Talk:Crown Dependencies

Currency

Are Channel Island currencies accepted in the UK, like Scottish and Northern Irish are (even if the shopkeeper thinks you are strange)?

See British banknotes and Legal tender. But generally not worth the bother trying in England - exchange them at par in a bank.

Man vyi 17:43, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

"Like Scottish notes, they are not legal tender within the UK, but are sometimes accepted particularly at UK ports of arrival from the Channel Islands." This is confusing, Scotland is part of the UK. Should it say England and Wales?

Please see the articles referenced above. The quotation is correct, as Scottish notes are not legal tender in any part of the UK, including Scotland. 82.152.178.215 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Differences from dependencies and protectorates

What is the difference between a crown dependency and an overseas territory? (Apart from the "overseas" part?) Ben Arnold 22:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put simply, the overseas territories are generally colonies of the United Kingdom (most now having moved to self-government, but the government was established by the UK). The Crown dependencies are territories that had their own system of government before they became attached to the Crown: in the case of the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, the Duke of Normandy became King of England; and for the Isle of Man, the Crown acquired the Lordship of Man. A protectorate is a territory that accepts (or is forced to accept) a level of outside control. The case of the Crown dependencies is theoretically closer to a personal union. Man vyi 07:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that the former does not belong to the UK, the latter does.

Also, Man vyi, you are confusing the UK with the sovereign of the UK, i.e., the monarch. Crown dependencies are held directly by the sovereign, not through the sovereign's largest possession, the UK. SamEV 21:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anything I wrote above could be interpreted as confusing the UK with the sovereign of the UK. Perhaps you could explain where you think my attempted explanation is confusing (so I can improve my explanatory style for next time)? Your explanation is certainly clear and more concise than mine! Man vyi 13:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Way to take criticism, Man!

Anyhoo, I happen to agree with you; you did not confuse the two. I'm sorry. I do have this one quibble left, this sentence: "The Crown dependencies are territories that had their own system of government before they became attached to the Crown..." This implies that this is the essential difference. In fact, the essential difference is only that crown dependencies are possessions of the monarchy that are wholly separate from the UK, which happens to be the queen's largest possession, as I wrote (or attempted to). Overseas territories, on the other hand, are under the UK's sovereignty. SamEV 02:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right - the fact that the systems of government of the Crown dependencies have origins that pre-date the relationship with the Crown is incidental to the status of Crown dependency. It is, in my defence, a difference between the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories (whose systems of government were established by the UK) and as such an answer to the question. Nice working with you! Man vyi 07:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. And not a bad defense. Keep up the good work. SamEV 06:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading the above illuminating dicussion makes me wonder: what is the distinction between a crown dependency and a Commonwealth realm? I mean, I know the practical answer: Commonwealth realms are independent countries while crown dependencies are not. But how exactly is that not-independence expressed legally? I mean, they aren't possessions of a sovereign state (the UK); so what prevents them from being considered sovereign states themselves? --Jfruh 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that the major diference is that UK (Westminster) Government no longer has the ability legislate for Commonwealth Realms. They had to request consent following the Statute of Westminster 1931, and lost the ability completely following later legislation (such as the Canada Act and the Australia Act). Jersey now is in the post-1931 Commonwealth state (there is a law that requires consent of local legislature) whereas Guernsey and Man only have a covention on this - Westminster could still intervene and has occasionally used the threat of this to get changes made. 82.152.178.215 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, but why does Westminster have the right to intervene at all? Surely that right belongs to the Queen, not the government of another kingdom of which she happens to be sovereign. I guess what I'm trying to get my head around is: if the crown dependencies aren't possessions of another sovereign state, in what legal sense are they not sovereign states themselves? --Jfruh 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

They are possessions of the British Crown, and are what are known in international law as 'law units' (seperate legislatures and adminstrations) of a country (Dicey and Morris, p26) - 'not one of them [the Home Nations] is a State known to public international law'. They are therefore considered sub-sovereign states - although the legal nicities of the dividing lines between British soveignty (which is the 'sovereign state' they are possessions of), and the UK are rather hard to spot sometimes.

Furthermore, Westminster intervenes via the process of an 'Order in Council', made by the British Crown, and importantly the Privy Councillor in question is a UK minister. All Royal Assent to legislative Acts of Crown Dependencies is also given or withheld by the Queen acting on the advice of a UK minister (currently the Lord Chancellor), and both are extremely important differences with Commonwealth Realms (which had the right to have their own ministers 'advise' since 1931). Therefore the UK presently has de facto control over the Crown Dependecies, even if de jure it is the Queen who nominally acts. Also, it has long been accepted that the Westminster (UK) Parliament has supremacy over those of the Crown Dependencies in those areas where it chooses to legislate (see Manx Public Law, Isle of Man Law Society/Tynwald, 1997 - pages 53-57). In the case of the Isle of Man, Tynwald was reconstituted by the UK Parliament following reinvesture (control by the British Crown), and the powers of Tynwald are those that have been granted since then (up until the 1950s) by the UK Parliament in dribs and drabs. As late as 1969 the Channel Islands didn't have any right to legislate for their own postal services, and it took UK legislation to grant them that right.

I hope that sheds some further light on it all - it's certainly a byzantine subject. Mauls 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a similar question: What is the difference between the Crown Dependencies today and the Proprietary colonies during the early English/British colonization?72.27.62.125 20:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Discrepency

The Crown dependency article claims the Crown dependencies, including the Isle of Man, have associate membership in the EU, however, the article on Isle of Man claims it is neither a member, nor an associate member of the EU. Can anyone cite a definite source so that we may resolve this discrepency one way or the other? Johntex\^talk 20:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The UK government Department for Consitutional Affairs explains the situation [1] for other UK official bodies thus:

• 16.The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not Member States nor are they part of the UK Member State.
• 17. The relationship of the Islands to the European Community is governed by Article 299(6)(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and by Protocol 3 to the UK's Act of Accession to the Community. By virtue of Article 299(6)(c), the EC Treaty applies to the Islands only to the extent described in Protocol 3. This provides that Community rules on customs matters and quantitative restrictions apply to the Islands under the same conditions as they apply to the UK; the Islands are inside the Community Customs Territory and certain aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy are applicable in order to allow free movement in agricultural products.
• 18. Community provisions on the free movement of persons and services do not apply to the Islands. Islanders benefit from these provisions within the rest of the Community only if they have close ties with the UK (i.e. if they, a parent or grandparent were born, adopted or naturalised in the UK or have at any time been ordinarily resident in the UK for five years).
• 19. The Islands neither contribute to nor are eligible to benefit from Community funds. They are not subject to Community measures on taxation, nor are they for any purposes within the EU's fiscal territory.
• 20. Protocol 3 also provides for the application in the Islands of the European Coal and Steel Community unified tariff. The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) Treaty applies to persons and undertakings established in the Islands.

The problem of concise definition is that the CI and IoM are clearly not members of the EU, but are clearly "associated" with it through the Protocol without being "associated states". Man vyi 10:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

English Crown?

Interesting that the official British monarchy pages on this subject refers to the Crown dependencies as being "dependent territories of the English Crown"... mistake or a technicality?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4676.asp

Does the Wikipedia article address this in any way? David (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked into this, but could not find anything definite. It would be similar to the situtation that countries formed prior to the formation of the UKofGBandNI have. For example, Canada's constitution referes to the crown and queen of the UKofGBandI, but that crown no longer exists either. Quick reading of the various Acts constituting the settlement of the crown and the formation of the Union would also modify the crowns passage. So, the wording is correct, but subsequent changes makes it technically not so. But I will send an email to Man's Parliament and see if they have an opinion on this.Gary Joseph (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Colonies?

Taken from the first line of the current (14/06/08, 1:00 GMT) version of this page:

"The Crown Dependencies are possessions of The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, as opposed to overseas territories or colonies of the United Kingdom."

Both Crown dependencies and overseas territories link to the correct pages, after all they are terms used by the British government and have a commonly accepted meaning. On the other hand, 'Colonies' links to a generic article about 19'th century empire building with some weak logic linking it to today's 'colonies'. I am not a regular editor on wikipedia, and accordingly I will not edit this page, but I believe that this reference is not NPOV.

Would it be possible for those who currently upkeep this article reconsider this particular entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.127.145 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "overseas territories" is just a PC replacement for colony. Even before the term was introduced for example, Bermuda which has long reached the highest level of colonial advancement possible, was still refered to as a Crown Colony albeit a self governing one. So it's basically the same thing and which term you would personally use would depend on your political persuasion, both however being perfectly valid. Christopedia (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Crown Dependencies should be moved to Crown dependency per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose See [2], they are known as Crown Dependencies, the one example you picked up has a capitilisation error. As I said on your talk page, I presume this is a good faith edit but by actually changing the name you would confuse rather than educate the reader. Regards, Justin talk 11:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC).

Comment. A notice at your linked page clearly says: "This site is no longer updated and is retained for archive purpose only. The Ministry of Justice is now responsible for this information." AND the link I provided is just from the UK Ministry of Justice website. How can we conclude that my page has an error and your page has not? And even on the page you provied, the singular form Crown Dependency is also used. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), page title should be in the singular unless that term is always in a plural form in English. Therefore Crown Dependencies should be at least moved to Crown Dependency. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also [3], [4], [5]. It seems to me, but this is hardly scientific, that in the Crown Dependencies the term is generally capitalised, but since the words "Bailiwick" and "Island" are regularly capitalised as well in the Channel Islands, this may be a function of style and usage in English that is not as generally favoured outside the CDs. Man vyi (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But I can also find pages like this from Isle of Man Government website, which use lowercased Crown dependency. And, please notice that the pages you provided also use the singular form Crown Dependency. That means that this article should at least be renamed to singular title.--Neo-Jay (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there's any consistency between, or within, countries; neither am I arguing for or against singular or plural. I think all I did was point out the likely lack of any consistency to be found in appealing to external documents such as [6]. Man vyi (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And further inconsistency: we have British overseas territories but Crown colony. Man vyi (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. If there is likely lack of any consistency in external documents, then we should follow Wikipedia's naming conventions including Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No you're incorrect. Crown Dependencies is the correct term used for the collective group of territories that includes the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, each of which is a Crown Dependency. This article concerns the Crown Dependencies. British overseas territories isn't usually capitalised, whereas Crown Dependency or Crown Dependencies is. See [7], [8], [9] for example, all of which are official HMG documents. Finding incorrect use of the term on a few websites is not a justification for repeating the mistake on Wikipedia. We should strive for accuracy. Justin talk 14:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I've always known them as the "Crown Dependencies", when compared to the number of refs that state it as such, it certainly seems possible that the above links could just be one-off mistakes. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There are two different issues here: whether the name should be capitalised, and whether it should be plural.

The first hangs on whether we consider "Crown Dependency" to be a proper noun. Having done searches of the websites of Guernsey, Jersey and the IOM governments: (Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man). In all three cases, from a bit of a straw poll it appears to be most common for both words to be capitalised, and that the word "crown" is almost always capitalised (which suggests a proper noun). Further, the documents found with "dependency" in lower case - particularly in the case of Guernsey - tend to be less formal. So, it looks to be like these are proper nouns.

The second point - pluralisation - hangs on whether we consider this to be an article on the Crown Dependencies collectively, or an article on the concept of a Crown Dependency. The fact that we have an article on each of the Crown Dependencies individually (unlike, say, Legendre polynomials) would suggest the latter (and hence that the singular would be more appropriate) though the structure of the article would suggest the former (and hence that the plural would be more appropriate). Personally, I would think the best solution would be a singular title, with the Crown dependencies section moved to the bottom.

In broad terms, this means that I oppose this rename, at least for now, but would suggest a rename to "Crown Dependency" with the section Crown dependencies moved to the bottom, replaced with something shorter, or both. Pfainuk talk 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: (Delayed entry due to edit conflict with comment above) It seems to me that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) would support "Crown Dependency" as the "Dependency" is a proper noun (i.e. a specific place). Upon pluralisation "Dependency" would normally become a common noun and thus "dependencies", however as in House of Commons and House of Lords these "Dependencies of the Crown" should remain capitalised as they remain a clearly defined set of proper nouns, therefore "Crown Dependencies" is correct. ColourSarge (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (talking here about changing the name of the article to singular; I don't have a strong opinion about capitalization). I do understand why at first glance it seems very logical to have "crown dependency" be the title of this article, seeing as the Wikipedia Way is to have singular titles. I think it's worth noting, though, that the set of crown dependencies is extremely limited -- there are in fact only three of them, and in all likelihood there will never be more. Moreover, we usually treat article subjects in the singular because we would say, for instance "A chicken in a bird that had the following characteristics" -- that is, we treat the article as in many ways a description of one generic member of the class under consideration. But with the crown dependencies, you can't do that. We wouldn't, for instance, say "a crown dependency is a territory associated with the British Crown blah blah blah"; we say "the crown dependencies are these three specific bits of territory." Does that make some sort of sense? --Jfruh (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. I think this article does, to a certain extent, describe the Crown Dependencies in a similar way to the chicken - defining as it does what a Crown Dependency is with reference to the UK and EU. But I don't have any strong objection to the plural version - there is some sense to it and IMO it is justifiable through policy. Pfainuk talk 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why did they not join the EU at the same time as the UK, or subsequently?

The Relations with the EU section has a very large hole. It does not give any explanation of why the CDs are not in the EU. Who decided? When? Why? Where? --Red King (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As for Jersey, the States voted in November 1967 to request the UK, in its negotiations to join the EEC, to negotiate a deal that would leave Jersey outside, but would permit the retention of Jersey's historic access to UK markets. Man vyi (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article sounds kind of strange.

The article states that dependencies are administrated independently. Is that supposed to make some sort of sense or simply an intention to believe in something which is not true? Sounds like a type of Soviet Union situation only with the Crown :). Kind of independent, but really not. It sounds that their parliament acts more of an advising government body rather than the real parliament. That does make sense, Otherwise they would be called Independencies (just kidding).

Dependencies simply refers to the fact that other than relying on the UK for Foreign Relations and Defence, they govern themselves. Its not unheard of for small island states to associate with a larger state for historical or other reasons eg Faroe Islands and Denmark. See also St Pierre, Miquelon and France. They're more common than you might realise. Justin talk 19:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Duchy of Normandy

King Henry III of England renounced the title of "Duke of Normandy" in 1259, by the Treaty of Paris negotiated with Louis IX of France. Thereafter the Channel Islands were retained by England as French fiefs under the control of the Duke of Aquitaine (the French peerage which the English king retained). But after 1340, King Edward III claimed to be King of France as well as of England, which meant that he now claimed to rule the Channel Islands directly as King, not as Duke of Aquitaine. In 1360, Edward (temporarily) abandoned the claim to be King of France, but by treaty took direct possession of the Channel Islands, which then ceased to be French. The title of "Duke of Normandy" was not resurrected; Edward resumed the title of Duke of Aquitaine, which he held until 1369, when he again claimed the French throne, a claim that the English kings would retain in name until 1801.

It is therefore legally incorrect to say that the British monarch is Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands, although the myth is widely repeated, especially among Channel Islanders. In fact Queen Elizabeth II rules the Channel Islands as Queen, not as Duke (or Duchess); that is the legal, if not the sentimental, situation. The Channel Islands are not a part of the Duchy of Normandy, which has not existed, from the point of view of the Crown, since 1259. RandomCritic (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

British Monarchy GBozanko (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is disputing the loss of peninsular Normandy from the English crown. However the remnants of 'insular Normandy' do belong to the Crown, and this is why the title 'Duke of Normandy' has been perpetuated to the present day. You may not like it, but this is the only constitutional reason why the Channel Islands are associated with the Crown. They are not part of the United Kingdom of Great Britiain and Northern Ireland. Since the Royal website states clearly that HM The Queen is Duke of Normandy, and Her Majesty The Queen herself regards herself as Duke of Normandy, we'll have to go along with it, whether you like it or not. You are entitled to your opinion, as well as the learned sources you have cited are entitled to their opinion, but on this matter, (as well as others associated with honours), Her Majesty outranks you. Ds1994 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

-She most certainly is not 'Duke of Normandy'. See here: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/royalstyle_uk.htm#Normandy

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

-between 1289 and 1340 the English King held the Channel Islands by virtue of being Duke of Aquitaine, not Duke of Normandy -so; if anything, the Islands are remnants of the Duchy of Aquitaine, not the Duchy of Normandy!(the Normandy title was, by the way; intermittedly awarded to members of the French Royal House by the Kings of France, right up to the revolution.) after 1340 it was held by virtue of the 'fact' that the King of England was notionally King of France up until 1801. After 1801, there is no title held by the British monarch as regards the Channel Islands; of course, a Royal Titles Act could be prolumgated by either the British parliament (or the states of either balliwick) changing her title to 'Duke/Duchess of Normandy' as regards the Islands, but this has not been done and until this does happen, the only title the Queen has as regards the Islands is simply 'By the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith'-nothing more, and nothing less, and that's regardless of the Loyal Toast and the royal website. The former is a tradition, the second is just in error, even if it is the royal website.

-To quote the conclusion of the above website:

The title of duke of Normandy was renounced by Henry III in 1259, and removed from his seal and official styles in 1260. It was never again used in the official styles of his successors, except in a few homages by Norman vassals to Edward III in 1356, and by Henry V, occasionally, in documents concerning occupied Normandy between 1417 and 1419. Furthermore, in both instances the use of the title was indistinguishable from the English king's claim to the throne of France, and hence was unrelated to the title held until 1259. In over 750 years, it was used once by an English sovereign to describe himself in his relation to the Channel islands.

There is no trace of its use for the past 390 years.

"Loyal subjects in the Islands, just as those in Lancashire, may well toast their Queen as "Duke". But that does not make her one, any more than the people of Vanuatu who worship the duke of Edinburgh as a god make him one."

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusing at best

Bailiwick of Guernsey Main article: Bailiwick of Guernsey

. . .

Guernsey has its own separate international vehicle registrations (GBG – Guernsey, GBA – Alderney), internet domain (.gg – Guernsey), and ISO 3166-2 codes, first reserved on behalf of the Universal Postal Union (GGY – Guernsey) and then added officially by the International Organization for Standardization on 29 March 2006. In such case the GBG on a numberplate is only put on the number plate of a car or motorbike at the request of the vehicle owner and is not compulsory, however a motorbike/scooter can have an identical number as a car, i.e. 5432 on 2 wheels and on 4 wheels.

The section pasted above is quite confusing. Unfortunately I do not have a clue how to make it clear since I don't understand it!

Jalapama (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion request

In place of "none forms part of the United Kingdom nor of the European Union" can we say "none forms part of the United Kingdom or of the European Union"? Any opposition to the change? --Kushal (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct anyhow. It isn't as simple as that. The islands are within the UK border (for immigration purposes), and they're also part of the European Union Customs Union, but not full members of the EU. Danrok (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote from the citation used "They have an important relationship with the United Kingdom because of their status as dependencies of the British Crown but they are not part of the United Kingdom nor, except to a limited extent, the European Union." Danrok (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The CDs are part of the Common Travel Area, but not within UK borders (UK Border Agency has no jurisdiction). Quotes from the UK Ministry of Justice Background briefing on the Crown Dependencies [10]: "Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK but are self-governing dependencies of the Crown.", "The Crown Dependencies are not members of the European Union but have a special relationship with the EU". I'm quite happy with the "none... or..." formulation grammatically. Man vyi (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

so the consensus is no change, right? Kushal (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory

This article says that there are three Crown Dependencies: Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. But it then says that Sark is "a Crown Dependency in its own right." That makes four. Does anyone know enough about this abstruse subject to fix this? 197.162.105.180 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sark is a dependency, but not a dependency of the UK, but of Guernsey, if that helps. Ezza1995 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Basic forms of government template

Hi I removed the "basic forms of government" template {{Basic Forms of government}} as it doesn't seem to have its place in the middle of this article but I may be wrong! Domdeparis (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Brecqhou and Herm

In these two edits by Sam ogier, Brecqhou and Herm were added as flags for the Bailiwick of Guernsey, in parallel with those of Guernsey, Alderney, and Sark. However, Brecqhou is a "tenement of Sark", and Herm is "part of the Parish of St Peter Port" (according to those articles). Additionally, there seems to be some question as to whether the flags shown are "official" (here and the unclear sourcing here). I corrected the spelling and tweaked the table formatting a bit, but should these two rows be handled differently or removed? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There should be a translation in Norman instead of French.

Since the French is only there because of Guernsey & Jersey both of which natively speak Norman & specifically their own divergent dialects Guernsiai & Jersiai so maybe put translations of those instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothracountiges (talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

EU trade deal

Are these territories still part of the EU customs-union? These territories where not part of the EU. In particular the Channel Islands wich are close to France. Do the local waters form part of British sea, for the fishing rigths?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Crown dependencies → Crown Dependencies – I requested this move as a way to generate some discussion as I'm not convinced about the current lower case "d". Looking back at the previous move discussion from 2008, it seems to be mostly about singular vs plural, with the proposed move being from Crown Dependencies to Crown dependency, and despite the outcome at the time being No move, the article was moved from Crown Dependencies to British Crown Dependencies in 2012, followed by another move to Crown dependencies (lower case) without any discussion it seems. It's possible that the editor who disagreed with the move to British Crown Dependencies in 2012 accidentally moved it to Crown dependencies (lower case) instead of Crown Dependencies (upper case) as it was before, and this has simply gone unnoticed/unchallenged ever since.

In any case, I believe that Crown Dependencies would be the best name for this article. This is the form used by several official sources (see here and here) and would also bring it into line with the British Overseas Territories, which are also capitalised. Elshad (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The capitalized form seems to be the most common usage. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. If we have British Overseas Territories, I fail to see why we would have crown dependencies. Not to mention that we wouldn't have ended up here without an undiscussed move. Lazz_R 20:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Constitutional Status

Final bullet point has an unfinished sentence, presumably needs something like 'full British citizens'. Mdrb55 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reworded slightly. -- Dr Greg  talk  23:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Isle of Mann.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)