Talk:British subject

2005

Is there a NPOV (or accuracy) issue with 'there is no problem with the word "subject" per se'? The term 'British subject' is often used in a semi-derogatory manner, to make a political distinction between 'subjects' and 'citizens' that's been moot for a long time. Perhaps it's worth amending to 'Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition (and "British citizen" should be the preferred form when referring to British nationals)...'? -- Holgate 20:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I understand what you're saying, but I'm not entirely sure how accurate it is to describe all British nationals as British citizens, because 'British citizen' also has a precise statutory definition nowadays. A British Overseas Territories Citizen (citizen of one of the Colonies, if I'm permitted to cut through the jargon) is also a subject of the Queen. The law is well-known for terms which are still correct in a legal context, although often pejorative in common usage (e.g. the status of 'bastard', or 'illegitimate child'). Isn't this just another example -- and one which isn't quite as hard-and-fast as 'bastard'?

I think it's fair to say that 'subject' describes the relationship of an individual to their monarch generally (whether we like being subjects or not, those who owe allegiance to the Crown are subjects), whereas 'citizen', in a British context, is a construct of nationality law which only arose for the first time in 1948. Hence it'd be inaccurate for me to describe myself as a British subject in the context of nationality law, but perfectly (legally) valid in terms of the relationship between me and the Crown, e.g. for the purposes of the Treason Acts; on the other hand, I am a British citizen only for the purposes of nationality law -- Killiedaft

The term 'subject' in the meaning of the monarch having absolute power over his/her subjects, i.e, in the derogatory sense, hasn't had legal validity in England and the UK, etc., since the Magna Carta and Habeas corpus. It may apply to other monarchies, but it hasn't applied to the UK for some time now. So anyone reading a 'pejorative' sense into it is rather behind the times as far as the UK is concerned.

BTW, I suspect that the reason that 'subject' was preferred over 'citizen' for so long was because the classically-educated people at the Home and Foreign Offices well knew that a 'citizen' is properly a resident of a city.

"Other" meaning of British Subject

I removed this:

Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition, British citizens and others continue to be "subjects" of the Crown at common law. Accordingly, nationals of countries of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State may still be referred to as "Her Majesty's subjects". 

It was uncited, and a Google search for "Her Majesty's subjects" reveals basically nothing post-1981 British Nationality Act. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed again after it was readded because it is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not really original research, you cite Calvin's case, which says that subjection is to the natural body of the Sovereign, and allegiance is due to the natural body. Subjection and allegiance are due from the subject to the monarch, and protection is due from the monarch to the subject. Much of this article is nationalist socialist twaddle as though statutory citizenship were the only game in town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:21BD:203D:5F13:29F1 (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

We now have an article with nothing prior to 1915. The first paragraph of the previous text was reasonable and not every single sentence in an article need a citation. If that was the case nearly every article would disappear. Red Hat, would you think about some modification here? One route might be to summarise History of British nationality law which seems the right balance of citation and text?--Snowded TALK 09:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not every sentence needs a citation, but this "common law" stuff was not cited anywhere in the article. If a source can be provided, I have no objection to its readdition. I personally was unable to find any source for this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So would you regard the equivalent paragraph in [History of British nationality law]] as adequate? --Snowded TALK 11:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That article is almost as bad (in terms of references) as this one. There is very little citation in it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I am afraid I disagree with you on that. It could be improved but I do think your requirement on citation is harsher than is required by the rules. However everyone edits differently and one has to adjust to the editors engaged on any page. I will look to see if I can create something for the pre 1915 period that will stand up. --Snowded TALK 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, have you actually read the policy at WP:V? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect yes, and I have also seen radically different interpretations from editors (including admins). At one extreme we have OR, but then at the other each sentence is cited. When I worked on the Philosophy page (my subject) with several others we balanced citation with sensible summary. As I said you have a strict interpretation. Learning other editor's styles is part of the enjoyment of work working here. --Snowded TALK 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not asking for every sentence to be cited, that would indeed be O.T.T. I am simply saying that this "British subject in common law" stuff should have a source, to demonstrate that it is not original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) you come across from time to time like you would like every sentence cited!  :-) I will have a go later in the week at a pre 1915 passage and see if it works. --Snowded TALK 20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting me in that case. If when you say "having a go" you mean finding sources for the material I removed, then great... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I object to the way you feel the need to delete whole paragraphs of content with little notice (e.g. by using tags), and apparently, little attempt to improve the article yourself, either by adding sources or rewriting the paragraphs with what you think is verifiable. You even deleted a paragraph with a statutory citation. As for not being able to find any source on the common law yourself, have you heard of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England? Andrew Yong (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also with respect, I first posted on this talk page and you did not engage. You simply reverted. The onus is on you to provide references, or the material may be removed. That is Wikipedia policy. Read WP:V. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:V -

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Whatever your area of expertise, you are not immune from having to provide references demonstrating that reliable third party sources reach the same conclusions that you do in your contributions. I have to say, this article reads like your own personal paper. Let us take this sentence as an example - "Although the term British subject now has a very restrictive statutory definition in the United Kingdom, and it would therefore be incorrect to describe a British citizen as a British subject, the concept of a subject is still recognised by the law, and nationals of countries of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State may still accurately be described as the Queen's subjects, Her Majesty's subjects". You have now provided a source, for this, but as far as I can tell, that source does not reach the same conclusions that you do. You are taking mention of "subjects" in a court ruling and, and in an Act of Parliament, and then telling the reader what is or is not accurate. That is synthesis I am afraid. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The case I cited is a recent judgment of the Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) of the High Court with multiple uses of "the Queen's subjects", "her subjects" / "Her Majesty's subjects" etc. in a highly contemporary context. In what way is this source not sufficient? Andrew Yong (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Australian citizens / British subjects

Re recent edits by an anonymous IP address, now apparently by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, really take the cake. The reference to the relevant Australian statute is in the body of the article! Andrew Yong (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hence between 1 January 1983 and 1 May 1987 a British citizen and an Australian citizen were both British subjects under Australian law, but not under United Kingdom law." - that is your interpretation, is it not? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984, which was an amendment to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (previously the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948), which as originally enacted read:

PART II.—BRITISH NATIONALITY.

7.—(1.) A person who, under this Act, is an Australian citizen or, by an enactment for the time being in force in a country to which this section applies, is a citizen of that country shall, by virtue of that citizenship, be a British subject.

(2.) The countries to which this section applies are the following countries, namely, the United Kingdom and Colonies, Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

Andrew Yong (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The date on which Australian citizens ceased to be British subjects differs under the laws of different countries. Andrew Yong has just quoted a part (partII) of the 1948 Australian act which was repealed by the 1984 Australian act. It does indeed mean that while Australian citizens had ceased being British subjects under UK law since 1st January 1983, they nevertheless continued to be British subjects under Australian law for a while after that. To the best of my knowledge, Australian citizens are still British subjects under New Zealand law, unless the New Zealand Citizenship act of 1977 has been amended. These details do not have much practical significance because the legal status of being a British subject does not have any administrative significance nowadays. The practical significance of being a British subject declined after the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants act. By 1983, it meant virtually nothing in real terms. Rights of abode in the UK are nowadays based on whether or not you are a British citizen, and not on whether or not you are a British subject. I think that Andrew Yong perhaps failed to emphasize that his quote is part II of the 1948 act, but that part II of the 1948 act was repealed by the 1984 act. Rather than considering all these many dates regarding the fizzling out of an archaic terminology, it is better to look at the overall picture. Prior to 1948, there was one nationality for all the British Empire. A Canadian losing his passport in Sydney would have obtained a new passport there, and that new passport would have been an Australian passport describing him as a British subject, born in Toronto, or wherever. After 1948 each unit within the empire got its own citizenship. But all these units mutually legislated that the status of 'British subject (or commonwealth citizen)' would remain an umbrella term. The significance of this umbrella term had pretty well fizzled out by the 1970's. David Tombe (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When did white British subjects born in Great Britain lose the right to settle automatically in Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartcottis (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just looked at the main article and I think the point has been written up very well. I don't think that those citation tags are necessary because it's simply a matter of looking through the citizenship legislation of all the commonwealth countries. That would be an arduous task. I have already checked out Singapore, Pakistan, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea. They all clearly state 'commonwealth citizen' as being the only recognized term. David Tombe (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Those citation tags can be removed because the facts are fully sourced in the relevant citizenship laws. David Tombe (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

John Tulloch

This might serve as an independent (non-government) source:

• Prof John Tulloch, 7/7 London bomb survivor, fights to stay in UK – BBC, 2 September 2012

More material is available here: John Tulloch (lecturer)#Possible deportation -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What is a British Subject?

Why isn't there a description of what a British Subject is currently in the lead? Regards, Rob (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been bugging me for some time, so I've finally rewritten it. Hopefully clearer now! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British subject. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027125032/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/Acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_12 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_12#pt12-l1g109

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Added "United States" section + "Windrush Scheme" implications missing

Missing info section added a couple of days ago, if anyone wants a redacted pic of such an Irish British national's "British Subject, with abode status" passport type (perhaps for upload by someone knowledgeable to do so to wiki commons), see here: https://i.imgur.com/UlnJwdA.jpg

Also, see details pertaining to the rights for such "Subject, with abode" passport holders to obtain full Citizen passport under the recent "Windrush Scheme" --Jimthing (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British subject/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk · contribs) 17:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll take this one (and sorry it's taken so long for the article to be reviewed!) I notice that you put this article up for FA, so I'm going to be particularly picky with this review, to hopefully help you later if/when you decide to give FA another go Cavie78 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead should summarise the article and, therefore, no information should appear in the article which does not appear in the article. Roughly half the article consists of a history of the term 'British subject', but only the current definition is explained in the lead. You mention the number of people who hold the status and the number of those who do not have right of abode in the UK, but this is not in the main body of the article. Similarly, you say "The status does not automatically grant the holder right of abode in the United Kingdom but most British subjects do have this entitlement" but this isn't stated in the article. Also, why is this the case?

• Well, the article is about the current definition though. Half the article is on the history of the term because the nationality wouldn't really make sense without understanding why it's limited in the way that it is.
• Will address lack of info on having or not having right of abode.
• I don't think it makes sense to repeat the number of status holders in the main body. It provides context up front for how many people the current regulations apply to. This stat in the lead also made it through FAC for British National (Overseas) and GAN for British protected person, so it'd be nice to keep it in the leads of all the articles in this series for consistency.

I appreciate that the article is about the current definition, but I think you need a brief mention in the lead of the context too, considering that takes up in the article. I'm not asking you to remove the stat from the lead, I'm saying I think it should be included in the body as well. It seems really odd that you give a figure in the lead, but don't state this in the body Cavie78 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Alright, reworded lead a bit to start with multiple definitions. Info on right of abode added as part of Rights and Privileges.

Development from feudal allegiance

• "Calvin's Case in 1608 established the principle of jus soli, that all those who were born within Crown dominions and allegiance were natural-born subjects." "allegiance" sounds odd to me in this context - "born within crown allegiance"? "countries that owed/swore allegiance to the English crown"?

• Removed the word "allegiance" without really changing the meaning of the sentence. The model of social contract in that era was based on allegiance; that a person had a duty to serve their sovereign, who afforded his protection over the people that he was given a divine right to rule. When you ask if a country could swear allegiance to the Crown, I don't think that model applies like that. A local ruler could swear his loyalty to the Crown, but at the time of this case, that would have just included English feudal vassals.

• "and could not voluntarily renounce British subject status until it was first permitted in 1870" I think "and could not voluntarily renounce British subject status until 1870, when it was first permitted" works better, but I don't mind if you don't want to change

• Done.

• "Prior to 1708, foreigners could only be naturalised through Acts of Parliament" An Act of Parliament per person?

• Yep, an Act of Parliament per person. Two instances of these bills were passed in the 20th century (1911 and 1975).

• "A denizen created by this method" I know you have a wikilink, but for ease of reading I think you need to better tie this to the previous sentence. Suggest "By this method, a foreigner would become a denizen - although they were no longer considered an alien, they could not pass subject status to their children by descent and were barred from Crown service and public office

• Done.

• "This mechanism was never used after 1873" -> "This mechanism was no longer used after 1873"

• Done.

• "were deemed to have received the status by imperial naturalisation that was valid" -> "were deemed to have received the status by imperial naturalisation, which was valid"

• Split off the next part of that sentence. Should make that bit easier to read.

• "which formalised the status as a common nationality among the United Kingdom and its Dominions" You talk about protectorates &c. in the next paragraph, but what about colonies?

• Was implied that the UK was responsible for the colonies, but changed to make it explicit.

Transition to Commonwealth citizenship

• "ever growing assertions of independence from London" Are you talking about the 1947 Commonwealth conference in London or the UK parliament?

• It's actually referring to the Dominions asserting their ability to act separately from the UK.

I read it that London was making the assertions. Could you make this clearer? Cavie78 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Rephrased, should sound better.

• "coexisted" I can't see a note stating which form of English the article is written in, but "co-existed" is BritEng

• Done.

• "British subjects under the previous meaning who held that status on 1 January 1949 because of a connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining colony became Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). This was the principal form of British nationality during this period of time." I think this could be worded better. "connection" could be taken to mean even a tenuous link. I read the first sentence as though it only refered to a small number of people, but the second sentence says it was the prinicipal form of British nationality immediately after 1st Jan 1949?

• Rephrased to more explicitly call out CUKC as the principal form.

• "Outside of the United Kingdom, the legal significance of British subject status varied depending on each Commonwealth country's legislation" I think you need to clarify what you mean in this paragraph. For instance, a British subject born in India who moved to Australia would immediately be able to vote in Australian elections? A British subject could vote in an New Zealand election just by asking for a ballot paper?
• You talk about UK Acts of Parliament, what about the rights of British subjects to settle in other Comonwealth countries?
• "At first, British subjects retained in some of these countries eligibility to vote in elections, for preferred paths to citizenship, and for welfare benefits" Think something's got a bit mixed up here?

• Rephrased that part a bit, but wasn't sure what you were talking about that got mixed up.

Redefinition as residual nationality class

• "CUKCs with the right of abode in the United Kingdom or were closely connected" -> "CUKCs with the right of abode in the United Kingdom or those closely connected"?

• Done.

• "Those who could not be reclassified into either of these statuses and were no longer associated with a British territory" -> "Those who could not be reclassified into either of these statuses and who were no longer associated with a British territory"

• Done.

Acquisition and loss

• "individuals with this status hold it by virtue of their own or their father's birth in former British India" -> "individuals with this status hold it by virtue of their own, or their father's, birth in former British India"

• Done.

• "British subjects not connected with Ireland automatically" -> "British subjects not connected with Ireland, automatically"

• Subject and action would be separated by that comma, so I don't think I agree with this.

Without the comma it's not clear whether you mean people not automatically connected with Ireland or people not connected with Ireland losing their nationality automatically Cavie78 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Rephrased to put Irish connection at the end of that sentence, should be fine now.

• "British subject status may be deprived" Think removed is better than deprived?

• "British subjects may be stripped of the status if it was fraudulently acquired." Should be better.

Rights and privileges

• "British subjects are also eligible to serve in reserved and non-reserved Civil Service posts" So all posts?

• Done

• "Individuals who become British citizens automatically" -> "Individuals who become British citizens, automatically"

• Also don't agree with this.

The reason I suggested this is it's not clear whether you're talking about people who became British citizens automatically, or people who became British citizens then losing their subject status Cavie78 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Should be better now.

• "British subjects who do not hold and have not lost any other nationality" -> "British subjects who do not hold, and have not lost, any other nationality"

• Done.

Restrictions

• Ok

Images

• Ok

Sources

• Look really good

• 🙏

General

• Are there any comporable classes of nationality for other countries? Did other countries have the same concept of allegiance to the monarch of is this unique to England/Britain?

• The concept of allegiance like this isn't unique to Britain (the book Leviathan illustrates the social contract for Western monarchies of that era), but other countries didn't choose to split their citizenship/nationality six different ways. There's other less-than-full citizenship nationalities that exist, but none that are quite similar to this one.

• With the British Nationality Act 1981, was it possible for people to retain British subject status rather than becoming, for example, British Dependent Territories citizens and would there have been any benefit from doing so?

• This would only have been possible for British subjects connected to Ireland. Everyone else loses that status if they obtain any other nationality. Anyone doing this could have settled in a dependent territory and possibly wanted to get BDTC status to make it easier to get/retain belonger status or something (don't have other solid ideas of why anyone would have wanted to do this).

That's it from me, so I'm putting on hold. I notice you've already made changes so you might want to check my comments on the lead at the top of the review, as I've only just added. Ping me with any questions Cavie78 (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Cavie78: Addressed almost all points, but a few require some extra research and will be addressed later. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Horserice:. I've added a few replies Cavie78 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Cavie78: All points addressed, hope these fixes are good for you. Horserice (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks @Horserice:, happy to promote. Good luck at FA! Cavie78 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work, the article has come along way in the past few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.228 (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)