Talk:Territorial evolution of the British Empire

message: This is a work in progress. Status and dates may not be correct. The list refers to current and former British territories as far as Britain is concerned, so it may not reflect a universal neutral POV. For example, Falkland Islands is listed as a British overseas territory, but it has been claimed by Argentina. 
The source of this table mostly originates from the WorldStatesmen site. Whereas dates and status are unclear, other sources were referenced. Input and suggestion are welcomed. --Kvasir 07:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: === Definition ===
British Nationality Act 1981:
The United Kingdom's dependent territories on 1 January 1983 were Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands and Dependencies, Gibraltar, Hong Kong (not been a dependent territory since 30 June 1997), Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St. Christopher and Nevis (not been a dependent territory since 18 September 1983), St. Helena and Dependencies, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, Turks and Caicos Islands and Virgin Islands.
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were the "Dependencies" of the Falkland Islands, but were not dependent territories during the period 3 October 1985 - 3 December 2001.
Since 26 February 2002, the British dependent territories have been officially known as "British overseas territories" and British Dependent Territories citizens(hip) as "British overseas territories citizens(hip)".
--Kvasir 10:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: British Nationality Act 1981:
The United Kingdom's dependent territories on 1 January 1983 were Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands and Dependencies, Gibraltar, Hong Kong (not been a dependent territory since 30 June 1997), Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St. Christopher and Nevis (not been a dependent territory since 18 September 1983), St. Helena and Dependencies, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, Turks and Caicos Islands and Virgin Islands.
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were the "Dependencies" of the Falkland Islands, but were not dependent territories during the period 3 October 1985 - 3 December 2001.
Since 26 February 2002, the British dependent territories have been officially known as "British overseas territories" and British Dependent Territories citizens(hip) as "British overseas territories citizens(hip)".
--Kvasir 10:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

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

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

message: Section completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 02:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oceania + Pacific and South America 

message: Section completed, up for correction and edits. --Kvasir 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central America and the Caribbean 

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

message: Isn't "annexation" the word used to describe the Statute of Rhuddlan and Acts of Union 1536-1543? --Kvasir 15:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  England and Wales 

message: Kvasir - nice work. The only obvious gaps I noticed were Hong Kong and India (when did parts eg Kashmir become part of the Raj?). Good luck! (JD)
:Thank you. As you've noticed, Africa, Asia and North America are a bit of a stub at a moment. There are just way too many territories to go through. I have just added Hong Kong for you at the moment. May be you can help with the rest! --Kvasir 21:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance 

message: What's the source for Rupert's Land being part of the Province of Quebec from 1774 to 1783? I've never heard of this and suspect it's an error. Indefatigable 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is mostly referenced from www.worldstatesmen.org and then verified with related wiki articles. This one is from http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Canada_Provinces_P-Y.html . The territorial transfer/creation in Northwest Territories is particularly messy... So any help for that area would be appreciated. --Kvasir 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rupert's Land and Quebec 

message: This article lists ALL territories associated with the British Empire and England, even for temporary war-time occupation. Personal unions are certainly included here for the case of some Dutch provinces and german states. For the Dutch provinces they were under William III of Orange with England sharing the same monarch. Please be clear that this or the article by no means imply that England ruled over the Dutch. --Kvasir 06:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Netherlands/German States

message: The graph lists the British Empire as loosing Canada in 1940-1949.  I can't guess why that'd be, eh?  1867, 1931 or 1982 are all plausible years for Canadian Independance - 1940-1949 is not.  Others may be similarly wrong (for example, Australia is also listed as 1940-1949, which is a choice I can't figure out) WilyD 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the graph is based on either. I'm also skeptical of the unit, as the empire was measured in lineal units. Your best bet is ask the author. --Kvasir 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph

message: What a splendid piece of work. However, a better term is needed to describe the current status of Scotland and Wales. Guinnog 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. After a short research I've seen "country"; "home country"; "home nation" etc. Not sure what the official, politically correct term is. --Kvasir 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Home rule?

message: Besides the overall sense of fanboy Anglomania, one major problem with the map on this page is the position of Louisiana, which has been shifted west several hundred kilometers, thus artificially increasing the size of British territory represented on the American mainland. Compare :Image:LouisianaPurchase.png and :Image:Map of territorial growth 1775.jpg; the course of the southern Mississippi actually follows a longitude parallel to the western shore of Lake Huron. I've hand-drawn a much more accurate representation of the Louisiana boundary at :Image:Spanish Empire.png, and this could be used to solve the above problem. I will do so myself if no one objects. Albrecht 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not? The more accurate the map is the better. One thing readers have to realise is that this article is really about the list and not the graphics. The graphic map is nice to help visualise the extent of the territories, but when viewed in such a small scale in the main page it shouldn't really be the focus. Besides, any concern regarding the map itself should be addressed to the author of the map. It would've been even more helpful if you can add a Lousiana / BNA entry in the table. --Kvasir 05:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisiana and British North America 

message: The German state of Hanover was not part of the British Empire, so I have removed it from the list.  It was never under the authority of the Westminster parliament, either in theory or in practice, and retained its own government and other institutions.  It merely shared its head of state with Great Britain.  Silverhelm 03:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto the Netherlands.  Silverhelm 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electorate/Kingdom of Hanover and the Netherlands

message: This article's name doesn't accurately represent its contents; I'm also a firm believer that Wikipedia articles that are lists should be clearly identified as such in their title. Unless anyone can come up with a better name, I propose renaming it to List of territories of the British Empire.  Silverhelm 12:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the short list in the section "Treaties and Acts" is the start of something useful that should perhaps form an article of its own; perhaps "Timeline of the British Empire"?  Silverhelm 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the title "Evolution of territories connected to the English and British crown" is more in-line with my original purpose of this article. I really intended to include medieval territories and other pre-HVIII stuff since "British Empire" itself was really arbitrary and contentious as we have discovered people are particular with these kind of stuff. When i first started the article i really intended the word British to mean geographically as in British Isles, not the difference between Britain and England in the political sense. What do you think? --Kvasir 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Not listed. Should it be in? Jooler 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely!  I've mainly been trying to tidy up the more recent stuff (19th-century onwards), which I'm more familiar with; but I'm sure there are lots of factories and so on from earlier periods that are missing.  Silverhelm 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tangier_Garrison]]

message: I see in the map labelled 'The British Empire in 1897’ there is a part of Greenland shown as part of the Empire. The map contains the note ‘This map shows parts of Greenland as part of the British Empire. This region was never occupied by the British and the claim was contested by Denmark, which continued to claim sovereignty over all of Greenland.’ Aside from this note, however, I can find no reference to any part of Greenland being claimed by the British in articles on the Empire or on Greenland. Looking at the map the area appears to be labelled ‘Prudhoe Land’; again I can find no reference to such a territory. If anyone does have any information about this I would find it very helpful if they could put some details on this page. --Phunting 1000, 29 Dec 2006
:"West England," a part of Greenland, was claimed by Martin Frobisher on behalf of Queen Elizabeth in June 1578.  This, like Meta Incognita on Baffin Island, was not settled at the time, and anyway, it was much farther south, near Cape Farewell, Greenland. The area on the 1897 map might be a claim from Elisha Kane's 1854 expedition. He named "Peabody Bay," which appears on the map, which is now called Kane Basin. --Goustien (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenland?

message: User:157.244.201.135 added the following to the article at 20:43 UTC 12 January 2007: "Note to Wikipedia: the following table should be amended by adding British Columbia as a colony from 1858 to 1871 when it became a province of Canada."  I moved it here to the talk page. He/she is right: B.C. is missing, as is New Caledonia. Indefatigable 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding British Columbia 

message: The anachronous map is good but doesnt show the expansion and decline over time. How about a new page with a series of maps showing the British Empire at different periods, similar to Territorial evolution of the United States? There is already the 1921 map, this could be used as the basis for making other years. --Astrokey44 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This presents some difficulties. First we would need so many maps to depict the constant (change possibly every couple years) reflecting the territorial gain and loss, not to mention the changing TYPES of the territory. Second, if we were to use snap shot, such as every 10 years or whatever, it would not reflect an actual evolution that was happening. One of the reasons i created this article was that at that time, the British Empire article had one or two maps and then a list of territories accompanying each of the maps. Then I thought, why just 1921? Then i decided to make this article summarising and tracing how each territory evolved. If one feel ambitious, one could create an animated gif emcompassing each year since the beginning until today. Territorial change could be achieved through colour change on the map i suppose. --Kvasir 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an animated map showing colonisation of different empires, and modified it to include only Britain. There are problems (when to remove the dominions for one thing), but this is a start. --Astrokey44 09:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job on finding the map. Though I could say less about the article, it's been adulterated from the original purpose when all it needed was an accurate title. --Kvasir 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map series 

message: Ok, this article was really intended to be a list, a quick summary of what and what kind of territories that are and were connected to Britian/England. There's really no need for paragraphs to explain what each of the term means. Especially the first 5 paragraphs, there is really no need to discuss Ireland and Hanover specifically either. We already have the main articles for that especially on British Empire. I suggest we return to the original list of different types of Commonwealth/British territories before we move on to the main territory evolution list. 
On the other hand. The originally introductory paragraph has been so chopped up and dissected that the originally intent of the article was lost. The purpose of the list must be outlined there. 
Just want others to comment before I delete those. --Kvasir 04:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leading paragraphs

message: This article should make mention of the above and the acquisition of Bombay and the Tangier Garrison etc. Jooler 23:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tangier Garrison still missing - I'm sure I put this in a previous incarnation of this article. Jooler (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dowry of [[Catherine of Braganza]] 

message: Griqualand West was a British colony from declaration in 1873 - absorbtion into Cape Colony 1880.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Griqualand West? 

message: In the list, could the use of green to show independance and red to show British Overseas Territories be a little biased, considering the implications of those colours? I know that imperialism is generally considered to be "bad" (to say the least) but it just seems against the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia to have such a blatantly opinionated feature being used. It just seems unlikely that the red/green dichotomy would be used if it wasn't so obviously for that reason. 82.3.50.60 (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite possibly the most bizarre statement I have ever read on Wikipedia.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implicit prejudice in use of colour? 

message: 46 days at BsAs due British invasions of the Río de la Plata --Jor70 (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: South America

message: The entries after the flag are formatted incorrectly  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.102 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Antarctica display problem 

message: Suriname, South America was traded back to the Dutch in exchange for Britain taking over New York.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.209.235.20 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suriname, South America for New York City area. 

message: At present the listing has a Legend which suggests that the following have been identified: 
    	                                                           	    	
!±! 	Crown dependency                                           	    	Part of United Kingdom
:±: 	Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, and Commonwealth realm	    	Overseas territories
£IMP	Currency pegged to the GBP                                 	CYP 	Pound sterling derived currency
!T! 	Common law legal system to various extent                  	[X] 	Westminster style parliamentary system
abc 	English as a dominant or an official language              	/\\/	Rule of road drive on the left
I have a couple of problems with this:
# The listing is (unavoidably) lengthy as it is, and should be kept to a minimum of information for each entry to reduce the amount of work needed to (a) verify that what's there already is correct, and (b) research what's been omitted.  The latter point is not trivial, as the information for which symbols exist in the Legend is missing for the vast majority of territories currently included in the listing.
# Most of these symbols identify matters which can vary (and have done so) with time.  For example, a number of Caribbean territories switched over to the pound sterling in the nineteenth century; conversely, a number of Caribbean territories switched over in the twentieth century to a local or regional currency pegged to the US dollar.  Thus, a symbol is inadequate to convey the information required of it; this is a listing encompassing 400 years of history, after all.
Surely much of this detail is best left to other Wikipedia listings, with this particular listing confining itself to a "See also" section with relevant links?
Also, the Legend has both a symbol and a colour-coding for identifying the Crown dependencies.  Clearly this is silly.  My preference would be to have just the colour-coding; the explanatory material for the listing already identifies the individual Crown dependencies by name, so that should hopefully get round any usability issues.  (Using made-up ASCII symbols seems rather unprofessional, too!)
Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much information! 

message: Two issues with this section:
* it claims to be a listing of documents, but a number of entries are of a different sort, belonging instead to a timeline of events; and 
* whether it should be just a list of documents, or should be split into separate lists of documents and of events, or whatever, it should be moved to its own page.
Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Territorial evolution of the British Empire#Treaties and Acts of Parliament, etc.|Treaties and Acts of Parliament, etc.]] 

message: By any reputable account Iceland was never part of the British Empire from 1940-1944. Yes British forces came to help defend it in 1940 and then left in 1941 when US forces arrived to take over defence duties. The Icelandic people had ruled themselves since 1918 and the remaining link with Denmark was the Monarchy, which disappeared in 1944 when the people voted on a republic. During the period 1940-1944 Iceland retained full responsibility for its own governance. This entry should therefore be deleted.
Freedom1968 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceland part of British Empire, 1940-1944? 

message: Again this is a misinterpretation of historical events. What happened in 1945-1946 in Vietnam was military intervention in a French Colony on behalf of France. As the British had available forces in the area and the French as yet did not, they were able to intervene and restore order after the Vietnamese nationalists declared their indpendence. The area remained a French Colony, so it is I think wrong to include it in this table.
Freedom1968 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Vietnam part of the British Empire 1945-1946? 

message: If we include Calais in this table, why should we not then include The Duchy of Normandy and The Duchy of Aquitaine which were both Angevin possessions under Kings Henry II to John? Also at the death of Henry V his son Henry VI succeeded as King of France as well, because the peace treaty with France signed by Henry V stipulated that would happen. 
Freedom1968 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue in the opposite direction: we don't include Normandy, Aquitaine, etc. so it doesn't seem to make sense to include Calais; these territories aren't included within conventional definitions of "British Empire".  It may be that someone felt that the sort-of incorporation of Calais within England during the (early) modern period merited its inclusion.  But unless someone objects, I suggest it be removed.  Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As Andrew Gwilliam says, none of the conventional definitions of the "British Empire" goes so far back. The possessions of the Crown in France had their origin in the Duchy of Normandy (which was never an English duchy) and in other personal claims of the English kings. In a similar way, Hanover shared our monarch from 1714 to 1837 without being considered part of the British Empire. In any event, all of these arguably English possessions in France had been lost long before the Union of the Crowns began to create a "British" identity in the modern sense. Moonraker (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we include Calais in the table but not Normandy, Aquitaine or France? 

message: Dunkirk was captured by a joint Cromwellian/French force in 1658 and sold back to France by Charles II in 1662. Tournai was conquered by Henry VIII in 1513 and like Calais represented briefly in Parliament. It was given up in 1519. 
If you agree to the inclusion in the table of these two then I think my suggestion for including Normandy and Aquitaine will need to be reconsidered, particularly because Ireland was aquired at roughly the same time and it is in the table. On the other hand you may take a more doctrinaire approach and argue that this article is about the "British" not the "English" empire. Any views?
Freedom1968 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disapprove of describing English possessions before 1707 as "British", but I accept that this is an old-fashioned attitude and has little support from the latest reliable sources. Certainly, if Dunkirk was English and arguably British in the second half of the 17th century then the case for including it is similar to that of English Tangier and it should not be thrown in with the medieval possessions of the Crown in France. I have the opposite view of Tournai. Moonraker (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunkirk 1658-1662 and Tournai 1513-1519 ? 

message: In view of several entries on the table which did not seem appropriate to a table of British Empire, due to not actually being part of the British Empire, should we have an article listing those territories occupied at some stage?
Freedom1968 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can give a general answer to that, Freedom1968. Do you have any other page titles in mind? Moonraker (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  British occupied territories administered by England/United Kingdom 

message: Anyone want to add Kuwait 1899-1961, and Qatar 1916-1971?
Freedom1968 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuwait 1899-1961 and Qatar 1916-1971 to be added? 

message: The definition of dominions begins with: Dominions appeared in the early part of the twentieth century. Then Canada is shown as becoming a dominion in 1867.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.216.158 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes to late 19th century. Thanks. CMD (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominions 

message: Hello everybody, after a long gap due to a serious illness that almost killed me I have returned.
I would like to start a new discussion here on the subject of the entries under Europe. First of all you will see I have deleted several entries under that subsection as they really don't seem to qualify for inclusion as members of the British Empire. All were subject to occupation but were never regarded as part of the empire. 
I doubt very much the Germans or Italians ever thought of themselves as members of the Empire, however grateful (or not) they were for their liberation. The occupation of those countries was not of course a solely British act, and Allied Control Commissions were set up for both countries. The Dodecanese formally remained under Italian sovreignty until the 1947 peace treaty, although it was clear that they would never be returned to their civilian control and that Greece was expected to gain control. 
If you don't agree with these changes then by all means revert the changes, but I think they are fact based, not original research and help tidy up the entries.
Whilst doing those changes I was mystified why the UK in all its forms should be included. The home countries (and here I exclude for special reasons Ireland) of England, Wales and Scotland need to be treated not as colonies or subordinate territories but as a whole. The union of Scotland and England was a union of two sovereign states. Wales was a conquered territory but became an integral part of England. One definition of Empire is the subject to control of territories outside the metropolitan territory of the home country, which is also why I think why should not include the home countries.
That said I am sure my comments will provoke a few thoughts, but I felt it was better to raise them before attempting to delete these entries. If the consensus is that they should remain I will abide by that.
Freedom1968 (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Freedom1968, all of the home countries were part of the British Empire, just as much as Austria and Hungary were parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The term "British Empire" never excluded the industrial and financial heart of the Empire and the seat of its "imperial parliament". Moonraker (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Congratulations on your recovery from this serious illness. Glad to have you back! Moonraker (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

text: My first comment is that no definition of the British Empire, however wide, would take in Roman Britain or the Heptarchy. If this list is suggesting the periods and events to be listed alongside "United Kingdom", Freedom1968, then most of these belong alongside "England", "Ireland", "Scotland", or "Great Britain", each of which is distinct from the United Kingdom, created in 1801. Conflating all of these countries might make the table look a little less complicated, but the world is complicated and there is no getting away from it. Moonraker (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should they be deleted? 

message: I am a bit confused about what the actual status of Cyprus was between 1914 and 1925. Between 1878 and 1914 the territory was administered by the UK by agreement with the Ottoman Empire. It was still formally under the sovereignty of the Turkish Empire, so I guess this would make it a leased territory rather like that of the New Territories of Hong Kong beween 1898 and 1997?
 
However although annexed by the UK in 1914 on the outbreak of war by with the Ottoman Empire, it was not formally declared a Crown Colony like so many other territories following annexation until 1925. Did it have a separate Sui Generis status until 1925 or was it a Protectorate? To add to the confusion I note that according to UK nationality legislation at the time Cypriot inhabitants born on the Island were treated from 1914 as British Subjects as if they had been a British Crown Colony. The issue does not seem clear to me and I would welcome clarification if anyone can provide it.
Freedom1968 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the status of Cyprus between 1914 and 1925? 

message: Notwithstanding previous discussions about Calais on these pages, should it be deleted?
If the lands, such as the Angevin lands in France, are not included because they do not constitute lands traditionally accepted by most sources as being part of the "British Empire" but feudal-Medieval domains, does this not then include Calais? Calais was acquired in 1347 and held until 1558. Apart from Ireland and the Isle of Man this was the only territory (other than the Channel Isles) then held outside of the British Isles by an English monarch. It was the sole remaining territory of the extensive English territories in France (except the Channels Islands). It was lost long before any of the later colonial territories were acquired. 
The only other territory held outside of the British Isles and Channel Islands during this time was Tournai (1513-1519) captured by Henry VIII, and held only briefly. I previously suggested it too should be included if Calais was. I accepted the arguement that it should not, but I think for the sake of balance that Calais too should not be included because it was a feudal-Medieval remant of the previous era and it would also be an anachronism to include it. Contemporaries never saw it as a Colony, and indeed it was represented in the English Parliament, unlike later British Colonies. 
On reflection if a date has to be assigned to the beginnings of Empire (English, British whatever), then it occurs during the reign of James I & VI (1603-1625). Although English trading activities with India started at very end of Elizabeth's reign (Foundation of the East India Company 1600) and there was Sir Walter Raleigh's abortive attempt at colonisation on Roanake Island (1587), it was only in James's reign that true colonisation really started. The terms "British" and even "Empire" are therefore appropriate from that time, even though politically there was no union between England and Scotland before 1707 (Cromwell's forced union excepted) and even if those living at the time did not use the terms in the way we do today. 
Before anyone raises the dreaded OR stamp, let me just say that I have no intention of inserting the above in the article. All of what I write above is from sources already known and accepted, even within Wikipedia. I just think it is worth consideration in the context of the starting point for the article. 
Freedom1968 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calais should be deleted? 

message: Can someone add Sri Lanka because i didn't see it.
Steve92341 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgot one country 

message: This map doesnt seem to have any of the thirteen colonies that later rebelled and formed the United States  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.182.187 (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia are listed. The others remain to be done. Goustien (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Be bold and add them. As far as I can tell, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia are listed as well as several predecessor colonies. Massachusetts Bay Colony is listed as a predecessor to New Hampshire but probably should be listed in its own right (as a predecessor to New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) That means that Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut Colony, Province of New Jersey, Province of New York, Province of Maryland, Province of Pennsylvania and Delaware Colony are missing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking 13 colonies... 

message: This sentence in the lede is not clear
When the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707 by the union of the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England, the latter country's colonial possessions passed to the new state.
because it suggests that only England's colonies passed to the Kingdom of Great Britain. Didn't Scotland have settlers in Nova Scotia, and did those settlements (although disputed in an ongoing war with France and first nations) pass to the new kingdom? If so, should there be a passing mention? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Scottish colonies in 1707? 

message: Unlike England and Ireland, Scotland doesn't get a mention before the accession of James VI to the English throne in 1603. Wasn't it from time to time a feudal vassal state of England in the late medieval, Tudor and Elizabethan times, and if so, doesn't that deserve a brief mention in the list? In any case, should Scotland and Wales get brief mentions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  England in the main list, but not Scotland or Wales 

message: The following territories aren't in the list but were territories of the British Empire -- shouldn't they be included? Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Arctic Territories, New Albion, Red River Colony, New Caledonia
DanTrent (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Territories 

message: The article says it went from being a "possession" to a "crown dependency" in 1827. Is there a source with detail for this? I've found several things online saying that exact same thing, but with no further detail as to the law or method, or even date. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isle of Man in 1827