User talk:Anegada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Copyright problem: Oh Beautiful Virgin Islands[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Oh Beautiful Virgin Islands, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from a recently written song, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Oh Beautiful Virgin Islands saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Mitch Ames (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

For those interested to know where this discussion on copyright matters got to, I refer you to Talk:Oh Beautiful Virgin Islands. Anegada (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Territory of New Guinea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • name = Territory of New Guinea<ref>New Guinea Act, 1920 to 1945; Papua and New Guinea Act, 1949 (as to its official and commonly used name being Territory of New Guinea and not Trust Territory of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Temporary - work in progress[edit]

European missionaries began settling in the area from Mombasa to Mount Kilimanjaro in the 1840s, nominally under the protection of the Sultan of Zanzibar. In 1886, the British government encouraged William Mackinnon, who already had an agreement with the Sultan and whose shipping company traded extensively in the African Great Lakes, to establish British influence in the region. He formed a British East Africa Association which led to the Imperial British East Africa Company being chartered in 1888 and given the original grant to administer the dependency. It administered about 150 miles (240 km) of coastline stretching from the River Jubba via Mombasa to German East Africa which were leased from the Sultan. The British "sphere of influence", agreed at the Berlin Conference of 1885, extended up the coast and inland across the future Kenya and after 1890 included Uganda as well. Mombasa was the administrative centre at this time.[1]

However, the company began to fail, and on 1 July 1895 the British government proclaimed a protectorate, the administration being transferred to the Foreign Office. In 1902 administration was again transferred to the Colonial Office and the Uganda territory was incorporated as part of the protectorate also. In 1897 Lord Delamere, the pioneer of white settlment, arrived in the Kenya highlands, which was then part of the Protectorate.[2] Lord Delamere was impressed by the agricultural porribilities of the area. In 1902 the boundaries of the Protectorate were extended to includ what was previously the Eastern Province of Uganda.[2][3] Also, in 1902, the East Africa Syndicate received a grant of 500 square miles (1,300 km2) to promote white settlement in the Highlands. Lord Delamere now commenced extensive farming operations, and in 1905, when a large number of new settlers arrived from England and South Africa, the Protectorate was transferred from the authority of the Foreign Office to that of the Colonial Office.[2] The capital was shifted from Mombasa to Nairobi in 1905. A regular Government and Legislature were constituted by Order in Council in 1906.[4] This constituted the administrator a governor and provided for legislative and executive councils. Lieutenant Colonel J. Hayes Sadler was the first governor and commander in chief. There were occasional troubles with local tribes but the country was opened up by the Government and the colonists with little bloodshed.[2] After the First World War, more farmers arrived from England and South Africa, and by 1919 the European population was estimated at 9,000 settlers.[2]

On 23 July 1920, the inland areas of the Protectorate were annexed as British dominions by Order in Council.[5] That part of the fomer Protectorate was thereby constituted as the Colony of Kenya. The remaining ten-mile wide coastal strip (with the exception of Witu), remained a Protectorate under an agreement with the Sultan of Zanzibar.[6] That coastal strip, remaining under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Zanzibar, was constituted as the Protectorate of Kenya in 1920.[7][1]

Kenya was the name given to describe two former jurisdictions, the Colony of Kenya and the Protectorate of Kenya, which were both administered as parts of the British Empire. It comprised mostly the territory of present-day Kenya. Although they were two separate jurisdictions, the Colony and the Protectorate were administered as one unit.

The Colony of Kenya was established on 11 June 1920 when the territories of the former East Africa Protectorate except those parts of that Protectorate over which His Majesty the Sultan of Zanzibar had sovereignty were annexed by the United Kingdom.[8] The Kenya Protectorate was established on 13 August 1920 when the territories of the former East Africa Protectorate which were not annexed by the United Kingdom were established as a British Protectorate.[9] The Protectorate of Kenya was governed as part of the Colony of Kenya by virtue of an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Sultan dated 14 December 1895.[10][11][12]

In summary, the "Colony of Kenya" referred to the interior lands. The "Protectorate of Kenya" was a ten-mile coastal strip together with certain islands which remained under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Zanzibar until the independence of Kenya.

The Colony and the Protectorate each came to an end on 12 December 1963. The United Kingdom ceded sovereignty over the Colony of Kenya and, under an agreement dated 8 October 1963, the Sultan agreed that simultaneous with independence for Kenya, the Sultan would cease to have sovereignty over the Protectorate of Kenya.[13] In this way, Kenya became an independent country under the Kenya Independence Act 1963. Exactly 12 months later on 12 December 1964, Kenya became a republic under the name "Republic of Kenya".[14]

Mombasa, the largest city in 1921, had a population of 32,000 at that time.

Indians in the Kenya Colony[15] objected to the reservation of the Highlands for Europeans, and bitterness grew between the Indians and the Europeans. The population in 1921 was estimated at 2,376,000, of whom 9651 were Europeans, 22,822 Indians, and 10,102 Arabs.

Misc[edit]

"...I am not sure that the Government have been wise in substituting the words "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," instead of just the words "United Kingdom." The addition of "Northern Ireland" is surely unnecessary. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland and it is elsewhere defined to include it. It is notable that all the other members of the Commonwealth who use the words "United Kingdom" in the title—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—do so without the addition of "Northern Ireland." What they have done we could also easily have done, and it is to be noted that our insistence on including "Northern Ireland" imports an extra variety into the Royal title which would not otherwise exist. - Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick) - HC Deb 03 March 1953 vol 512 cc193-257 (ROYAL TITLES BILL)

I rather agree with the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) that inasmuch as we are legislating for the United Kingdom it is better that we should limit ourselves to those words.Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

My first point is that I note with much regret that both in the Bill and in the White Paper the Sovereign is described as "Head of the Commonwealth." Why not "British Commonwealth"? Mr. Beresford Craddock (Spelthorne)

I respectfully submit that the time has come to reconsider our whole attitude to the rules of the British Commonwealth club. I do not like the idea of India, a republic, not owing complete allegiance to the head of the Commonwealth, and I think that is a matter which ought to be reconsidered at the next conference. Indeed, if any country does not wish to accept the rules I submit that we might be better without that country. - Mr. Beresford Craddock (Spelthorne)


I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which does not provide for a historically accurate Royal Title for Scotland."..." When some Scottish Nationalists see the inscription "E II R" on a pillar box, they see red." - Mr. Emrys Hughes

Mr. Cahir Healy (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill) and I represent one-third of the geographical area of Northern Ireland. Our objection to this Measure is that the Government are putting certain words into the Queen's title and the Bill, the effect of which will be that, while the Queen is described as Queen of Northern Ireland, in practice she will be called the Queen of Partition. I am sure that Her Majesty will not like that description.

attempting to make partition permanent.

The Government are endeavouring to give partition a resting place in the Queen's title, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." That is giving a special recognition to the divided portion known as Northern Ireland.

The White Paper admits that the Royal title is not correct in its reference to Ireland. Instead of leaving Ireland out of the Bill, it proceeds to drag in the truncated portion of the country, that portion that is held down by force of arms.

It is an especial humiliation for Irishmen to find their nation beheaded. It was rather unskilfully done by the late Mr. Lloyd George after a harassed people had been persuaded by the Black and Tans.

The designation "Northern Ireland" is geographically incorrect because the Northern Ireland Government hold sway only over six of the nine historic counties of Ulster. Donegal, the most historic and one of the largest, is in the Republic. In the process of creating the area known as Northern Ireland, the British Government actually divided four of the dioceses. They beheaded the dioceses as well as the nation. They divided the dioceses of Armagh, Clogher, Derry and Kilmore.

There was absolutely no need to introduce the words "Northern Ireland." We have been told already that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The words should be left as "Queen of the United Kingdom." There was also absolutely no need for the Government to advise the inclusion of the quite unnecessary numeral II, which gives offence to many loyal subjects in Scotland. Mr. Ross

The new style for the United Kingdom which is foreshadowed in the White Paper is not quite the first attempt at a new style which has been made. Over a year ago, on 7th February, when Her present Majesty was proclaimed, she was proclaimed by an unknown style and title and one which at that time had no statutory basis. It is not quite the same title as is proposed in the present White Paper. I am not quibbling over whether the use of a title in a proclamation requires statutory authority or not. I would only remark in passing, however, that it is remarkable that we should have this necessity for Commonwealth agreement and for legislation by the Parliaments if upon that solemn moment of her accession the Queen could be proclaimed by a title unknown to the law. I notice that the other Dominions proclaimed her by her existing style....(PM of Australia: "He had strongly opposed the suggestion that the Queen should be named Queen of Australia without first mention of the United Kingdom, because this would tend to work against unity." - Enoch Powell - desire to eliminate the expression "British." EP

Help me re Zimbabwe Rhodesia[edit]

Hi User:Cliftonian - Could you help me? I would like to move the article page for Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to Zimbabwe Rhodesia. This is because there was no hyphen in its name as per its own constitution. I tried to move it and it didn't work. I thought you might help? Thanks, Anegada (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anegada, how are you? Thanks for your note. I just tried to make the move and it wouldn't let me either as I'm not an administrator (the page Zimbabwe Rhodesia already exists as a redirect, so requires special permission to overwrite). I have listed a move request at Talk:Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Thank you for bringing this to light and resolving an anomaly that has been confusing me (and many others) for years. Please let me know if there's ever any other way I can lend a hand. Cheers and thanks for your contributions thus far! —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot User:Cliftonian for the kind words and really glad of the help! All the best. Anegada (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

[citation needed][edit]

Above tag for ease of reference. Anegada (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Constitution of Rhodesia, 1969[edit]

"The peoples of Rhodesia humbly acclaim the supremacy and omnipotence of Almighty God and acknowledge the ultimate direction by Him of the affairs of Man." [1]

[2] - summary of Constitution from the time.

  1. ^ a b British East Africa, by Grant Sinclair
  2. ^ a b c d e "Commonwealth and Colonial Law" by Kenneth Roberts-Wray, London, Stevens, 1966. P. 761
  3. ^ East Africa Order in Council, 1902, S.R.O. 1902 No. 661, S.R.O. ^ S.I. Rev. 246
  4. ^ "Commonwealth and Colonial Law" by Kenneth Roberts-Wray, London, Stevens, 1966. P. 762
  5. ^ Kenya (Annexation) Order in Council, 1920, S.R.O. 1902 No. 661, S.R.O. & S.I. Rev. 246.
  6. ^ Agreement of 14 June 1890: State pp. vol. 82. p. 653
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Council_2343.2C_p._968 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Kenya (Annexation) Order in Council, 1920 and dated 11 June 1920
  9. ^ Kenya Protectorate Order in Council, 1920 and dated 13 August 1920
  10. ^ Kenya Protectorate Order in Council, 1920, S.R.O. 1920 No. 2343 & S.I. Rev. VIII, 258, State Pp., Vol. 87, p.968.
  11. ^ "Commonwealth and Colonial Law" by Kenneth Roberts-Wray, London, Stevens, 1966. P. 762
  12. ^ Annexation Order&f=false Kenya Gazette 7 Sep 1921
  13. ^ "Commonwealth and Colonial Law" by Kenneth Roberts-Wray, London, Stevens, 1966. P. 762
  14. ^ "Commonwealth and Colonial Law" by Kenneth Roberts-Wray, London, Stevens, 1966. P. 762
  15. ^ Lonsdale, John (2008). "Britannia's Mau Mau". In Louis, William Roger. Penultimate Adventures with Britannia: Personalities, Politics and Culture in Britain. London: I. B. Tauris & Co. ISBN 9781845117115. OCLC 176926030. Retrieved 6 May 2014.