File talk:British Empire evolution3.gif

Accuracy

I don't think this is quite accurate -- the Dominions did not cease to be part of the empire after 1931. They are still part of the Empire, in fact, just under the new name of the Commonwealth. If you choose to point out when each Dominion became self-governing, you can also choose other dates, from the 1870s to the 1940s. 128.95.217.226 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit baffled by the 1914-1938 transition as well. Canada and Australia appear to exit the British Empire, yet Newfoundland doesn't. I thought Newfoundland was self governing at that point (though not well governed, which is how it ended up given to Canada). If Australia was self governing, how did the Governor General take over Australia in 1975. I don't know enough New Guinea history to be sure, but the sequence looks confusing. Randall Bart Talk 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at Statute of Westminster 1931#Application. Okay, Newfoundland never accepted it, and turned itself back over to UK control in 1934. However, it also says that it didn't apply to Australia and New Zealand until they ratified it, and they didn't until 1942 (Australia) and 1947 (New Zealand). So shouldn't Australia and New Zealand be pink in 1938? Randall Bart Talk 05:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the map and found a mistake (or two) in the 1974 phase of the map. The map showed that Singapore was still a British colony in 1974 while Brunei was not. In fact, Singapore had gained independence from the British through a merger with Malaya in 1963 while Brunei did not gain its independence until 1984. So shouldn't Brunei, and not Singapore, be highlighted in the 1974 phase of the map? --Remitonova (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the concept of dominions is fussy, as it fell into disuse after Sri Lanka gained that status;there were no laws that made it obsolete. So the year which is generally agreed when these countries became independent is 1949, after the London Declaration. Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.89.122.10 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This map is terribly flawed, I think that frankly, anywhere that Queen Elizebeth II is still the Queen of of should be counted as a part of the British Empire, barring that I would argue that when the constitution's were patriated (1982 in the case of Canada) would be better than the Statute of Westminster, as many, many people would have been suprised to learn that the Statue of Westminster involved them withdrawing from the British Empire.Threadnecromancer (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Threadnecromancer[reply]

Year

If anyone revises this thing again, please make the year significantly larger. It's barely readable as is, and when it's shrunk (as at Evolution of the British Empire) it's unreadable. Randall Bart Talk 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start date

The start date is too early and only represents England. The earliest point you can start from is 1606 when Scotland and England joined. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - the British empire from 1707 is obviously a continuation of the English empire, so the logical place to start is with the earliest English colonies outside the British Isles (noting that Wales and the Irish Pale were acquired much earlier).86.18.241.153 (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

England and Scotland did not join in 1606; the personal union between the two monarchies was in 1603, the political union wasn't until 1707, as alluded to above.

Calais

The 1492 map (only) should include Calais, which was part of England until 1558.86.18.241.153 (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

The 1660 map should not include Scotland; it was independent until 1707. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.205.2 (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it was in personal union so it came down to much the same thing.Jamhaw (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]

Southern Nigerian 1754

Why is Southern Nigeria highlighted as part of the British Empire in 1754 when the British were still discovering parts of that region in 1854? I think the Highlight should be changed to after 1880. Ukabia (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is shown on the 1754 map to be part of the British empire but that is not quite true. The Dutch still controlled the island until 1796 I believe.-Kieran4 (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

(north)pakistan is already british in 1880. it was british as soon 1850. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.115.54 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia

was Somalia really British in 1822? can anyone tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.115.54 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt

Egypt still shown as part of the British Empire in 1938!?

Egypt gained full independence with the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 (with a residual cause concerning British troops for the protection of the Suez Canal), and was admitted to the League of Nations in May 1937. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talk • contribs) 22:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

further innacuracies

the british empire reached a "high-water mark" in north america between the so-called french & indian war & the american revolution. this is not show.

also, the rupert's land (hudson's bay) grant was for ALL of the territories draining into hudson's bay; this includes both more the the western arctic, & some lands south of the 49th parallel

AND

the british had a solid claim on the oregon territory first, ahead of the americans; they lost it partly via diplomacy, & partly by being out-numbered by incoming american settlers.

really, this whole map needs to be redone, & it should be marked as innacurate, & probably pulled from use, until it is.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AND they had a claim on the island of newfoundland in the 16th century, it was their FIRST major overseas possession outside of europe.

AND the border of labrador (in the 20th century) looks "off" to me

AND the british still have caribbean possessions that either arent shown or are too small to see

AND the britidh claim in antarctica isn't shown

AND the british-controlled sector of occupied germany, post wwii, is not shown

AND the date jumps seem awfully arbitrary & not particularly well-chosen

AND the situation in india (& how british control there evolved over time) is not very well-represented, either...

(AND i agree that the dominions should be shown; perhaps in a lighter shade?)

Lx 121 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention more temporary changes; the most recent of them being the falkland islands war, the changing statuses of rhodesia, the territorial push-pull of wwii (i.e. north africa, the channel islands), AND the suez canal intervention in 1956

Lx 121 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AND the territorial status of new brunswick & cape breton island in 1754 is wrong too... Lx 121 (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and prince edward island isn't even shown Lx 121 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This animated map is basically an entertaining toy and it is understood that accuracy is not its first quality.--Lubiesque (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

then it needs to come off the article, & be replaced with something that is accurate. Lx 121 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]