Talk:Territorial evolution of the British Empire

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)

Notes

Definition

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)

Antarctic and Europe

Sections completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 22:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indian Ocean and Atlantic

Sections completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 16:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oceania + Pacific and South America

Section completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 02:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Central America and the Caribbean

Section completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

On-going tasks

Years to be wikified with relevant treaties, acts, and other events. Data to be verified. --Kvasir 20:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

England and Wales

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)

Assistance

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)

Thank you. As you've noticed, Africa, Asia and North America are a bit of a stub at a moment. There are just way too many territories to go through. I have just added Hong Kong for you at the moment. May be you can help with the rest! --Kvasir 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Rupert's Land and Quebec

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)

The list is mostly referenced from www.worldstatesmen.org and then verified with related wiki articles. This one is from http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Canada_Provinces_P-Y.html . The territorial transfer/creation in Northwest Territories is particularly messy... So any help for that area would be appreciated. --Kvasir 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands/German States

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)

Empire

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)

There's been a lot of talk about the inclusion in the British Empire map of Angevin territories in France, the Netherlands after the Glorious Revolution, and Axis territories administered after WWII. On top of that there is a debate about Ireland. And on top of that, it should be pointed out that HVIII did not reign in the 15thC - although it's reasonable to state that the origins of the empire lie in Cabot's mission statement in the 1490's.--shtove 23:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe "British" or "Empire" are the wrong words to use for this article. I originally created this article to list ALL territories that are in any shape or form under British/English administration and through personal unions related to the Isles. The tables list how the status of each territory evolved through time until the point where they are independent or no longer under British/English administration. This was good and fine until sematics take over. Now people are debating what is defined in "British Empire" and the precise second the whole entity came to being. I drew the line when I did not include a Scottish colony in the Caribbean because it was prior to the union with England. I included territories in Metropolitan France because as disclaimed in the introduction, this article includes territories associated with ENGLAND and BRITAIN. If we are including modern day personal unions and the Commonwealth, why not the union with the Dutch Stadholder?

At the time "British Empire" seemed like the only concise words i could think of to describe the what is controlled from the Isles. How can we best rename this article? --Kvasir 06:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of territories controlled or ruled by governments or monarchs of the British Isles? Although, the silliness of that title would make me take a step back. What are you trying to achieve here? Who is this article of interest to? I think this is a bit listcruft-y. Evolution of the British Empire is a very valid article, to see how the empire changed territorially over the times. The common thread there is the empire. But once you start going into William of Normandy and the British occupied zone of Berlin then the common thread becomes very weak, and certainly nothing that a serious historical text would be written on. Put another way, Britain's handing back of Hong Kong in 1997 can be causally linked with England's invasion of Ireland in the 16th Century. Britain was there to withdraw from HK because it began an empire 500 years earlier. On the other hand, it would be pretty tough causally linking England's ties with Normandy after 1066 to the withdrawal from Hong Kong, and nigh impossible with military occupation of Berlin in 1945. Gsd2000 12:59, 16 April 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

The interests i had when i created this article was to make a reference list that maybe useful for philatelists or numismatists, for example. The issue of coins and postage stamps were and still are signs of sovereignty and signals to the rest of the world who's in charge of a particular territory. By having such a list one can get a political context that could be related to the coin or stamp, whichever it may be. For example, one may ask why was a certain English/British monarch on the coin from this territory in that year? Or why was this English/british philatelic item originated in a certain occupied territory during and after the war? These are some of the questions I hope this list will answer.

I must say i'd have to agree of many of Anon's points, whoever he or she maybe. (and I do hope this user will start electonically sign his or her input to give it more credibility.) In any case i think, occupation should be included here because that's in many case that's how some of the colonies in the Caribbean/Asia started out from. Some started as mere settlements, while some started from occupation in the fallout of a conflict. How is that different from Berlin or Vienna? If WWII was to happen a century or two earlier in the height of the race for colonies, what's to stop Britain turning it into, say, another HK? What's different was that there was an international body stopping Powers from carving territories unilaterally. --Kvasir 07:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on Anon's failure to sign in, having been involved in various debates with him/her. Contributors wishing to be involved to the extent that (s)he is should absolutely be signed in. We can't post on their talk page and we can't see their record of contributions. I realise this is all irrelevant to the debate at hand, but seeing as (s)he doesn't have a talk page... Gsd2000 11:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the key difference here is that Berlin was the capital of one metropole occupied by four other metropoles as a result of unconditional surrender. Wars between Britain and France in the Carribean were wars between empires (sometimes when the metropoles were at peace), and colonies were seen as bargaining chips for the eventual peace treaty. WW2 happening a century or two earlier? Well, look no further than the Seven Years' War - a global conflict when France and England were at war and their empires up for grabs, but there was never any suggestion of them colonizing their opponent's metropole. Gsd2000 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

Actually that sentence was a semi-joke, cos I put afterwards in brackets "I do!". I fully encourage you to sign in. When you post a comment you can just write four tildes and it automatically expands out to be your user name and time. Gsd2000 17:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But there is colonisation in Europe proper. See Gibraltar and the Channel Islands. The Channel islands are the perfect example to follow, as to how the remanants of the Duchy of Normandy is now a British crown dependencies. One has to look from the very beginning of the early English/French conflict to see how the status of those territories evolved, no just from the moment the British Empire" came to being. Look at Minorca, the British created a colony there. The Treaty of Paris had France giving Malta to Britain. I know those are little islands off the mainland but they were all inhabited by Europeans during those transfers of sovereignty. --Kvasir 23:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Graph

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)

I'm not sure what the graph is based on either. I'm also skeptical of the unit, as the empire was measured in lineal units. Your best bet is ask the author. --Kvasir 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Home rule?

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)

Thanks for the suggestion. After a short research I've seen "country"; "home country"; "home nation" etc. Not sure what the official, politically correct term is. --Kvasir 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana and British North America

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)

Sure, why not? The more accurate the map is the better. One thing readers have to realise is that this article is really about the list and not the graphics. The graphic map is nice to help visualise the extent of the territories, but when viewed in such a small scale in the main page it shouldn't really be the focus. Besides, any concern regarding the map itself should be addressed to the author of the map. It would've been even more helpful if you can add a Lousiana / BNA entry in the table. --Kvasir 05:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Electorate/Kingdom of Hanover and the Netherlands

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).

Ditto the Netherlands. Silverhelm 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

Name of article

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).

I think the short list in the section "Treaties and Acts" is the start of something useful that should perhaps form an article of its own; perhaps "Timeline of the British Empire"? Silverhelm 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

I think the title "Evolution of territories connected to the English and British crown" is more in-line with my original purpose of this article. I really intended to include medieval territories and other pre-HVIII stuff since "British Empire" itself was really arbitrary and contentious as we have discovered people are particular with these kind of stuff. When i first started the article i really intended the word British to mean geographically as in British Isles, not the difference between Britain and England in the political sense. What do you think? --Kvasir 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, it is about time the "Treaties and Acts" section to be split off into its own article under a similar intent as this article once we have decided upon a suitable title. --Kvasir 05:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tangier_Garrison

Not listed. Should it be in? Jooler 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! I've mainly been trying to tidy up the more recent stuff (19th-century onwards), which I'm more familiar with; but I'm sure there are lots of factories and so on from earlier periods that are missing. Silverhelm 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

"To do"

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---

• Andaman & Nicobar Islands (A: 1789-1947, N: 1868-1947)
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands (1789-1796,1858-1947)
• Afghanistan (1839-1842, 1879-1880)
• Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (The Sudan) (1898-1956)
• Ashmore and Cartier Islands(1878-1934)
• Basutholand (Lesotho) (1843-1966)
• Bechuanaland (Botswana) (1885-1966)
• Bermuda (1609-)
• Bhutan (1910-1947)
• Bombay (1662-1947)
• Bonin Islands (1827-1875)
• British Cameroons (1914-1954)
• British Colombia (1858-1871)
• British Kaffraria (1835-1878)
• British Lower Burma (1824-1948)
• British North Borneo (Sabah) (1762-1775,1877-1963)
• British Persian (Arabian) Gulf Residency (1763-1971)
• British Somaliland (1884-1960)
• British Togoland (1914-1956)
• British West Africa (1821-1850,1866-1888)
• British Western Pacific Territories (1877-1976)
• Brunei (1888-1983)
• Burma (1885-1948)
• Canada East (1759-1867)
• Cape Breton Island (1629,1745-1749,1758-1867)
• Cape colony (1795-1803,1806-1910)
• Carolina (1585-1586,1629-1776)
• Ceuta (1810-1814)
• Ceylon (1796-1948)
• Connecticut (1639-1776)
• Coorg (1834-1947)
• Danish India (Tranquebar) (1808-1815)
• Delaware (1664-1776)
• Dutch East Indies (1811-1816, 1945-1946)
• Dutch India (1780-1784,1795-1818)
• Elba (1801-1802)
• Eritrea (1941-1952)
• Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1953-1963)
• Fernando Poo (Port Clarence) (1827-1855)
• Fiji (1871-1970)
• Florida (1763-1783)
• French India (1760-1765,1778-1783,1793-1816)
• French Somaliland (Djibouti)(1942-1946)
• Gambia (1661-1695,1713-1779,1816-1970)
• Gascongy/Guyenne (1152-1449)
• Gold Coast (1621-1960)
• Gorée (1758-1763, 1809-1817)
• Grenada (1609,1762-1779,1783-1974)
• Hawaii (1843)
• Hong Kong (1841-1997)
• Howland Island (1889-1935)
• India (1774-1947)
• Iraq (1916-1935)
• Isle of Man (1290-1313,1317-1328,1333-)
• Italian Somaliland (1941-1950)
• Jamaica (1765-1962)
• Jarvis (1889-1935)
• Kamaran Island (1915-1967)
• Kuria Muria Islands (1854-1967)
• Kuwait (1899-1961)
• Labuan (1846-1963)
• Lagos (1861-1960)
• Lebanon (1941-1946)
• Lower Canada (1759-1867)
• Macao (1808)
• Madagascar (1942-1946)
• Madeira (1801-1802,1807-1814)
• Madras (1640-1947)
• Maine (1622-1775)
• Malacca (1795-1802, 1807-1818,1824-1957)
• Malaya (1874-1957)
• Maryland (1632-1776)
• Massachusetts (1620-1775)
• Minorca (1708-1756, 1763-1782,1798-1802)
• Mombassa (1823-1826)
• Mosquito Coast (1658-1894)
• Moluccas (1796-1802,1810-1817)
• Muscat and Oman (1861-1971)
• Natal (1829-1839,1843-1910)
• Nepal (1816-1923)
• New Caledonia (1698-1700)
• New England (1686-1689)
• New France (1759-1764)
• New Hampshire (1623-1776)
• New Jersey (1665-1776)
• New York (1664-1775)
• North Borneo (now Sabah, part of Malaysia)
• North Carolina (1629-1776)
• North-West Frontier Province (1901-1947)
• Northern Nigeria (1885-1914)
• Northern Rhodesia (1900-1964)
• Northern Territory (1824-1829,1838-1849,1864-1900)
• Nyasaland (Malawi) (1889-1964)
• Oil Rivers Protectorate (1827-1914)
• Oman
• Orange Free State (1845-1854,1900-1910)
• Palestine (1918-1948)
• Papua (1883-1901)
• Penang (Prince of Wales Island) (1786-1957)
• Pennsylvania (1681-1776)
• Philippines (1762-1764)
• Pitcairn (1790-)
• Punjab (1849-1947)
• Qatar (1868-1971)
• Quebec (1629-1632,1759-1867)
• Rhode Island (1636-1776)
• Rhodesia (1888-1900)
• Saint Domingue (Haiti) (1793-1798)
• Saint Helena (1651-)
• Saint Martin (1781,1801-1802,1810-1816)
• Sarawak (1888-1963)
• Senegal (1693,1758-1779, 1809-1817)
• Sierra Leone (1787-1961)
• Sikkim (1817-1947)
• Sind (1843-1947)
• Singapore (1819-1959)
• Somalia (1941-1950)
• South Arabia (1839-1967)
• South Caribbean Islands (1762-1779,1783-1802)
• South Carolina (1665-1776)
• Southern Nigeria (1849-1914)
• Suez Canal Zone (1922/36-1956)
• Syria (1914-1919, 1941-1946)

• British India (now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh)

• Shanghai British Concession, later International Settlement
• Wei-Hai-Wei (now city of Weihai in Shandong, China)

• Dutch East Indies- mainly just Java (occupied and administered by South East Asia Command (SEAC) to accept Japanese surrender and restore law and order until the Dutch arrived)
• French Indochina- south of the 16th parallel, but mainly Saigon (occupied and administered by SEAC to accept Japanese surrender and restore law and order until the French arrived)

• Iran (occupied and administered by Indian Command)
• Iraq (under same administration as Iran)

• Japan (Shikoku and part of Honshu occupied as British Commonwealth Occupation Zone)

• Lebanon (occupied and administered)
• Syria (same administration as Lebanon)

• South West Africa (now Namibia)
• Comoros (as part of Madagascar, see below)
• Eritrea (as a UN Trust Territory)
• Ethiopia (and the Ogaden for a slightly longer period, as part of Italian East Africa, Ehtiopia was soon handed back to the Ethiopian government-in-exile).
• French Somaliland (now Djibouti) (occupied and local administration continued)
• Italian Somaliland (occupied and administered until 1950, then returned to Italy as a UN Trust Territory).
• Madagascar (occupied and administered)
• Mayotte (as part of the Comoros, see above)
• Tripolitania and Cyrenaica (now most of Libya) (as a UN Trust Territory)
• Reunion (occupied, local administration continues)

---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)

Ruthless logic wasn't applied! {grin}

I left some items in above because at quick glance they contradicted the main list. I didn't look at the details too closely, I just bunged them up there pretty much as an aide memoire (and to get them away from being hidden as comments in the main article). If you're happy about the details you intended to add, absolutely go ahead and add them. I suspect that the above details have been collated from the worldstatesmen.org website, but if so they should in no way be treated as authoritative. Silverhelm 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Nice reformatting, but why remove some material?

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)

Thanks for the accolade; it's quite laborious work! There's still so much to be done, especially all the little errors and inconsistencies...

Regarding the territories that I've removed from the list, the simple answer is that they are rarely (if ever) included in anyone's use of the phrase "British Empire". Those territories were not of the same nature; they were (mainly) French fiefs for which fealty was owed (although not always given) to the French king by their lord (who also happened to be the English king). They fall within the category of regional politics, really; the jostling for position between two neighbouring powers, in much the same way as happened with (say) the counts of Flanders and the French kings, or between different German states. They were territories to be ruled, not settled; the landlords changed, but the tenants remained the same. I'd argue that they were also not "under the political control of [England]"; that description belongs to the imperialism of a later age (ie, the early modern era onwards). By way of contrast, it's perhaps instructive to consider English interference in Ireland; initially it was of a somewhat similar nature, but would develop into a clear example of colonialism that had more to do with what would happen in the "New World" (and later, elsewhere), rather than a matter of who controlled what castle (as was more the case in France).

I would suggest that the introductory section ought to be rewritten to give a start date of 1500. It might be somewhat arbitrary, but it is a useful convention used by historians that does mark (in a very crude way) the end of the "old" Europe and the beginnings of a new Europe; one that started to include territorial expansion well beyond areas of their historical interest. In a few cases there are territories that are remnants of that earlier time, and so I retained them. But it's those colonies and so forth on other continents that gave rise to the phrase "British Empire", in the same way as one might speak of the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French, or Danish empires. If that overseas expansion had never occurred, then "the British Islands" would never be referred to as an empire; it's the territories that I have retained, not the omitted ones, that gave rise to the phrase. Incidentally, it wasn't until the 16th century that the English Crown formally adopted the description "Imperial" for itself.

The intermittent Scottish attempts at overseas expansion should certainly also be included in the list, as they are of exactly the same nature as the English territories, the later British territories, or indeed the French, Spanish, (etc.) territories. The reason why I have not added them is simply because (a) I know little about them, and (b) even those parts of the list that I've overhauled are still very much works in progress, with numerous missing entries (see if you can find New York, for example!). Not only do they deserve inclusion on their own merits, but of course the Darien settlements in particular are noteworthy as being a contributory cause of the union with England.

Finally, the map clearly does need a bit of spit and polish, although at quick glance it seems reasonably sound (say, 95% accurate, which is much better than the article proper). I haven't paid a great deal of attention to it, although having a quick look just now made me realise that it seems to show pre-WWI borders for Africa, but 1920s borders for Europe and North America! I can't easily see what you mean about some of the territories you mention (other than the obvious issue of Libya), because it appears to be very difficult to see what islands are coloured. I think providing numbered identification for all the territories would be an idea, too... For now, though, the lists are going to be quite enough work!

Silverhelm 21:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Okay, well further up in the talk page I believe the original author (Kvasir) admitted that the North America section was a basically a stub section, so it would of course need a lot of work. Should the colonies from Massachussetts to Georgia be listed under "Thirteen Colonies" in the same manner as Matabeland, Mashonaland, etc. (which reminds me that the Africa section has left out northern Rhodesia/Zambia and its predecessor colonies entirely) or should they all be listed separately and alphabetically?

For the Scottish colonies there is a nice wikipedia article which could be used: Scottish colonization of the Americas. The lists will need expanding but I've also begun to add the various symbols found in the original legend to the comments sections for the independent, current-day states.

Do you envision the Acts and Treaties section being comprehensive (i.e. including Associated States acts, all the independence acts, etc.)?72.27.83.104 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rhodesian territories still need tidying up from the original formatting; that's the only reason for Matabeleland and the rest not being in their proper place yet (which would certainly be my ultimate intention). I would certainly have the Thirteen Colonies listed separately as well. The sections that I've tackled to date should in no way be considered to be the final product! So much to do...

I'm not sure about the list of treaties and so forth. So far I've confined myself to the more significant events, but haven't been terribly scientific about it yet. There's probably a decent argument to be made to include the independence acts and so on, in which case that section should definitely be hived off as its own article (it's already going to be a bit too big to be a mere appendix to the main list). I can certainly add a considerable number of Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council for a whole host of territories (perhaps including full citations as well?). What do you think?

Silverhelm 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I would like to see a separate article as well on acts and treaties that affects the British/English territorial extent. --Kvasir 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit more, it does seem like a nice thing to have. I think the approach to take is that the list is split out on its own (as previously suggested), and that it can be a comprehensive listing, with the more significant events (say) put in bold. Nigerian independence is more important than (say) the division of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands into two separate colonies.

I already have my own notes detailing (amongst other things) some of the documents that would be relevant, including some for fairly obscure events such as the transfer of Dominica to the Windward Islands.

All we really need is an article name. "Timeline of the evolution of the British Empire" would seem to cover it, in my view. That would perhaps imply some events without direct implications for territorial gain or loss, but then it's useful to have a wider context anyway.

Silverhelm 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Silverhelm: This article was intended to list all territories controlled by England/Britain from the day of the Kingdom of England was formed (if you have read the intro that was there before). What it needed was a more accurate title to describe this list as we have had discussed previously in this Talk Page instead of changing and deleting the content. The purpose of this list was also to track the naming and territorial change of each and every one of these territories. Although what I see here somewhat detracts from my original intent at the start of this article, I have currently not much time to be involve with wikipedia. I am glad that there are people interested in this topic however. --Kvasir 01:35, 15 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)

Silverhelm was exactly right: Zero precedent can be found for listing Medieval territories as part of the "British Empire." Despite the oft-repeated pretensions to the contrary, this page is not about "Britain and its predecessor states"—this is merely anachronistic nonsense introduced by an editor who really ought to have known better. Unless you find scholarly sources that discuss Medieval English dependencies in the context of an overarching use of "British Empire," any mention of "pre-colonial" or "Angevin" territories will be removed as OR. Albrecht 05:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this again seems to demonstrate that there is a lack of understanding of the term British empire. I agree that zero precedent can be found for listing medieval territories as part of said empire, because they were not part of the British empire. Everyone agrees on that, so its a wasted argument. However, many scholarly sources that discuss the British empire, never just start at 1707 or even 1603, but usually from the start of English colonialism in the Americas. Such works are technically about English and British colonialism, but hardly ever try to make a distinction (probably because its all part of the same history). Contrary to your statement however, this page was precisely about Britain and its predecessor states (England and Scotland), just ask the original author of the page, Kvasir. You will not find scholarly sources that discuss mideval territories "in the context of an overarching use of the 'British Empire,'..." because the parameters that you set virtually guarantee the exclusion of sources that detail all of English and Scottish history from the beginnings of unified states (800s and 900s) to the present day, including the British Empire which is but one part of the whole histories. A limited scope yields limited results. The criteria used for this page and for the British empire all seem rather biased and hypocritical when one looks at the German colonial empire page (which strictly speaking should only detail the colonial attempts by the German Empire in Old World and the Pacific from 1884-1914) and the Dutch Empire (which even has Luxembourg being shown on the map as part of the empire). Even the Spanish empire page seems to be run by a different set of rules; it has Portuguese possessions being shown on the map. The Empire of Japan page also seems to have an entirely different viewpoint with areas that were occupied by the Japanese being considered complete parts of the Empire as opposed to just occupied territory. Well, anyway, to each their own, the outline of this page isn't as important as including territories such as New York, and all the various Rhodesias (North East, North West and later Northern, etc.).72.27.83.104 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Greenland?

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

Adding British Columbia

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)

Map series

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. --Astrokey44 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This presents some difficulties. First we would need so many maps to depict the constant (change possibly every couple years) reflecting the territorial gain and loss, not to mention the changing TYPES of the territory. Second, if we were to use snap shot, such as every 10 years or whatever, it would not reflect an actual evolution that was happening. One of the reasons i created this article was that at that time, the British Empire article had one or two maps and then a list of territories accompanying each of the maps. Then I thought, why just 1921? Then i decided to make this article summarising and tracing how each territory evolved. If one feel ambitious, one could create an animated gif emcompassing each year since the beginning until today. Territorial change could be achieved through colour change on the map i suppose. --Kvasir 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

File:British Empire evolution.gif

Derived from colonisation map

I found an animated map showing colonisation of different empires, and modified it to include only Britain. There are problems (when to remove the dominions for one thing), but this is a start. --Astrokey44 09:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job on finding the map. Though I could say less about the article, it's been adulterated from the original purpose when all it needed was an accurate title. --Kvasir 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Leading paragraphs

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)

Dowry of Catherine of Braganza

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)

Tangier Garrison still missing - I'm sure I put this in a previous incarnation of this article. Jooler (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Griqualand West?

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)

Thirteen Colonies

This map doesnt seem to have any of the thirteen colonies that later rebelled and fromed the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.182.187 (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Implicit prejudice in use of colour?

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)