in the table of these two then I think my suggestion for including Normandy and Aquitaine will need to be reconsidered, particularly because Ireland was aquired at roughly the same time and it is in the table. On the other hand you may take a more doctrinaire approach and argue that this article is about the "British" not the "English" empire. Any views? Freedom1968 ( talk) 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
In view of several entries on the table which did not seem appropriate to a table of British Empire, due to not actually being part of the British Empire, should we have an article listing those territories occupied at some stage? Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyone want to add Kuwait 1899-1961, and Qatar 1916-1971? Freedom1968 ( talk) 06:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The definition of dominions begins with: Dominions appeared in the early part of the twentieth century. Then Canada is shown as becoming a dominion in 1867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.216.158 ( talk) 03:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello everybody, after a long gap due to a serious illness that almost killed me I have returned.
I would like to start a new discussion here on the subject of the entries under Europe. First of all you will see I have deleted several entries under that subsection as they really don't seem to qualify for inclusion as members of the British Empire. All were subject to occupation but were never regarded as part of the empire.
I doubt very much the Germans or Italians ever thought of themselves as members of the Empire, however grateful (or not) they were for their liberation. The occupation of those countries was not of course a solely British act, and Allied Control Commissions were set up for both countries. The Dodecanese formally remained under Italian sovreignty until the 1947 peace treaty, although it was clear that they would never be returned to their civilian control and that Greece was expected to gain control.
If you don't agree with these changes then by all means revert the changes, but I think they are fact based, not original research and help tidy up the entries.
Whilst doing those changes I was mystified why the UK in all its forms should be included. The home countries (and here I exclude for special reasons Ireland) of England, Wales and Scotland need to be treated not as colonies or subordinate territories but as a whole. The union of Scotland and England was a union of two sovereign states. Wales was a conquered territory but became an integral part of England. One definition of Empire is the subject to control of territories outside the metropolitan territory of the home country, which is also why I think why should not include the home countries.
That said I am sure my comments will provoke a few thoughts, but I felt it was better to raise them before attempting to delete these entries. If the consensus is that they should remain I will abide by that.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you you kind commments, it's only when you face death that you realise how valuable life is.
I see where you are coming from on the Austria-Hungary point, the "Mother Country" of course was always the starting point of any empire British or otherwise, though I would point out that Empires such Austria-Hungary, The Russian Empire or Chinese Empire were all contained within compact borders (or very largely so) and had few if any overseas territories. The French, German, Japanese and British Empires on the other all had extensive territories separated from the motherland/fatherland.
It is true that the Russian Empire had Port Arthur and the Khanates of Kiva and Bokhara (the later two being nominally protectorates) but largely the whole mass of territory was one block. Ditto for the Chinese Empire, unless you class Tibet as a protectorate rather than a province. Bosnia-Hercegovina, Austria-Hungary's old "colonial" territory was convieniently adjacent to the main empire so was basically part of the AH block.
The other point of note is that overwhelmingly those territories were subordinate to the home country. Scotland was part of the Greater British State after 1707, there was no (legally) suggestion the Scots were subordinate as a result of the union. Even the Welsh were not legally regarded by 1707 as legally subordinate as their indentity was merged effectively with that of England. Ireland does pose problems however, until 1801 of course Ireland was legally a separate realm and the union that took place in 1801 was not one of equals as with the Socts. Many Westminister polticians could not shake the feeling of superiority over the Irish, hence the feeling by Irishmen that they were still a colony in some respects, and some foreign observers seem to concur. In that respect maybe Ireland should be kept in.
However at the end of the day I guess it is debatable either way, but could we not simplify the separate entries covering the UK into one as follows:
43-410 Province of the Roman Empire 410-927 Period of political fragmentation between various Celtic and Germanic kingdoms 927 England united under one king for the first time 1171 Henry II of Kingdom of England conquers Ireland - creation of separate administration of Ireland (The "Lordship of Ireland") 1284 Annexation of last independent Welsh Princpality 1400-c1412 most of Wales briefly independent as the "Principality of Wales" under Owain Glyndwr 1535/1542 Administrative union of Welsh Marcher Lordships and Crown lands with Kingdom of England 1541 Lordship of Ireland raised to the status of a Kingdom as "Kingdom of Ireland" 1603 Personal Union of Kingdom of England with Kingdom of Scotland (both Kingdoms remain politicaly and administratively separate) 1653-1659 Temporary political union of England, Scotland and Ireland under Oliver Cromwell 1707 Political union of Kingdom of England with Kingdom of Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain 1801 Administrative union of Kingdom of Ireland with Kingdom of Great Britain 1922 Political separation of southern Ireland (as the Irish Free State) from Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1927 Title change to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
This may not work I admit but it's just one suggestion. Apologies for any gramatical errors, I suffer from a mild form of dyslexia which I find very frustrating at times, however much I check things
Freedom1968 ( talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about what the actual status of Cyprus was between 1914 and 1925. Between 1878 and 1914 the territory was administered by the UK by agreement with the Ottoman Empire. It was still formally under the sovereignty of the Turkish Empire, so I guess this would make it a leased territory rather like that of the New Territories of Hong Kong beween 1898 and 1997?
However although annexed by the UK in 1914 on the outbreak of war by with the Ottoman Empire, it was not formally declared a Crown Colony like so many other territories following annexation until 1925. Did it have a separate Sui Generis status until 1925 or was it a Protectorate? To add to the confusion I note that according to UK nationality legislation at the time Cypriot inhabitants born on the Island were treated from 1914 as British Subjects as if they had been a British Crown Colony. The issue does not seem clear to me and I would welcome clarification if anyone can provide it. Freedom1968 ( talk) 05:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Notwithstanding previous discussions about Calais on these pages, should it be deleted?
If the lands, such as the Angevin lands in France, are not included because they do not constitute lands traditionally accepted by most sources as being part of the "British Empire" but feudal-Medieval domains, does this not then include Calais? Calais was acquired in 1347 and held until 1558. Apart from Ireland and the Isle of Man this was the only territory (other than the Channel Isles) then held outside of the British Isles by an English monarch. It was the sole remaining territory of the extensive English territories in France (except the Channels Islands). It was lost long before any of the later colonial territories were acquired.
The only other territory held outside of the British Isles and Channel Islands during this time was Tournai (1513-1519) captured by Henry VIII, and held only briefly. I previously suggested it too should be included if Calais was. I accepted the arguement that it should not, but I think for the sake of balance that Calais too should not be included because it was a feudal-Medieval remant of the previous era and it would also be an anachronism to include it. Contemporaries never saw it as a Colony, and indeed it was represented in the English Parliament, unlike later British Colonies.
On reflection if a date has to be assigned to the beginnings of Empire (English, British whatever), then it occurs during the reign of James I & VI (1603-1625). Although English trading activities with India started at very end of Elizabeth's reign (Foundation of the East India Company 1600) and there was Sir Walter Raleigh's abortive attempt at colonisation on Roanake Island (1587), it was only in James's reign that true colonisation really started. The terms "British" and even "Empire" are therefore appropriate from that time, even though politically there was no union between England and Scotland before 1707 (Cromwell's forced union excepted) and even if those living at the time did not use the terms in the way we do today.
Before anyone raises the dreaded OR stamp, let me just say that I have no intention of inserting the above in the article. All of what I write above is from sources already known and accepted, even within Wikipedia. I just think it is worth consideration in the context of the starting point for the article. Freedom1968 ( talk) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone add Sri Lanka because i didn't see it. Steve92341 ( talk) 20:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Sport, Sri Lanka is already there under the Asia section as Ceylon, which was its official name until 1972. You will see that quite a few of the territories listed in the chart use their old colonial names. Where possible it would of course be a good idea to put in the comment column the modern name. Hope that helps. Freedom1968 ( talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This map doesnt seem to have any of the thirteen colonies that later rebelled and formed the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.182.187 ( talk) 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed under the North American section that there are a bunch of colonies missing. For example: New York, New Jersy, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, etc, etc. At one point in time these and others were possessions of Great Briton. So why are they missing from the list? 74.79.34.29 ( talk) 01:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This sentence in the lede is not clear
When the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707 by the union of the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England, the latter country's colonial possessions passed to the new state.
because it suggests that only England's colonies passed to the Kingdom of Great Britain. Didn't Scotland have settlers in Nova Scotia, and did those settlements (although disputed in an ongoing war with France and first nations) pass to the new kingdom? If so, should there be a passing mention? -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 16:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlike England and Ireland, Scotland doesn't get a mention before the accession of James VI to the English throne in 1603. Wasn't it from time to time a feudal vassal state of England in the late medieval, Tudor and Elizabethan times, and if so, doesn't that deserve a brief mention in the list? In any case, should Scotland and Wales get brief mentions. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 17:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The following territories aren't in the list but were territories of the British Empire -- shouldn't they be included? Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Arctic Territories, New Albion, Red River Colony, New Caledonia DanTrent ( talk) 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The article says it went from being a "possession" to a "crown dependency" in 1827. Is there a source with detail for this? I've found several things online saying that exact same thing, but with no further detail as to the law or method, or even date. -- Golbez ( talk) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)