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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]