United Kingdom Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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]

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)[reply]

With respect, I object to the way you feel the need to delete whole paragraphs of content with little notice (e.g. by using ^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 --Jimthing (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]