Talk:British subject

Australian citizens / British subjects

Re recent edits by an anonymous IP address, now apparently by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, really take the cake. The reference to the relevant Australian statute is in the body of the article! Andrew Yong (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hence between 1 January 1983 and 1 May 1987 a British citizen and an Australian citizen were both British subjects under Australian law, but not under United Kingdom law." - that is your interpretation, is it not? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984, which was an amendment to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (previously the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948), which as originally enacted read:

PART II.—BRITISH NATIONALITY.

7.—(1.) A person who, under this Act, is an Australian citizen or, by an enactment for the time being in force in a country to which this section applies, is a citizen of that country shall, by virtue of that citizenship, be a British subject.

(2.) The countries to which this section applies are the following countries, namely, the United Kingdom and Colonies, Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

Andrew Yong (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The date on which Australian citizens ceased to be British subjects differs under the laws of different countries. Andrew Yong has just quoted a part (partII) of the 1948 Australian act which was repealed by the 1984 Australian act. It does indeed mean that while Australian citizens had ceased being British subjects under UK law since 1st January 1983, they nevertheless continued to be British subjects under Australian law for a while after that. To the best of my knowledge, Australian citizens are still British subjects under New Zealand law, unless the New Zealand Citizenship act of 1977 has been amended. These details do not have much practical significance because the legal status of being a British subject does not have any administrative significance nowadays. The practical significance of being a British subject declined after the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants act. By 1983, it meant virtually nothing in real terms. Rights of abode in the UK are nowadays based on whether or not you are a British citizen, and not on whether or not you are a British subject. I think that Andrew Yong perhaps failed to emphasize that his quote is part II of the 1948 act, but that part II of the 1948 act was repealed by the 1984 act. Rather than considering all these many dates regarding the fizzling out of an archaic terminology, it is better to look at the overall picture. Prior to 1948, there was one nationality for all the British Empire. A Canadian losing his passport in Sydney would have obtained a new passport there, and that new passport would have been an Australian passport describing him as a British subject, born in Toronto, or wherever. After 1948 each unit within the empire got its own citizenship. But all these units mutually legislated that the status of 'British subject (or commonwealth citizen)' would remain an umbrella term. The significance of this umbrella term had pretty well fizzled out by the 1970's. David Tombe (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When did white British subjects born in Great Britain lose the right to settle automatically in Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartcottis (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just looked at the main article and I think the point has been written up very well. I don't think that those citation tags are necessary because it's simply a matter of looking through the citizenship legislation of all the commonwealth countries. That would be an arduous task. I have already checked out Singapore, Pakistan, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea. They all clearly state 'commonwealth citizen' as being the only recognized term. David Tombe (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Those citation tags can be removed because the facts are fully sourced in the relevant citizenship laws. David Tombe (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

John Tulloch

This might serve as an independent (non-government) source:

• Prof John Tulloch, 7/7 London bomb survivor, fights to stay in UK – BBC, 2 September 2012

More material is available here: John Tulloch (lecturer)#Possible deportation -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What is a British Subject?

Why isn't there a description of what a British Subject is currently in the lead? Regards, Rob (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been bugging me for some time, so I've finally rewritten it. Hopefully clearer now! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British subject. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027125032/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/Acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_12 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_12#pt12-l1g109

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Template:Tlx).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Added "United States" section + "Windrush Scheme" implications missing

Missing info section added a couple of days ago, if anyone wants a redacted pic of such an Irish British national's "British Subject, with abode status" passport type (perhaps for upload by someone knowledgeable to do so to wiki commons), see here: https://i.imgur.com/UlnJwdA.jpg

Also, see details pertaining to the rights for such "Subject, with abode" passport holders to obtain full Citizen passport under the recent "Windrush Scheme" --Jimthing (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)