Talk:British Overseas Territories/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Numerical values in table not sorting properly

The table of BOTs doesn't sort properly by either area or population. Could someone with the necessary technical knowhow sort this out please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.84.161 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed similar things. Basically, one adds leading zeroes. I'll try to get to it when I can. It's kind of picky, time-consuming work--prone to mistakes. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I got the area column to sort correctly (after a wrong turn or two on the way). At some point, I'll try the population; that's going to be more complicated. Uporządnicki (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed now! The population column works, too. Again, it's coding involving leading zeroes. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: IF ANYBODY FINDS THAT ANY TERRITORIES ARE MISSING NOW, please say something here. I made this fix before on a long list of countries (actually, I've done it several times), and when I was finished, someone wondered why two countries disappeared from the list. I looked, and found that on one of them I'd left out one curly bracket--or some such glitch. I fixed that and both countries returned to the list. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Latin?

The table contains the motto in Latin but in parentheses it has (Latin: the English translation). This makes no sense since the words in brackets are English, not Latin. Leaky Caldron 18:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Methinks thou dost protest too much (said in a friendly way, of course). What the format you're objecting to implies is "This is Latin for ..." That should be made clear; there MIGHT be readers who don't recognize that the Latin IS Latin. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

British Sovereign Base Areas

I realise this subject has been debated before, but I'd like to offer another angle on whether the bases are, or are not a BOTs.

Firstly I do not dispute that the bases are British territory. The Treaty of Establishment makes that clear. When Cyprus became independent in 1960 sovereignty was relinquished over the whole island, bar the territories which became the SBAs. This is a fact.

Nor do I dispute that the terms of the BNA 1981 and subsequent British nationality legislation apply for the SBAs for certain purposes. But, Cypriots (or other nationalities) who work in the SBAs are not eligible for UK Overseas Territories Citizenship or any other category of British Citizenship according current legislation. This differs from the situation in the UK Overseas Territories where it is possible, subject to various local rules, to acquire at least British Overseas Territories Citizenship. The 2002 changes have now made the BOTC category largely irrelevent for those who have acquired full British Citzenship - but the 2002 changes did not apply to the SBAs. These are facts and clearly define the SBA from the UK Overseas Territories.

Thirdly, unlike the British Overseas Territories for which the UK retains responsibility, the responsible UK department for the SBAs is the MOD, not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This is a fact and clearly defines a different order of things from the administration of the British Overseas Territories.

Analogies can be made for the UK military bases in Germany, or a US base situated in the UK and administered by the US Department of Defence or any other part of the world. Under any base agreements there are almost always clauses relating to some sort of extra-territorial arrangement and privileges. The Treaty of Establishment reflects and states those arrangments in the same manner. The only difference in this case, again sui generis, is that the territory of the bases already belonged to the UK and was not separately granted. These are facts and dfficult to square with the assertion that the SBAs are BOT's in the sense the other British Overseas Territories are.

As other contributors have pointed out, various official sources state and restate this, pointing to the wording of the Treaty of Establishment, but also to the website of the SBA's. It would seem to me therefore that this is prima facie evidence that the SBAs are sui generis, and that this conclusion is drawn not through original research but a simple acceptance of the facts before us. To not accept these facts is to fly in the face of the evidence, and to (I would argue) lessen the accuracy and balance of any article.

In summary the territories that comprise the current SBAs after 1960 were not a new colony according to the understanding of constitutional law at the time but a new state of affairs, a sui generis one, with legal succession title applied, created by the a treaty which did not make them BOT's like the other territories possessed by the United Kingdom. They are British territory, but they are not a British Overseas Territory like the other BOT's for the reasons stated above.

I would argue therefore that the entry for the SBA's should either be defined on the page separately from the other territories as sui generis, reduced to a reference with a link to the main SBA page, or deleted.

Happy to discuss with all if you agree/disagree. Freedom1968 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

[1] The FCO lists all BOT on its websites. I would not remove them as you suggest, this appears to be your own opinion, whereas wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and does not allow such original research. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What I have suggested is not original research, I state only things which I gathered from other sources and explain the obvious differences between territories administered for the benefit of their population and the SBAs administered for the benefit of HMG. Yes the FCO site does list it as an territory, but it also uses the term sovereign base which makes it different from the other territories. Besides I am not relying on just one source, the key one being the SBA site, which I would have thought has as much if not more authority than the FCO site. The object of my first comments was to suggest an amendment to the table to make the fact that it is not like the other territories because it isn't. When does stating the obvious become an opinion that crosses the line of original research and when does it not? Freedom1968 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The above is actually pretty much pure OR. You are combining various pieces of information from unknown sources to advance a position. The list of British Overseas Territories is defined in UK law (the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended). The SBAs are on that list. Therefore the SBAs are British Overseas Territories. Kahastok talk 19:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All my comments were drawn from Wikipedia articles. The sole reference to the SBA website being the exception, which specifically says the SBAs "are not colonies". Ah! but you will say none of the Overseas Territories today are "colonies" but they once were, except the SBAs.

I can't see how you can state therefore that the sources are unknown. As to advancing a position, whilst understanding the prohibitions on OR, and maintaining entries without bias (a very laudable aim in this increasingly polarized world) it does beg the question that I guess many contributors have as to where legitimate questioning on accuracy of articles ends and where opinion begins. I have no particular stance on the issue of the SBAs I simply look at the facts and feel they should be stated.

Your reference to the BNA act 1981 is interesting because it raises an important question about interpretation. Andrew Gwillem another contributor raised this by reference to the Interpretation Act 1975? I had considered in my original comments to say something in more detail about the BNA 1981 as applied to the SBAs but decided not to because I thought it would raise too many problems with the OR angle. I wish now I had. However, because I respect the Wikipedia guidelines I will not continue to suggest the changes I have outlined. But I still think it was worth having the debate, which whenever any article is considered in whatever format is a necessary part of the process. Freedom1968 (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Name

What is the official name of the whole sovereign entity: British Islands TOGETHER with the BOT? 95.26.104.40 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There isn't one. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I also came to such a conclusion. Such a situation is unique in the world at present, isn't it? 95.26.104.40 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps but you require a source that says that per WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS and WP:V. To infer that from your research is WP:OR and not suitable for inclusion. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not entirely unique. I don't think there's an official name for the USA and its territories either, is there? CMD (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual legislative strategy would be to refer to "Her Majesty's dominions" but exclude any territory under the jurisdiction of an independent Commonwealth country. Andrew Yong (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

The UK cannot legislate for the other Commonwealth Realms, so for any legislation originating in the UK such an exclusion would be implicit. P M C 18:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is obviously a "British overseas territory"

This article is entitled "British Overseas Territories" and it says there are 14 of them. Why is the most obvious one, the small remainder of Britain's Irish colony that is currently known as Northern Ireland, omitted from this list? If you want to call the article "UK Overseas Territories" you might have a point omitting the northeastern part of Ireland that is still in the UK, but the article is currently entitled "Britain's Overseas Territories". Even British nationalists should know the difference between Britain and "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". 79.97.154.238 (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"Great Britain"≠"Britain". In addition, "British Overseas Territories" is a legal designation. CMD (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Britain is simply a short form of "Great Britain". Admittedly, some unionists in recent years have attempted to conflate the two for blatantly political reasons - i.e. to make Ireland appear "British" - but for the vast majority of the English speaking world, "Britain" is just a short form of "Great Britain". Nowhere, outside of political imperialism, in British history are the two synonymous. 79.97.154.238 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI. British Overseas Territories (BOTs) are also known as United Kingdom Overseas Territories "UKOTs".ref Northern Ireland is a "Constituent Country" within the United Kingdom government. It has representatives in the Parliament of the U.K., therefore it isn't an "overseas territory" of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is to the U.K. as Hawaii is to the United States, a composite part of it. (Here's a quick video on it all) CaribDigita (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As CMD said, BOT is a formal legal term defined by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 as a description for the 14 territories listed on this page. By definition it does not include Northern Ireland nor the Crown dependencies, even though the latter could easily be argued to be "British overseas territories" (no caps), so they fall outside the scope of this article. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a sentence explaining that while NI isn't part of Great Britian, it is a Constituent Country of the United Kingdom. TDL (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And FYI on your "Britain" vs "Great Britain" point, IP, Britain (no "Great") is an officially used short form for the entire UK. Great Britain is the island. — Jon C.^ॐ 11:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Persons from North Ireland additionally have right-of-abode in the U.K. (proper). British Overseas citizens may not always be granted that right.<ref> "Because the Turks and Caicos Islands are a dependency of Britain, we do not have our own citizenship. According to British Law, dependent territories fall under the British Dependent Territories Citizenship, which means that they do not have "right of abode" in the United Kingdom. The description "British Dependent Territories" originated in the British Nationality Act of 1981. The British Dependent Territories were left to determine what link there should be between citizenship and immigration control. The immigration laws in each dependent territory determine who has a "right of abode" in the particular Country. The United Kingdom is a single jurisdiction, for immigration purposes; the dependent territories are not, although they share a single citizenship. Each Dependent Territory has its own immigration laws. Unless and until any territory chooses otherwise, citizenship is not relevant to immigration control.

Belonger status does not refer to nationality. Belonger status gives all the rights which normally come with citizenship, however there is one difference; it does not give you nationality. Nationality comes from Great Britain, which the Turks and Caicos Islands is a colony of. Only a Belonger has the constitutional right to be free of immigration control - having what in the United Kingdom is termed "right of abode". Belonger status is of profound importance in the Islands. Only Belongers have all the rights which are normally associated with citizenship, such as voting." (Turks and Caicos Islands Immigration Board)

Monarch of overseas territories

In the Falkland Islands and Bermuda articles, JWULTRABLIZZARD wants to remove the "monarch" entry from the infoboxes on the grounds that they're overseas territories not states in their own right. I believe he's wrong; that the monarch is the ultimate authority in those places and should be mentioned as such. He rightly points out there is no "Queen of the Falkland Islands", but nobody made any such claim. What do you think? (It made more sense to get one consensus rather than several and this seemed as sensible place as any to discuss it.) Khendon (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The British Monarch is certainly the head of state of these overseas territories, and the governor is the official royal representative to each territory, so it would be a bit weird to omit her entirely while including the position of governor. Her Majesty should certainly be listed, if not as Monarch then as Head of State.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

But the same is true of Britain's counties, do we have Elizabeth II in the info boxes? No; for exactly that reason. Not only that, but someone unfamiliar with the subject might wrongly conclude that the Overseas Territories have a monarch in their own right (as the Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia do) seoarately from their role as monarch of the United Kingdom. The Queen does not act independently from the UK as regards the Overseas Territories (unlike with the Commonwealth realms). also, the Overseas Territories do not have a sovereign-that is, a a head of state; because they are not sovereign nations themselves, they are overseas territories of a sovereign state.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the only reason the Queen exercises 'executive authority' is because she's Queen of the UK and because these territories belong to the UK, or more specifically, the Crown.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

They are dependent states but states nonetheless. Counties on the other hand are municipalities without heads of state. The difference is that actions by the government of a BOT are undertaken in the name of the Queen in right of that BOT, while actions of counties are undertaken in the name of the municipal corporation. In federal states, the individual states likewise have their own heads of state. That the Queen is head of state of each BIOT is well-sourced. TFD (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

They're not 'states'; they're Overseas Territories. The comparison to a federal state does not go because they are the successors of the Crown Colonies.Any comparison to such territories like Puerto Rico would be erroneous.

Oh and by the way; the government of each BOT is done in the name of the Queen of the United Kingdom rather than a separate Queen of each of the BIOT, positions that do not exist. There is no 'Queen in right of Anguilla' for example, just 'the Queen in right of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' as regards each BOT..JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In short, I don't have a problem with inclusion of the monarch, just the way it's presented, which will confuse those unfamiliar with the subject.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

They're not states, but they're definitely not equivalent to counties, as they're not part of the UK (neither is Puerto Rico part of the USA, for that matter). As TFD says, BOT actions are taken in the name of the Queen, even though they're technically taken in the name of the Queen of the UK. That the BOTs belong to the crown seems to be another reason to mention the Queen. CMD (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One can't compare U.K. dependencies and U.S. ones. U.K. dependencies are free to set their own immigration policy through their parliament, U.S. one's cannot. Americans have automatic right-to-abode in Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam, etc. In the U.K. territories, Brits. don't appear to have right-to-abode in at least some of the BOTs. "Many British United Kingdom nationals and British Overseas Territory members live and work in Bermuda. Most are welcome but all are treated as foreigners. Britons - those from Great Britain or non-Bermudian British Overseas Territory members - do not have the same freedoms here in residing and working without restrictions as they have in Great Britain, Ireland and rest of the European Economic Community. Britons visiting Bermuda on business or vacation or as professional newcomers cannot get Bermuda citizenship or vote or buy real estate at the same price as Bermudians - unless they marry Bermudians (see below) and wait 10 years. " (ref) U.K. OTS have their own right to fiscal policy, U.S. territories have no sovereignty went it comes to financial authority and choosing their own currency local. U.S. and U.K. territories are completely different. Might be better to compare U.K. and Dutch territories as they have more in common. The Dutch territories though are several Kingdoms instead of one. CaribDigita (talk)

One can compare anything they want. I'm not comparing the immigration policies of the US and UK dependencies (which at any rate varies within BOTs and within US unincorporated territories), but they're status with regards to their mother country, which in the case of the UK and the US is one of being subject to rather than part of. The Dutch territories on the other hand are similar to the Danish and French territories in this respect, as they are legally integrated into the state in some form. CMD (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Governors of the BOTS are employed under FCO, FCO is a department of the UK government, and the Queen is HoS of the U.K. (and its departments) that would be the connection. The Constitutions of the BOTs likely all mention the Queen too which should be enough to substantiate the connection to her also. CaribDigita (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly: technically taken in the name of the Queen of the UK; the territories belong to the crown; and as such belong to Britain itself (the Queen in right of the UK being the legal personification of the state, as with any monarchy.) It should thus be pointed out that any executive authority is vested in the Queen of the UK and not any monarchical office which does not exist.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't we just present the office as "Queen of the UK" in that case? CMD (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Queen is "Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories". That the dominions have recently chosen to name her as their queen, while provinces and states of dominions and overseas territories do not have separate titles is irrelevant. She is both queen of the UK and queen of each territory. In Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta, et al. (1982), the Court of Appeal of England and Wales determined that ""the Crown became separate and divisible, according to the particular territory in which it was sovereign...." So one cannot pay the Crown in the UK for a debt owed to the Crown in a territory. A 2005 House of Lords case refers to the Queen as "head of state and queen" of various territories and quotes the 1982 case, "Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question". The Lords case was about whether treaties entered into by the Queen of the UK were binding on overseas territories.[2] TFD (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This might confuse things a bit folks, but Her Majesty is not "Queen" of the Channel Islands, she is "Duke", though not Duke of Normandy - a title Kings of England gave up in 1259. Nor is she "Queen" of the Isle of Man, she is "Lord of Mann".

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are of course Crown Dependencies which have a different legal status from the BOT's, so she is more recogniseably their "Head of State" than the BOT's (notwithstanding what has been said above). Freedom1968 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In her lengthy list of titles, the Queen is also named as Lord of Mann and Duke of Normandy rather than Queen. They are separate from her "realms and territories". So Elizabeth is not queen there. But do you have any reason to believe that Lord Denning and later the House of Lords were mistaken about the Queen's position as head of state and queen of each of her territories? BTW the nature of acquistion of Man and the CI was different. The territories were acquired by the UK through settlement, conquest, or cession, while Man and the CI were never acquired by the UK, but by the person who happened to be the monarch of the UK. TFD (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well now you mention it, yes. The House of Lords may be authoritve in its judgements, but it can err and sometimes overturn previous judgements, just like any other supreme court (although I might add it no longer is the supreme court in most UK matters). I have a great deal of respect for the late Lord Denning, he was certainly a one off in the UK legal establishment. However he is on record of saying some rather strange things. Now as we all know, all land in the UK is held of the crown and there is very little land that is not held in "fee simple" as oppposed to Allodial. Feudalism never having received a formal abolition (unlike in Scotland), the monarch remains the "top dog" so to speak. This may well have been the starting point for the HoL judgement. That is why they can argue the HM is "Head of State" in a manner of a feudal lord. In the modern sense of course it means something different to us. The BOTs are not accepted in international law as independent states, although they have legal personality and autonomy. Until the Crown severs the remaining links i.e independence, that will remain the case. Which brings me to the quoted statement by Mr Caruna re Gibraltar in the "Queen of Gibraltar" section, which is therefore pure nonsense. So in a sense you are both right she is both head of state of the BOTs and she is not!

In France the Kings of England were vassals of the Kings of France, not "top dogs", and however feeble that vassalage was for long periods that remained the position vis-a-vis Normandy and all the other continental possessions of the Angevin Kings. It was a position the Kings of France maintained throughout. That was why the King of France was able confiscate King John's lands in his 1202 judgement. Whether that judgement was fair is another matter, but the fact was he was entitled to judge John (and lets face it John was a very very bad lad!). The result of course was that he lost his lands, baring Aquitaine and the Channel Islands. The resulting division of the lands of the Duchy of Normandy between King John and Philip Augustus which was de facto until 1259 became de jure in 1259. The title of Duke of Normandy was retained by the French King, as was his right, and only that part of the lands of the Duch of Normandy not conquered by him remained to the King of England. It does not seem clear on what grounds the King of England retained the islands, but for the sake of arguement it was probably "possession is nine tenths of the law" so that would make him the feudal "top dog" in those lands. The Kings of France did not seriously try to change that state of affairs, so in time, possession became legal title. No subsequent act of the Parliament of England seemed to have tried to define a status for it and as Kings in those days ruled largely by perogative, who was going to object and what business would it have been of theirs, it wasn't England? Freedom1968 (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys just to throw a spanner in the works it may well be that the monarch's title can differ in the different BOTs... Liz is indeed Queen of Gibraltar. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Normandy/BOTs

Just thought I'd point out; HM the Queen is most certainly NOT styled 'Duke of Normandy' (she's not Duke of Lancaster either; although there is of course a Duchy of Lancaster) in the channel islands in any official capacity: Loyal Toasts and local sentiment aside; laws are promulgated in the Queen's name as 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith, Head of the Commonwealth. The title 'Duke of Normandy' was dropped from the Royal Style in 1259. There have been isolated references to a 'Duchy of Normandy' during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I/VI as regards laws enacted as in respect of the Channel Islands; but this was in reference to the claim to the French throne; that is; it was referring to Normandy as a whole; not a 'Duchy of Normandy' encompassing the Channel Islands alone; which does not exist and never has done. At any rate; a monarch cannot hold a peerage title from themselves, they cannot be their own feudal superior. So 1340-1421 and 1422-1800, the monarch held the Islands simply as 'King/Queen of France'. (although; of course; the Islands were the only part of historical France the monarch actually held after 1555 and the re-capturing of Calais by the French.) As regards the Islands; the only political entity they constitute is the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Not a non-existent 'Duchy of Normandy'. Not to deny that the Queen is not separately Head of State of Guernsey and Jersey, (because they; together with the Isle of Man, are States; albeit not sovereign ones as they do not control their own defence of foreign affairs-the same situation as regards the Protectorates spread throughout the British Empire such as Tonga, Kuwait and Brunei that had their own Heads of State-just in the case of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man , the Head of State happens to be the same person as the British Monarch.), it's just that the governments of Jersey and Guernsey have not bothered or seen it necessary to adopt a Royal Titles act for their states like the Commonwealth Realms have seen fit to do. The Lords ruling is just wrong. A colony or overseas territory does not have a Head of State because it isn't a state-it isn't a country; it's just a territory belonging to another country. The Queen is no more 'Queen of the Cayman Islands any more than the French President is 'President of French Guiana'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your last paragraph, firstly, French Guiana is actually part of France, so the anology isn't entirely accurate. Secondly, what other countries do isn't at all relevant to how the British decide to arrange themselves. There's no universal rule book on the constitutional arrangements of colonies and territories of other countries. Lastly, if the Law Lords said that Her Maj is the Queen and Head of State of the overseas territories, then she is. Full stop. End of story. That's sort of the most definitive answer one could get on this issue.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the Crown surrendered the title of Duke of Normandy, their authority over the channel islands is distinct from being kings or queens and they are allowed to chose their titles. If the governments of the dependency choose to call the queen by her full title or merely her title relevant to her position in their country is irrelevant. it is also irrelevant to the Crown's status in overseas territories.

The Law Lords in this case are authoritative. They were deciding an issue of constitutional law, whether treaties enacted by the Queen in right of the United Kingdom bound overseas territories. And they decided that the territories were separate countries and treaties must be made separately by the Queen on their behalf. And in fact that is recognized in international law.

TFD (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor correction to JWULTRABLIZZARD contribution above, Calais was lost in 1558 not 1555. Also I never claimed that she was Duke of Normandy, merely "Duke" in the Islands, hence the Islanders toast to the "The Duke, our Queen". I do agree that their official designation is "Balliwick of..." Still I do wonder that with the increasing tendency of the islanders to manage their own affairs internationally, whether we may indeed see an internationally recognised sovereign entity called the "Duchy" come into being at some point. Freedom1968 (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

She's not 'Duke' either (not unsurprisingly, seeing as she's a woman and we already have a word in the English language for a female Duke in her own right -namely, Duchess. She isn't 'Duchess of Normandy' by the way.), but you may have a point-given the way in which the Channel Islands seem to be going, that could well be the case. (Although I think the French government might have a few choice words to say about the adoption of such a title)But, fact remains, she isn't at the moment, nor has she ever been, Duchess, Duke or anything of Normandy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sport, the Royal Titles Act 1953 (Act of UK Parliament) gives her the authority to call herself whatever she wishes. As the "fount of all honour" no one could seriously contest whatever title she pleases. But we should remember the Channel Islands are not part of the UK but a separate entity, and who are we to tell her what she calls herself in a separate realm? The UK Monarchy website seems fairly confident about the facts and I am sure HM has taken some very good legal advice and would not have put this on the website otherwise. If you look at what it actually says the wording is rather interesting. By the way I do accept she isn't legally "Duke of Normandy" I interpret the 1259 treaty as definitively giving the historic Duchy of Normandy to France - bar the Channel Islands. Subsequent British Monarchs may have "pretended" to the title, but lets face it it wasn't ever seriously enforced after 1204 (except intrestingly enough by Henry V in his peace treaty with France. But even there the deliberate temporary detachment of Normandy from France was just that, temporary) The last true independent English Duke of Normandy, was that sly fellow King John and what a job he did!

As to the attitude of the French Govt in the event of independence, I am sure an friendly agreement could be arrived at that didn't hurt the pride of the French nation. After all we are all in the EU now (except the Channel Islands of course..!)

Freedom1968 (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

the Royal Titles Act 1953 (Act of UK Parliament) gives her the authority to call herself whatever she wishes

-Yes; it does, as long as that is done in law. What it doesn't give her the authority (or give any of her governments)to do is to just randomly call herself whatever she/they wants. It doesn't work like that. It still needs to be subject to parliamentary approval. She wouldn't be able to call herself 'Queen of Scots' or 'Queen of Northern Ireland'; unless she did it within the terms of that Act. Separate acts were still required for Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and Ceylon in 1953. She didn't just 'assume' the titles in relation to those realms; they had to be voted on and agreed by the parliament of each country.

To give a parallel: with the 1603 Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland; James VI of Scotland (who was now also King James I of England and Ireland) let it be known to the English parliamenton his accession that he wished to be styled 'King of Great Britain', rather than 'King of England, Scotland...etc.' However, both the parliament of England and the parliament of Scotland objected to this, and so King James' plan fell through, and the monarchs of England and Scotland were until the 1707 Act of Union styled 'King of England, Scotland, Ireland and France, etc.' on all official documents, including all Acts of Parliament. Likewise, HM the Queen can call herself Queen of Gibraltar; but it doesn't mean she is.

So; even though the monarch often referred to themselves as 'King of Great Britain' between 1603 and 1707, (it was also often used on coins) and were well within their rights as a sovereign to call themselves whatever the hell they liked; that doesn't meant that they were King/Queen of Great Britain (a constitutional position that did not exist until 1707.), because it had never been given parliamentary approval.

I'm still waiting to see any legal basis to the Queen being called 'Queen of Gibraltar'.

As the "fount of all honour" no one could seriously contest whatever title she pleases.

-Which would be all lovely and simple; were it not that every country that HM the Queen reigns over is a constitutional monarchy and thus everything is subject to parliamentary approval. So yes; plenty of people could and would contest 'whatever title she pleases.' I'm sure if the Queen decided to change her royal style to something the UK parliament found disagreeable there is no way in hell they would let it through either House. What you have to remember is that even though the decisions and laws passed by the Queen are in law hers (as they are done in her name); she is not the one who is in fact making these decisions.

The UK Monarchy website seems fairly confident about the facts and I am sure HM has taken some very good legal advice and would not have put this on the website otherwise

-The website of the British Monarchy states some very iffy things as regards 'facts'. For a start; it states she is 'Duke of Lancaster'; when she really, really isn't (quite apart from the fact that it's impossible for a monarch to hold a title from themselves, a woman who holds a Dukedom in her own right would be called er, a Duchess, not a Duke.):

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/royalstyle_uk.htm#Duke_of_Lancaster

-and that she is 'Duke of Normandy' (when she most definitely is not and never has been.):

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/royalstyle_uk.htm#Normandy

http://www.jerseylaw.je/publications/jerseylawreview/june99/le_rouai.aspx

-the website of the British Monarchy can't be taken as an authoritive source when it's quite blantantly put stuff on there that both sources and the law itself state quite clearly isn't true.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 December 2012

You are saying the Crown is not authoritative for the Crown, the Queen is not authoritative for her titles, the highest court in England is not authoritative for English law and the governments of the UK and Gibraltar are not authoritative for themselves. But your opinion is. TFD (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say any of that, and it's pretty clear who the person is on here who thinks their opinion is the one that matters.

Also, have you actually read any of the above links? The monarch can call itself whatever it wants, but if parliament disagrees (like the English and Scottish parliaments did in 1604 with James I/VI, then they're not. The Queen sure as hell is not Duke (or Duchess) of Normandy; she never has been and none of her predecessors have been styled so officially and consistently since 1259.

Also, I want to see some law, Act, something official besides a picture of a coin inscribed 'Queen of Gibraltar' and a web page saying 'the Queen says she's okay with this". A proper source please? Coins in England, Scotland, and Ireland were inscribed 'REX (or REGINA) MAGNA BRITTANIAE' (I.e. 'King-or Queen- of Great Britain".) from 1604 to 1707. But they absolutely, definitely, positively were not titled as such during this time period. All Acts of Parliament and all other official documents did not use that title. And I'm willing to bet official documents in Gibraltar don't say 'Queen of Gibraltar' on them either. So can I see an official document with this title on, please?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I read your links. Under the Royal Titles Act 1953 (UK) the Queen can adopt any title or style of address she choses in her territories. The fact that in 1604 the monarch did not have this right is irrelevant. The Channel Islands are irrelevant to this conversation - the article is about British Overseas Territories, not crown dependencies. The monarchs styled themselves Magnae Britanniae R. beginning in the reign of Charles I.[3] That in their separate realms they used their title for that realm is irrelevant. The Queen is queen of Gibraltar according to the House of Lords, it does not matter what her style of address is. All of this has been explained to you. TFD (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there was anything published in the Gibraltar Government Gazette about the new "title", if not then I would say that is quite a telling piece of evidence (or lack of it)? Was the 1953 Act the first to define in Statute what the sovereign could call themselves? If so then until then precedent and the perogative were probably the guiding rules. As the limits of the Royal Perogative were only starting to be challenged in James I/VIs time it may well be he and his successors used that to put "King of Great Britain" on the coinage. Freedom1968 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 1953 was the first year. TFD (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

-It certainly wasn't the first Royal Titles Act: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm Before 1953; the consent of all the Dominions (the other states of which the British monarch was separately monarch of; which were sovereign from the 1931 Act of Westminster.); after that; each Dominion (which by this point had developed into the commonwealth realms). utilised the 1953 Royal Titles Act to legislate to change the Queen's title in each country. It didn't mean the Queen could just arbitrarily decide what her title was (and doing so would be going beyond her constitutional prevogative anyway), just that each commonwealth realm could define and then legislate what the Queen's title would be as regards the country in question; furthermore, it empowered them to alter the Queen's title at any time.

Here's the one for Ceylon (1953):

http://tamilnation.co/srilankalaws/53royal_titles_act.htm

the one for Antigua and Barbuda (1981):

http://www.laws.gov.ag/acts/chapters/cap-387.pdf

-Canada:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-12/FullText.html

-Australia (1973):

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/sch1.html

New Zealand (1953):

—Royal Titles Act 1953 (NZ), s2; Royal Titles Proclamation (1953) II New Zealand Gazette 851

New Zealand (1974):

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1974/0001/latest/DLM411821.html

Note as well that the act applies equally to Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelau in the case of New Zealand:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1974/0001/latest/DLM411822.html

The Royal Proclamation as regards the Bahamian Royal Titles Act was published in the Official Gazette-Bahamas on 27th December 1973:

http://www.archontology.org/nations/bahamas/00_1973_td_state.php

-the 1967 Barbadian Royal Title's Act was published in Barbados' Official Gazette on 4th May 1967:

http://www.archontology.org/nations/barbados/00_1966_td_s.php

Gambia's 1965 Royal Titles Act recieved Royal Assent on 18th June 1965:

http://www.archontology.org/nations/gambia/00_1965_1970_s.php

The Tanganyikan 1962 Royal Titles Act was published in the Tanganyika Gazetteon the 12th January 1962:

http://www.archontology.org/nations/tanzania/tanganyika/00_1961_1962_s.php The proclamation as regards Guyana's 1966 Royal Titles Act was published in Guyana's Official Gazette on 18th June 1966:

http://www.archontology.org/nations/guyana/00_1966_1970_s.php

The proclamation as regards Malta's 1965 Royal Titles Act was published in Malta's Government Gazette on 1st January 1965:

http://www.archontology.org/nations/malta/00_1964_74_s.php

The proclamation as regards Trinidad and Tobago's 1962 Royal Titles Act was published in the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette on 2nd November 1962:

http://www.archontology.org/nations/trinidad/00_1962_1976_state.php

Uganda's 1962 Royal Titles Act was published in the supplement to the Uganda Gazette on 1962:

http://www.archontology.org/nations/uganda/00_1962_1963_s.php

There has been talk of Prince Charles; when he acceeds to the throne; that he wants to change the Royal Style from 'Defender of the Faith' to 'Defender of Faith'-but; as you can see here, he could not just do that arbritrarily:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/3454271/Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith.html

it would need Parliament, as stated here; to "agree to amend the 1953 Royal Titles Act"-and if Parliament disagrees, then it ain't happening.

More to the point; quite why the Queen is not Head of State of any of the BOTs in their own right; well; let's look at the criteria for being a 'Head of State':

• Acts as symbol/figurehead of the state (regardless of the actual level of political power the HOS holds): only in far as they are the Head of State of the UK.

• Recieves letters of credence and foreign ambassadors-BOTs are not sovereign, do not have any foreign relations and thus the Queen does not recieve ambassadors' letters of credence on their behalf; and nor do any of her representatives; something that is certainly not the case for the commonwealth realms.

• Declares war-Any war fought between the UK as regards one of its BOTs would be fought in the name of 'Elizabeth II, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Queen, etc.', not 'of (insert BOT.)' A theoretical declaration of war with Spain over Gibraltar would NOT say 'Queen of Gibraltar' anywhere.

• Awards decorations and orders-none of the BOTs have their own Honours system or Orders.(because they're not sovereign.)

• Signs legislation into law-well; yes, the governors do do that in a lot of the BOTs.

• Conducts diplomacy with other Heads of State-always done in the name of the Queen in right of the United Kingdom.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Before 1953 the monarch's title was determined by an act of parliament. After the Statute of Westminster, the consent of all the dominions was required to change imperial law. In 1953, exising titles laws were replaced by separate laws in each of the parliaments of the UK and the dominions and also allowed the monarch, presumably acting on the advice of the Privy Council to determine her title in the UK and in each of the BOTs. Your suggestion that the 1953 act stops the monarch from changing his or her title without approval of parliament is a bizarre misreading of the act which says, "The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the adoption by Her Majesty, for use in relation to the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible, of such style and titles as Her Majesty may think fit...."

You criteria for heads of state is your own opinion and shows an ignorance of constitutional law. Neither associated states nor states within a confederation conduct their own foreign relations, yet have heads of state. None of the dominions conducted their foreign relations until 1926-1931. However, treaties made on behalf of the UK do not bind BOTS and vice versa. (That is clear in the Lords' judgment.) Australia is independent, yet knighthoods are awarded by the Queen. Canada had no honors system until 1967 and her provinces have set up their own. The governor of Gibraltar signs legislation in the name of the Queen, who may sign legislation if she happens to be in Gibraltar. She may veto legislation that the governor signs.

TFD (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

'Queen of Gibraltar'

Whilst I'm not denying there are coins minted as regards Gibraltar bearing the words 'Queen of Gibraltar', in the absence of legislation proclaiming her to be as such(like a Royal Titles Act); I'm quite skeptical as regards this. Simply having the title on a coin does not mean she bears that title, any more than the Queen would be instantly 'Queen of England' if the Bank of England decided tomorrow to put the words 'Queen of England' on the British coinage-the only thing that CAN give a monarch a new title or alter the existing one is an Act of Parliament, and specifically a Royal Titles Act.

it just means the powers that be as regards the coinage have decided it would be a good idea to do so. (Ironically; the is one person who does actually bear the title 'King/Queen of Gibraltar amongst their myriad formal styles- the Spanish monarch'

As regards the whole 'the Queen is Queen of the Overseas Territories because she has the words 'and of her other Realms and Territories as regards her full title, well okay; but prior to 1953, those words were not used. So; by that logic; Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI (and Elizabeth II 1952-1953) were not monarchs of the 'territories', which at any rate were not called 'territories' until 1981; being of course Crown Colonies up to that date, and if you want to argue that the inclusion by Edward VII of the words: 'and of the British Dominions beyond the seas' refers to all 'Her Majesty's Dominions', that is; the British Empire as a whole i.e. The Colonies as they then were; well, Victoria did not use those words in her full title, was she 'Queen' of say, British Guiana? Not to mention all the other monarchs previous to Victoria who did not use those words either in their full title yet were supposedly; by your reasoning; monarchs of those territories in the same way they were monarchs of England/Great Britain/the UK.

Please refer to the excellent website 'heraldica.org' as regards both the Duke of Normandy and Duke of Lancaster thing. Excellently sourced and referenced as well.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The Queen, the government of Gibtraltar, and the Law Lords say that HM is queen of Gibraltar and that description has now been recognized in coins. No sources have been presented that Gibraltar is part of the UK, and it is not recognized as such, least of all by Spain, which claims it to be part of its country. If they are all wrong, you need a reliable source, not your personal interpretation of constitutional law. TFD (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Re the Coins of Gibraltar, should they not say Elizabeth I, Queen of Gibraltar? After all Elizabeth I 1558-1603 was never Queen of Gibraltar? Freedom1968 (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth is Elizabeth II in all her realms, whether or not they were under the former Elizabeth. CMD (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

-and regardless of whether she is indeed styled 'Queen of Gibraltar' or not, Gibraltar is not a realm, nor has it ever been. It may well be in the future, but it certainly isn't at the moment.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And in Scotland??? Freedom1968 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There was actually a court case in Scotland, someone sued the Lord Advocate about it, but the court ruled that under Royal Prerogative the Monarch could style itself however it pleases--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Can she? I thought this was governed by Statue (see Royal Style and Titles Act 1953)and futhermore did she ask for the agreement of the other Commonwealth Realms?. Also don't see what the legal basis is of the Gibraltarians putting her as Queen on their coins? Freedom1968 (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Titles Act 1953 says, "The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the adoption by Her Majesty, for use in relation to the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible, of such style and titles as Her Majesty may think fit...."[4] TFD (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Glad to know she is entitled by statute to choose her title. I guess this is the basis for the name on the Gibraltarian coins. Freedom1968 (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

-Basically, the Queen can style herself whatever she (or rather, the government acting in her name) wishes. For example, when she was Queen of Pakistan, the actual title that she used and which was adopted by the 1953 Royal Titles Act (in respect to Pakistan.) was "Elizabeth the Second, Queen of the United Kingdom and of her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth." -so, you see; HM the Queen is styled as 'the second', even though there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of Pakistan, and no mention of Pakistan was actually made in the title. Yet that was the title she bore. As you can see, there are no rules per se over what the title she adopts as regards her realms are (although they all have used the terms 'Head of the Commonwealth' and 'of Her other Realms and Territories', but that is mainly convention rather than anything else.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The title used on the coin was approved by the Monarch, which we now know is entitled to style itself as it pleases. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, within reason of course. Can't see her claiming amongst her titles to be for example Queen of France or Queen of Hanover. Queen of the United States has a nice ring to it though..! Freedom1968 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Now this is interesting. The government of Gibraltar have stated that this is 'Queen in right of Gibraltar' rather than 'Queen in right of the United Kingdom', due to the adoption of a new constitution and in an effort to downplay any claims that Gibraltar is still a 'colony'.(Note, I'm not saying that it is.) Indeed; look at this ( an address to the United Nations' committee of 24 for decolonisation, by Peter Caruana, leader of the Gibraltar Social Democrats and formerly Chief Minister of Gibraltar) -www.gibnet.com/library/pcun1007.htm

"Our ex-administrating power, the Government of the United Kingdom, has no powers whatsoever in or over Gibraltar, either executive or legislative.The power to pass laws for Gibraltar (which is extremely rarely used, and always in consultation with us) is not vested in the United Kingdom Government. It is vested in Her Majesty the Queen, in her Capacity as Queen of Gibraltar and not as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Furthermore, to the extent that, as a matter of separation of powers, our Constitution allocates powers to the Governor, it does so in his capacity as representative of HM the Queen of Gibraltar, and not of the U.K."

-which, given that Gibraltar is not (yet) a sovereign entity, seems curious, but nonetheless HM the Queen as Fount of Honour is entitled to style herself whatever she likes.Presumably this is reflective of Gibraltar moving closer to a commonwealth realm status within the commonwealth.

What I want to know is though; is this a style that is used in official documents (which is what counts)? Are government documents prolumgated in the name of 'Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, Queen of Gibraltar and of her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth' rather than 'Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'; like it is in all the other BOTs, or is it just something that's used on coins? Is the 'Queen of Gibraltar' a legal person in the same way the Queen of Canada or the Queen of Australia is a separate legal person from that of the Queen of the United Kingdom; and if so, what are the sources? Is she actually OFFICIALLY styled as such in respect of Gibraltar?

Is there a Gibraltar Royal Titles Act, and if so, can I see it? The Royal Titles Act 1953 was adopted (and adapted)for each sovereign state the Queen was Queen of at that time (namely, the UK, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Ceylon, South Africa, and New Zealand), and as each country became independent from Britain, it would pass a Royal Titles Act in right of itself to change the Queen's title in that particular realm.As far as I know, this has never been done for any Crown Colony/British Dependent Territory or British Overseas Territory, although of course the Queen as a sovereign and fount of honour is well within her rights to do so.

But simply okaying the inclusion of a title on a coin doesn't constitute that-it has to be adopted in law. For example, the Queen and several of her predecessors have given permission for them to be addressed as 'Duke of Lancaster', but, as the Dukedom became merged in the crown in 1422, there is no 'Duke of Lancaster', nor has there ever been since that date, though of course the Duchy of Lancaster does exist. Without legal authority, this is the same situation as regards Gibraltar. the Queen can agree to be referred to whatever she wants-but without legal mechanisms to make that so, it doesn't mean that she is.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Titles Act 1953 (UK) allows the Queen to determine her title in the UK and each BOT. None of the BOTs is allowed to pass its own Act. The court judgments, which can be read on line are clear on the separateness of the Crown in each Realm or BOT. Lord Denning wrote in 1982, "Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question". If an entity is able to have rights and obligations then it is a legal person. So for example the government of Gilbraltar is allowed to have its own bank accounts. TFD (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

-I didn't ask whether the government of Gibraltar was a legal person (it most certainly is), but whether the position of 'Queen of Gibraltar' is a legal person (in the same way the Queen of Canada or the Queen of Australia or New Zealand) most certainly are, or whether it's just something the Queen has given her approval to as regards an inscription on a coin. Clearly Lord Denning's 1982 opinion seems to suggest that a 'Queen in right of Gibraltar', as well as a 'Queen of (insert other overseas territory)' may exist in law.

I'm wondering whether Lord Denning's opinion had anything to do with the change in status of the Crown Colonies from Colonies to British Dependent Territories in 1981. Do you know if that was the case?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Queen is the personification of the state (see Queen in Council). All rights and obligations of the her governments are in her name. So if the governments of the UK and Gibraltar are separate, so is the Crown. Denning's judgment had nothing to do with the change in colonies' status. (I assume you are referring to the Nationality Act.) The case involved Canadian Indians who claimed that the British government was responsible for agreements signed between them and Canadian government officials, because they were signed in the monarch's name. Denning and the court decided that the person with whom they made an agreement was a different legal person from the Queen of the UK. Hence the obligations rested with the Canadian government alone. Almost immediately following the judgment, Westminster ceded all power to enact laws for Canada. In the Lords case, it was determined that a treaty signed by the Queen as Queen of the UK did not bind Gilbraltar. TFD (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Independence for Gibraltar?

Anyone think this realistic or desirerable option? Freedom1968 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

-It's certainly possible, but it's not really the purpose of wikipedia to predict the future. That would be WP:CRYSTALBALL at any rate. That aside, could Gibraltar realistically sustain itself as a sovereign, independent state?

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup I know, but when I saw you quoting Peter Caruna's view on Gibraltar "sovereignty", I had to blink twice. An article explaining the 1714 treaty in the modern context would be helpful I think, because as Caruna knows only too well an independent Gibraltar is not an option. Either it remains under UK formal sovereignty or it goes back to Spain. Shared sovereignty would never work. Returning it to Spain is in the long term in the best economic interests of Gibrataraians. I would also strongly recommend Caruna and his like resist the siren call of UDI - it NEVER WORKED for Ian Smith. That said, Spanish Government tactics are counterproductive and just give politicians like Caruna fuel for their fantasties. Freedom1968 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

-Which is exactly what I'm trying to get at above: it makes me suspect that the inclusion of the title 'Queen of Gibraltar' on coins, which is seemingly not used at all officially, (just like the title 'King/Queen of Great Britain' was used on coinage but was NOT used officially) is to do with political hyperbole on the part of people like Peter Caruna.

Also, I hope you took the time to look at my above links in detail.:-)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did, and very well researched and thought provoking articles they are. I agree with much in them. One particular idea grabs me that idea that the Channels Islands could by law declare a title or at least like the Royal Titles act 1953 give the Sovereign the freedom to choose their own title. It is telling they haven't. But then if you have the best of both worlds by muddying the issue would you want to spoil a good thing? or if the legality of the issue was uncertain...Which is why I referred to the strange wording on the website. 1259 was the effective cession of a little bit of the Duchy of Normandy to the Crown of England, but the title deads and overwhelming part of the Estate remained with King of France. Later attempts to take over the estate was nothing more than attempts to establish squatters rights!

I wonder in that context if there are any parallels to be drawn by the holding of some of the marcher lordships in Wales by the King of England?

On the coinage point,I agree. You do have to wonder why it took so long to add the title to the coins and what prompted it (Mr Caruna?). As you will have seen recently with the naming of a part of the BAT after HM, harmless gestures can hide more political aims. It is rather harmful to the monarchy when things like that happen. A constitutional monarchy is a fine thing - so long as it stays constitutional.

I haven't commented on the "Duke of Lancaster" point, but I agree the title is subsumed into the monarch's fount of honour, permanently in this instance. Though of course the Estates of the Duchy still belong to her and are administered separately. I guess the only reason I can think of as to why she gets a toast, is that it is like a "courtesy title" given to younger peers sons/daughter which is meaningless.

Will we see a future coinage declaring HM Queen of the Falkland Islands I wonder? A worthier candidate than Gibraltar (emotionally speaking of course) Freedom1968 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know of any other coins that say "Queen of". Australian coins say "Elizabeth II Australia", while Canadian coins say "Elizabeth II D.G. Regina". Apparently Canadians complained when D.G. was removed. British coins also have F.D., and used to have Ind. Imp." TFD (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, not even the coins of Jersey or Guernsey attempt to describe her as anything other than Queen Elizabeth II, which is strange really when the islanders like to think of her as "Duke", and which is repeated on the Monarchy website. You would think they would be only to happy to put the word "Duke" on the coins, but they don't even though they do put the wording "Balliwick of ". I started off accepting that "Duke" was her title now I am less sure, but I fear I have fallen into the trap of not consulting more than one source as any good legal beagle would do. Unless there is some sort of clear declaratory statement from the States of Guernsey and Jersey and the Crown, followed by legislation, I suspect the arguements over wording will continue without end!

As for Gibraltar, I can only sigh with resignation, I can't see putting HM as Queen of Gibraltar is going to be productive in any sense whatsoever. It is meaningless, pointless and damaging in the long run. Why on earth didn't HMG put a stop to this? Freedom1968 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If by some miracle Gibraltar did achieve "Independence", I couldn't see it being more than an enclave for Tax dodgers and big Multinationals (or is it already that?). Not an attractive prospect for the "Queen of Gibraltar". Freedom1968 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It could be that if she is the Duke of Normandy, that the government is organized for the Channel Islands of which she is head of state. Compare with Wales, there is a Prince of Wales, but it is not the same territory as the Welsh state and he has no constitutional role but is called the Prince there. TFD (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah! that's because it is just a title, it doesn't signify that Wales is a true princpality or an appange or anything. Wales was conquered by Edward in 1282 and politically united to England by Henry VIIIs acts of 1535/1542. That remains the case, despite Welsh devolution (In law acts of Parliament now recognise that reference to England in acts does not include Wales). There is also no separate Welsh legal system (although that will not necessarily always be the case in the future as Welsh devolution develops its own body of law). The title of Prince derives from the promise by Edward Longshanks (Edward I) to give the Welsh a prince of their own who "could not speak a word of English" (which hof course the the prince couldn't being a few months old when he was proclaimed the prince") Edward I was a politically astute King, if a tad ruthless (ie. treatment of the Scots and William Wallace). Incidentally I had added a comment to the BOTs section where you posed a question recommend you have a look. Freedom1968 (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there any true Gibraltarians? Are they not all descendants of various peoples who have settled on the peninsula over the last 300+ years. Where does the name Caruna come from, it's not Spanish is it ? Ho Ho Freedom1968 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why the Gibraltarians couldn't accept the King of Spain as their monarch, after all he is hardly Philip II is he? He is quite a personalable chap really. Look at the way he dealt with the attempted coup in 1981 and the way he slapped down Castro at the OAS meeting a couple of years ago! He speaks English, is related to the Queen of England and most of the time shows good judgement (bar the odd embarassing hunting trip...). I can't see why Gibraltar could not be given a statute of autonomy like other regions of Spain, which guaranteed their rights (civil, religious and political). It's not like you handing them over the mercies of an Argentine Junta or a Christina Kirchner. No one is going to tell them they can't still be British Citzens if they want to retain that status, most could even have the benefits of dual citizenship if they wanted to. Let's face it if the Peoples Republic of China can guarantee the continuance of the way of life of Hong Kongers for at least 50 years after resuming sovereignty, would the Spanish offer less? Of course not!

There is one major stumbling block. The return of Gibraltar would put enormous pressure of the Spanish viz-a-viz their enclaves in Morocco, which they regard as being integral parts of Spanish territory. Still you win some and you loose some. I wonder could Morocco then face pressure itself to give up the Western Sahara?

I am not in favour of surrendering the Falklands to Argentina though. Our title is well established (settlement, not conquest) and moreover the Islanders could make a credible independent state if they chose to exercise that option. I think I might start another thread on that... Freedom1968 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine the people of Gibraltar see it as a matter of principle really. They're also probably pretty dissapointed out how flippantly people talk about changing their sovereignty and national identity, as if it's no big deal. The King of Spain may well be the nicest chap in the world, but that's no reason to just simply switch allegiances to another country.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough point, principles are worth protecting - up to a point. But politicians like Caruna don't help their case to stay British (which I do not dispute they have the right to), by continuing to mislead them as to their future options. Independence is simply not on the cards any more than it was for the Hong Kongers. The then British Government (a Conservative one, led by Mrs Thatcher, mark you) came to the rather pragmatic conclusion that Hong Kong had to be returned to China in order to guarantee its future, and because without the New Territories it was unviable. The Treaty of 1714 signed with Spain ceded Gibralter to Great Britain, but with a clause specifically saying that should we want to change the status of the territory then the Spanish had to be offered its return. As far as I am aware the Treaty is still in force and that clause is still valid. If we can hand over Hong Kong to "Communist" China then we could not in faith deny the democratic Spanish state the return of Gibraltar. The treaty is a sad but inescapble fact.

Yes, we have to take account of the wishes of the Gibratarians, because as we are a democracy and the Gibratarians have democratic values and freedoms. Past British Governments have made a strenous attempt to involve them in discussion about the future. But ultimately the UK government has the final say. We have given up so many territories in the last 100 years this would not be first instance. Caruna needs to act in a statemanslike manner. Any British Government will make sure that the Gibraltarians get a settlement they can be proud of and satisfy the honour of the Spain at the same time. There is no danger of the Spanish ever resorting to force to solve this question, they don't want to and don't need too as time in on their side.

I don't think Spanish tactics have been very helpful over the years, but there is still a lot they could do to make life uncomfortable for the Gibraltarians. For example there is the question of the land on which the Gibraltar Airport is built, does it really belong to the UK? Freedom1968 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Er, yeah the British can deny the Spanish the return of Gibraltar. If the treaty is still in effect, then it's British land, simple as that, and Spain can keep their grubby hands at bay. The Empire was dismantled on a case by case basis. The return of Hong Kong to China or the independence of colony so and so is compeletely and totally irrelevant. There's no cosmic inevitability that states that it must happen eventually. There is absolutely no reason why Gibraltar can't and shan't remain British forever. Anyway, enough of this, as interesting as a discussion this is, please remember that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Er, no they can't. The Treaty says thay can't, are you proposing that a Britsh Government blatantly violate an International Treaty? The case of Hong Kong is very relevent, granted by the time of the handover the inhabitants had very little democratic representation which made it easier, but they still had no choice and, unlike Spain, the Mainland Government of China would have seriously considered resorting to violence to achieve their ends. By the way I am aware of that fact that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, but as so many of us discover debate in the context of constructing articles is also necessary and unavoidable. I am still in favour of an article setting out in detail and explaining the dispute in more detail. Freedom1968 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons that there are still BOTs, which are seen the the UN as non-self governing territories is that there are disputes over sovereignty. But that is a separate issue from the Queen's role of head of state of each BOT. Editors who disagree with British claims should not try to distort the legal position of the governments of these islands. Spain and Argentina for example do not recognize Gibraltar and the Falklands to be part of the UK, otherwise they would have no claim. To them they are separate, illegimate states that form parts of Spain and Argentina respectively. TFD (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ with this assertion, SOME BOTs are the subject of disputes over sovereignty, but not all. The reason the UN classed them as non-self governing territories, even though most possess democratically elected and responsible governments is political. The clearest example of this wss the deliberate exclusion of Hong Kong from the list, despite being a clearly "colonial" territory, The French territory of New Caledonia is also included unlike the rest of the unincorporated French territories. Spain by the way does recognise that the UK is the owner of Gibraltar, they just want it back and are very careful about making sure that the terms of the treaty are enforced. Argentina on the other doesn't recognise UK ownership of the Falklands, although they have not always made a claim to ownership. Anyway much though I would like to continue the debate, I think this discussion has served its purpose so I shan't now continue it.

Freedom1968 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said some of them. Hong Kong was removed from the list at the request of China which was appropriate because it is part of China. When the list was first prepared of course it was quite long and the remaining countries are relatively small. Regarding Spain, if the UK is to obey the UN and the treaty with Spain, its only option is to return Gibraltar to Spain. The Falklands is difficult too because the UN may not recognize any change of status short of cession to Argentina. TFD (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The UN General Assembly can't decide on its own the future of the Falklands, nor the Security Council (particularly as the UK has a veto) A reference by both parties to the International Court of Justice would be step forward. I couldn't see Argentina agreeing to that though as some commentators have suggested there is fair chance the judgement might go against them. Perhaps the Gibraltar question should also go to the ICJ, although I doubt the Gibratarians would favour this as it might result in the very least in the loss of their airport.

Freedom1968 (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Prince of Wales thing, there is no connection between the title and the actual government of Wales and the title 'Prince of Wales'. It is just a peerage title. Prince Charles has as much authority as regards Wales as the Duke of Edinburgh has as regards Edinburgh, i.e. none. The Prince of Wales did have jurisdiction as regards parts of Wales until the 1536 Act of Union, but they don't now; and the only peerage title that has any jurisdictional rights (or any other rights for that matter) as regards anywhere in the UK is the Duke of Cornwall (a subsidiary title of the Prince of Wales) as regards the Duchy of Cornwall.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Cities/Towns

Is it useful to have in this article a list of cities, and should this if it exists have its own massive table or just be included in the prose?
I personally don't think comparing different settlements in such a widespread and varied group of territories is helpful to the reader. Each territory is different, and their own pages detail how the population is spread in each one. Comparing the different total populations I'd understand, but not the distribution of population within each one. CMD (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Crown Colonies to British Dependent Territories: when?

When were the Crown Colonies officially renamed British Dependent Territories? Was it in 1981 with the British Nationality Act or 1st January 1983 as it states (albeit without a source) in the article?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It was under the 1981 Nationality Act which came into effect in 1983. TFD (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean the status of crown colony was valid until 1983?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a change in name, not in status. TFD (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Spain has no maritime borders with any British Overseas Territory

At the beginning of this article the author mentions a series of countries that on his/her opinion have maritime borders with British Overseas Territories. However, he/she gives no reason or reference why he/she is choosing such countries, and particularly he/she introduces misleading information by including Spain in that list of countries. Spain has no maritime border with any British Overseas Territory. Including Spain in this list is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, because it assumes taking a position in an international conflict in favor of one of the two sides. The article X of the Treaty of Utrecht by which Spain gave to "the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging" says nothing about surrounding waters. By raising a claim over surrounding waters, the UK has started an international conflict that up to now has not been resolved. By taking side with one of the two sides of this conflict, this article is contrary to the declared spirit of Wikipedia. Spain has no internationally recognized maritime borders with any British Overseas Territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flmtnez (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This position is a bit extreme, but a better question might be whether the "maritime borders" sentence is important enough to belong in the lead of the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What Flmtnez says about the Treaty of Utrecht is correct, so there is no question that as a matter of international law Gibraltar is British, although there is some uncertainty about the correct line (on land) between Gibraltar and Spain. However, in 1713 there was little concept of territorial waters, now codified by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The 17th century principle of the freedom of the seas developed by Grotius in Mare Liberum was limited in the 18th century by other principles established by Cornelius van Bynkershoek, Ferdinando Galiani, and others, and the "cannonshot rule" was widely accepted. The concept of maritime boundaries came along after the Treaty of Utrecht, and it would be an utterly crazy idea that Spain intended to grant Gibraltar to Great Britain while retaining control of the sea all around it. It seems to me to follow that there must be a maritime boundary between Gibraltar and Spain, whatever view one takes of where it may lie. Having said that, I see no need for the lead to say "These territories form maritime borders with the United States, Spain, The Bahamas and Cuba, among others." If that were to be included at all, it should not be selective, and what useful information would it give us which is needed in a general page of this kind? Better deleted, in my view. Moonraker (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Moonraker and Newyorkbrad for your comments. I agree that the best solution is to remove the whole sentence: "These territories form maritime borders with the United States, Spain, The Bahamas and Cuba, among others." It really gives no useful information. The reality is that there is no international recognized border between Spain and the British colony of Gibraltar. In fact, Spain never intended to grant Gibraltar to Great Britain. It was taken by force during the War of Spanish Succession by the UK, and then imposed as a condition by the UK for the recognition of Felipe V as King of Spain in the Peace of Utrecht during the negociation between Great Britain and France. Precisely because at that time there was no concept of territorial waters, it is impossible that Spain would give anything more than what it gave, and which is clearly expressed in the Treaty of Utrecht: "the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging". Notice that the port is mentioned in the Treaty, and Spain recognizes that, but to pretend that the UK got anything more than what is written in the Treaty is to go against the Treaty itself, because Spain did not give the possession of this rock subjected to future modifications of the law of the sea, it gave it only according to the terms expressed in the Treaty that was signed in 1713. In any case, because it is not the mission of wikipedia to take side on international claims of sobereignty, I think that sentence shoud be removed from the article and I ask the editors to do that, because I have tried to do it myself but my changes have been undone. Flmtnez (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It follows that any two territories that share a coastal border have both land and sea borders. But I do not see the significance to the article to list some of the sea borders of the territories. That sort of detail belongs in individual articles. TFD (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you "Four Deuces" for your comment. I appreciate it very much. However, by mentioning the US, Bahamas and Cuba among countries that share maritime borders with British colonies it is clear that the author who introduced this sentence was thinking about maritime borders between territorial waters of British colonies (although he/she does not mention on which territories he/she is thinking) and territorial waters of other countries. And in this sense, there are no maritime borders between Gibraltar and Spain, because the claims of the UK in this regard are not accepted or recognized by the UN or any other international organization, that always refer to the content of the Treaty of Utrech when any conflict arises as a consequence of these sobereignty claims (which by the way, happens quite often, depending on the political interests of the British government and the authorities of the colony). Therefore, I publicly and humbly request that the author removes this sentence from the article, since I am not authorised to do it.Flmtnez (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. I was unaware that Spain does not recognize that Gibraltar has territorial waters. The water dispute is described in Disputed status of Gibraltar#Territorial waters. TFD (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

FCO ref

I briefly went through the referenced FCO page (footnote 1), and I don't see where it states that "They do not, however, form part of it". Could someone point it out to me? And if I'm not missing anything, could someone provide the appropriate reference? trackratte (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The FCO is a government department of the U.K. The overseas territories operate as individual Kingdoms. (Less foreign affairs and national defence which is the responsibility of the UK.) If the U.K. overseas territories were a part of FCO, the salaries of the premiers of the UKOTs would be paid by British taxpayers. The Governors (which used to be by the Crown directly) are under the responsibility of FCO. They might receive salary from the local coffers? CaribDigita (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

unlike the Commonwealth realms, have voted to remain British territories

I'm uneasy about the phrase unlike the Commonwealth realms. It seems to imply that each Commonwealth realm was established from a former territory through an independence vote. It doesn't precisely say that, but readers could come away with that mistaken impression. On the other hand I don't know enough about independence votes in British overseas territories to be bold and reword the paragraph without introducing new errors. For the record, as far as I know none of the dominions became a realm through popular vote and the change of title from "colony" to "dominion" to "realm" was in many cases an after-the-fact recognition of pre-existing political/legal realities. Could someone with better knowledge of the British overseas territories please reword the paragraph to make this clearer? Ben Arnold (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that some, if not all, have chosen to remain dependencies. But that is controversial, and throwing in jargon like "Commonwealth realms" is confusing. So I have removed it. TFD (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Anguilla become independent as part of Saint Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. It resisted this and reverted to British Overseas Territory status.

Cayman Islands, and the Turks and Caicos, too were on the path of independence having been attached to Jamaica out of convenience of the UK. Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos both sought right to be removed from Jamaica and retained their relationship with the UK. Turks and Caicos was then attached to the Bahamas, but therein also, when The Commonwealth of the Bahamas went for independence they resisted going independent along with The Commonwealth of the Bahamas. The nation of Bermuda has held a number of polls on independence and the support there isn't enough for independence either. Montserrat was looking at the path of independence but the 1995 volcano issue put that to sleep given the conditions scattering all of the people on that island. CaribDigita (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the inhabitants of each BOT prefer the current arrangement to independence. But that is not the whole story. In some BOTs (Falklands, Gibraltar), it is disputed whether the rightful occupants are allowed entry. Some have no inhabitants (SGSSI). The residents of BIOT were expelled and it is currently uninhabited. We cannot just add selective facts. TFD (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought those islands were decided by the courts? I believe the excuse of Sea Level Rise was given for why the residents of Chagos can't go back. All I'll say is "touchy" about the other nation mentioned, 'Gibraltar', who's the rightful occupants there? CaribDigita (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

BIOT is not sinking - the UK government decided to use it as a military base and their courts have determined that the government has absolute power to do whatever they want except if parliament prevents them. According to Spain, Spanish people are the rightful inhabitants of Gibraltar and Argentina claims the Falklands and SGSSI. I do not wish to argue any opinion on the merits of these cases. The UK added Gibraltar and the Falklands to the list of non-self-governing overseas territories, which means they are obligated to provide them independence, or offer associate state status or union with the U.K. TFD (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The same documents which Argentina uses to make a claim Falkland Islands are roughly the same age as other Spanish documents claiming other parts of the former British Empire. Venezuela has claims on several islands, Trinidad and Tobago (since dormant-- but could arguably be re-activated if Argentina prevailed), as could Venezuelan claims for Barbados, Guyana (South America, formerly British Guiana), Guatemala's claims on Belize (Central America, formerly British Honduras) as they are all under documents of roughly the same era but considered a long shot due to age.

There might still be some Spanish documents claiming The Commonwealth of the Bahamas around the same time. If all the Spanish claims to the current and former British Empire were re-activated from that era the world will look really different. The Argentina claim for Falkland Islands I believe were long put to bed by referendum, whereby I believe they voted to remain British (no?). The Chagos islanders are an anomaly, but since it is being used for military, I don't believe the U.K. is looking to increase civilian usage there. Hasn't Gibraltar also held referendums on status? I'm not fully sure about BOTS further east. CaribDigita (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance your comments have to the subject of this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(Following my comments above, you expanded your posting.) That the Falklands and Gibraltar (anywhere else?) held referenda to remain as BOTs does not mean we can say that the BOTs (i.e., all of them) have voted to remain BOTs. Also it is a matter of dispute who the actual population are and Gibraltar and Falkland Islands nationality is not recognized. TFD (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Names of the Falkland Islands

Today, I removed the Spanish-language name of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) added on Friday. I was reverted on the basis that it was an "alternative name recommended per WP:NCGN#Falkland Islands".

This does not actually reflect WP:NCGN#Falkland Islands, which recommends the use of forms using Malvinas only in articles "that directly relate to the dispute". This is not credibly such an article. It recommends Spanish-language names on geographical articles, but in this case that would mean Territorios británicos de ultramar, not Islas Malvinas.

The predominant usage in English, including in neutral sources, is Falkland Islands. Most sources only refer to Islas Malvinas in the circumstances that we do, i.e. on the first instance only where there is direct relation to the dispute. They would not do so on an article such as this. Kahastok talk 19:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Former territories post-1978

Kiribati, New Hebrides, Brunei, Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis miss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisscool57 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is 1978 even being used as a cut-off date here? It doesn't seem like there was any change in status across all territories at that date. --Jfruh (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like that is as far back as the creator of the section decided to go. Most of the information can be found at Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, so it would be that difficult to complete. TFD (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was added in this edit in November 2014. Some of the key information is already in the prrose above. If there are no objections, we could boldly remove the section? Easy to undo if others disagree or propose an alternative. Whizz40 (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Made some changes to the prose of the History section and removed the table for Former territories post-1978. Whizz40 (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British Overseas Territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091001004119/http://www.fco.gov.uk:80/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/ to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325090541/http://www.caribbeannetnews.com:80/news-15149--28-28--.html to http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-15149--28-28--.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Tax

As this list contains many of the world's biggest territories used for tax evasion by multinationals and the world's rich, I'm astonished to find pretty much zero mention of this. Is this page being kept clean and presentable for political purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.88.43.98 (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Constitutions

I have inserted links to various colonial constitutions; they are helpful for issues like capital punishment, marriage etc. Colonial laws are not the same as the UK.

Relationship between the British Overseas Territories and the Crown

The lead currently states they "they share the British monarch (Elizabeth II) as head of state", which is very generic. So do the Crown dependencies and Commonwealth Realms. If they come under the British Crown directly, as I would guess, that would be notable, but I can't find a source. Rob984 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Antarctic Territory is a fiction

The claim of sovereignty over part of Antarctica is merely a claim, it is not recognised by any other sovereign government and is in fact nullified (together with all other claims of Antarctic territory) by the Antarctic Treaty. No governor has ever been appointed, no administration established, no policing, not a single sign of any on-the-ground assertion of soveregnty has ever occurred. Thus it should be removed from this article and map. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at Territorial claims in Antarctica, British Antarctic Territory, and Antarctic Treaty System and the above may not be correct, because it looks like some countries do recognize each others claims. This British Government web site provides further information: [5]. Rwood128 (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Argentine Antarctica, Australian Antarctic Territory, Chilean Antarctic Territory, Adélie Land, Ross Dependency, and Queen Maud Land all have their own articles, which are linked to from pages that are equivalent to this one for their respective countries. Also, the British government has appointed commissioners, if not governors. --Jfruh (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Table formatting

Melathron, please test the sorting in your revision (735238570). When I set it to sort by area or population, it creates 4 separate rows for Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, with differing details which are relevant to the three sub-territories. This is not helpful and very confusing. I fixed this by creating a row for the main territory, and the three rows below for the sub-territory are set to sort as "0" meaning they just go to the bottom of the table. Not perfect but at least it's not confusing or messed up. Rob984 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I notice inverse sorting doesn't work, but neither did it in the revision you reverted to. Rob984 (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it I think. Try the sorting now. The only problem is the entry will flip, so that the sub-territories of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are above the main territory. However I don't think that is a big issue and doesn't make it look messy or confusing. Rob984 (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melathron (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British Overseas Territories. 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/20110605042923/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140419/british_antarctic_territory/ to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140419/british_antarctic_territory/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605042938/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140420/british_indian_ocean_territory/ to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140420/british_indian_ocean_territory/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140629183023/http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/census/2010_PHC/Saint_Helena/Saint_Helena.pdf to http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/census/2010_PHC/Saint_Helena/Saint_Helena.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nmRM0aFO?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gibraltar.gov.gi%2Flatest_news%2Fpress_releases%2F2007%2F133-2007.pdf to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2007/133-2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130425143223/http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/project.aspx?Project=113987 to http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/project.aspx?Project=113987
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.avalanchepress.com/FortressBermuda.ph

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) 22:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on British Overseas Territories. 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/20101012142623/http://www2.gov.gg/ccm/navigation/about-guernsey/ to http://www.gov.gg/ccm/navigation/about-guernsey/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218103416/http://gov.im/Government/ to http://www.gov.im/government/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217044212/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140417/anguilla/ to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140417/anguilla/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513201237/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140425/falkland_islands/ to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140425/falkland_islands/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5o1nHWBjv?url=http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140426/gibraltar/ to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140426/gibraltar/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120524174308/http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/destination-hunter/bermuda-history-heritage.html to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/destination-hunter/bermuda-history-heritage.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610203832/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/asia-oceania/british-indian-ocean-territory?profile=all to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/asia-oceania/british-indian-ocean-territory?profile=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Overseas Territories. 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/20110717220158/http://population.mongabay.com/population/south-georgia-and-the-south-sandwich-islands/3426466/grytviken to http://population.mongabay.com/population/south-georgia-and-the-south-sandwich-islands/3426466/grytviken
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325090541/http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-15149--28-28--.html to http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-15149--28-28--.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502221314/http://www.kew.org/science/ukots/Pages/biodiv.htm to http://www.kew.org/science/ukots/Pages/biodiv.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Overseas Territories. 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/20141006173801/http://www.consoc.org.uk/other-content/about-us/discover-the-facts/what-is-the-british-constitution/in-detail/ to http://www.consoc.org.uk/other-content/about-us/discover-the-facts/what-is-the-british-constitution/in-detail/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140426/gibraltar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109220606/http://www.essaysinhistory.com/review/2011/33 to http://www.essaysinhistory.com/review/2011/33
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2007/133-2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox, Leaders

A section for 'leaders' is inappropriate and I propose removing it from the infobox. Currently there are four names on the list which is silly and against the purpose of an infobox. A better subheading would be 'minister responsible', if not just have nothing. Each BOT has its own style of local governance, which is one description of 'leader'. There is a minister responsible for the BOTs, but that ministry is within the FCO. The Queen is not a leader in the sense implied here. A country style infobox template is awkward when dealing with a collection of geographical entities or an administrative-political grouping.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The Queen is head of state for the BOT, I agree she is not a leader as such, more of a figure head. Equally the BOT come under the FCO, so there is the admin side of that. Yes the BOT govern themselves, with the only function of the FCO being to provide diplomatic representation. However, how else are we to put this into an infobox? Simply removing this summary is silly and against the purpose of an infobox, so I oppose simple removal. What is the alternative you propose? WCM_email 07:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If there needs to be something there that indicates someone "in charge" of the BOTs, then I think the best one would be the minister directly responsible for BOTS. However, I would change the word 'leader' to 'Minister responsible/of State' (Lord Ahmed I think) because 'leader' simply does not fit. If the Queen is mentioned I think it should be after the sub heading 'Monarch', as elsewhere, such as with Bermuda. To be more specific in this article, why not just remove the heading 'Leader', plus remove the Foreign secretay and the Duncan? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Queen is Head of State not just Monarch, I've no problem with removing Leader from the Infobox, nor with keeping just the Minister. WCM_email 12:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Overseas Territories. 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://www.webcitation.org/68e5D4Buo?url=http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage to http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front%3Fpagename%3DOpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage%26c%3DPage%26cid%3D1013618138295

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Government

1. Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia#Governance says that "The territory is administered by an Administrator who is also the Commander of British Forces Cyprus, which as of February 2017 has been Major-General James Illingworth.". Should this office appear in Template:British_dependencies_governors?

2. List_of_current_heads_of_government_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_dependencies#Overseas_Territories refers to e.g. the Mayor of Pitcairn Islands but makes no reference to Saint Helena. I realise that this may be because (unusually among BoTs) there appears to be no local head of government - see Politics_of_Saint_Helena#Executive_Branch, Improving Democracy and Accountability - 2013 and CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: A CHIEF COUNCILLOR? - 2013. Should the article make reference to this?

3. Template:British_dependencies_governors sorts "Governor of Saint Helena" after "South Georgia" but British_Overseas_Territories#Current_overseas_territories sorts "Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha" before "South Georgia". Which is correct?

Alekksandr (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Portal:British Overseas Territories listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:British Overseas Territories. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Absence of any discussion in lede as to UK’s disputed sovereignty

The first sentence of the article refers. The FCO’s claim (see source) as to UK sovereignty and jurisdiction is clearly biased. It is not accepted by states like the USA (in relation to Antarctica) or international bodies like the ICJ (in relation to the Chagos Islands). This ought to be properly reflected in the leade. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Worth mentioning but putting it in the first sentence of the lead is a bit undue, open to other suggestions but some of this is a not that important in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, MilborneOne is quite correct. These issues, whilst moderately important on the main article page for each territory, are really quite minor issues on this composite page. Certainly they do not belong in the lead paragraph. I have added a short section to the article to reflect the issues mentioned, but they are fully discussed on the main pages of the respective territories, which is where the detail belongs. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 18:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

In the very first sentence, as it was, we state that the BOTs are 14 territories over which the UK has sovereignty and jurisdiction. That is not accurate. Rather, it is merely the position of the UK government that a source links to. Wikipedia is about being accurate. I’m happy for the factual position to be presented some other way (I’ve suggested revised wording) but the first sentence can’t remain a wholly inaccurate one. I’m sure you’d bought agree with that User:MilborneOne and User:Timothy Titus. A wording that reflects the position is just as necessary here as it would be in say a first sentence that described the status of a territory like Northern Cyprus etc. We have to be balanced, impartial and accurate. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

To be balanced, impartial and accurate we mention any such claims in the individual articles. The lead of this article is not the place and it is clearly misleading to say the the United Kingdom does not have jurisdiction at this time. The "Disputed sovereignty" section is fine we dont need anymore, although strictly speaking the Antarctic claims are "on hold" rather than disputed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Timothy Titus, User:MilborneOne - Naturally to suggest that simply setting out the position of the United Kingdom while saying nothing of the position taken by the international community is “balanced, impartial and accurate” is something I totally disagree with. For very obvious reasons. The article goes so far as to spell out the constitutional position of the BOTs vis-a-vis the European Union but you are insisting it say nothing whatsoever about the fact that UK’s purported sovereignty is not generally recognized internationally at all over 2 of the BOTs, nor does the UK have even jurisdiction over the biggest BOT. As we don’t have any common ground on something so basic and fundamental (an obvious need for this to be addressed in the article), do you know how to get this content issue referred to an third party independent editor for their input? I know there is a system now on Wiki for doing that. I’ve never used it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Because some other peculiarities about individual BOTs are mentioned in the lead, I think it is not unreasonable or unbalanced to mention BAT at least. Any mention should be short and sweet though. What do you suggest, Frenchmalawi?Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Good addition of sub-section by Titus. There is a lot more that could be done to improve and expand that section in some way. For example, add Gibraltar and the Falklands. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The individual articles are the best place to detail the disputes properly, however a short section as added by Titus is all that is needed in this article considering the "disputes" are few and far between. Gibraltar I would not add as it is not disputed in the same way as the Falklands or the Chagos Ialands are. Why? Well Gibraltar was ceded legally by Spain to the UK in 1713 in perpetuity in the Treaty of Utrecht and reconfirmed in the treaties of Seville (1729) and the Treaty of Paris (1783). Rather Spain simply claims the territory in ignorance of past signed pledges. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Cayman and Turks and Caicos Regiments

I think we should add the two newly formed regiments of the Cayman islands and the Turks and Caicos islands on the military section of the page. ThePaganUK (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

One source contradict the other?

in this source (House of Commons - Foreign Affairs - Seventh Report) it is written that Queen's role in the territories is in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom, and not in right of each territory. But in these sources (R v ex p Quark Fishing, Overseas Territories: Seventh Report of Session 2007–08, Vol. 2: Oral and Written Evidence. London UK: The Stationery Office, 6 July 2008, pp. 49, 296–297) it is written that the Queen in exercising her authority over British Overseas Territories does not act as Queen of the United Kingdom, but in her role as Queen of each territory, with the exception of fulfilling the UK's international responsibilities for its territories. Does not one contradict the other? --Somerby (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe User:The Four Deuces can clarify my confusions? --Somerby (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood this reference [6] it doesn't state the role of HMQ as as the sovereign of the UK, it specifically states that the BOT are not part of the UK and the role of the Governor is to represent the Queen in her BOT. So there is no contradiction. Unless I'm missing something, which part of the document specifically led you to that conclusion? WCM_email 11:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with WCM. Note that the report says, "Appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, a Governor's role is to represent the Queen in the Overseas Territory". It does not say she is acting in her capacity as Queen of the UK. Compare this with the wording of the British North America Act 1867, which is part of Canada's constitution: It says that the Governor General is "carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen" (s 10). The Queen is defined in s. 2 as the Queen "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and her successors.[7] However, most Commonwealth realms have changed her title to "Queen of the [Commonwealth Realm]". In legal terms, the difference between a BOT and a Commonwealth realm is that in the first case the British Privy Council and Parliament act as the council and parliament for the BOT, while in the second, these functions are carried on by local councils and parliaments. TFD (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

TFD, I did not fully understand you. Dor example, Gibraltar Parliament or Parliament of the United Kingdom act as parliament for the BOT? If it is Gibraltar Parliament, then what is the difference with a Commonwealth realm in legal terms? --Somerby (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The British Parliament legislates for Gibraltar and the Gibraltar parliament derives its authority from the British parliament. A simpler example is the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI), which was the subject of Quark Fishing. It has no permanent population and hence no local legislature. When the British parliament legislates for the SGSSI, it is doing so in its capacity as the legislature for the SGSSI, not for the UK. In the largest Commonwealth realms, the British parliament continued to legislate for them until the 1980s.

The legal difference is that Parliament has declared one set of the Queen's territories to be CRs and another to be BOTs. While CRs and BOTs differ in many ways, I don't think you say that there is one feature that is decisive.

I suggest you read the judgment in full, since it should answer all your questions.

TFD (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)