This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Empire Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

wheres fiji? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMcD ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I created this article as "Crown colony" was previously pointing to British Overseas Territory. Whilst "BOT" replaced the term British Dependent Territory in 2002, which in turn replaced Crown colony in 1981, it is rather misleading to have lots of country and state articles (such as Jamaica or Virginia) pointing to BOT when they were Crown colonies, and became independent decades if not centuries before 1981. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Just to remind you people here, crown colony was not exclusive to the British Empire, any colony in that sense was a crown colony wether it was in the Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, etc.-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 22:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

So provide a reference showing that other empires' colonies are referred to as "Crown colonies" by English language historians. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Just look at Danish_Gold_Coast, it is desribed as being a former crown colony. A crown colony is a colony owned by the crown (the monarch of any given monarchy), most colonies being founded by chartered company. 85.83.81.228 ( talk) 17:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That article doesn't source its comment and looking at the cited weblink for the article there is no mention of the term at all. BTW wikipedia doesn't reference itself, that doesn't justify the comment. Justin talk 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

[1] and [2] if you want links. 77.215.24.42 ( talk) 10:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply

(quote) Bahamas, Barbados, And Bermuda -- Volume 34: debated on Wednesday 21 February 1912: > Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON -- asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to prevent misunderstanding, he will state what the expression Crown Colony, as used in the Colonial Regulations with reference to the Bahamas, Barbados, and Bermuda, is intended to connote?

> Mr. HARCOURT -- I would remind the hon. Member of the answer which I gave to a previous question by him on this subject on the 7th November. The first chapter of the Colonial Regulations, which deals with constitutions, points out that the British Colonies and Protectorates may be divided into those which possess responsible government and those which do not, and it is observed that the latter are commonly known as Crown Colonies. In this connection the connotation is obviously the absence of responsible government.(end quote) CaribDigita ( talk)

NZ Appears to have been under Crown Colony governance too. According to the website of the Governor-Gerneral of NZ. NZ was a Crown Colony from around 1841 to 1853, at which time NZ became self-governing. Website of the Governor General -- CaribDigita ( talk) 20:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

What's your point? NZ is mentioned. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the point is that the article says that the term crown colony was not used to describe Australia or New Zealand. I do not think that is correct in relation to Australia and according to CaribDigita not correct for NZ either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.214.216 ( talk) 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This article is a confused and confusing mess. Not great as well to have a lead twice as long as the core of the article.

Then you have a long (meaningless or misleading because each entry is too short and imprecise) "List of Crown Colonies" with the usual little flaggy flags, followed by the weirdest definition for Crown colony: A territory belonging by settlement, conquest or annexation to the British Crown or to an independent Commonwealth country.

???

I suspect that most people ending up here looking for a clear and simple definition of what was a Crown colony will leave more confused than they were before.

Why not start with a good, simple definition of "Crown colony" as you may find in a decent dictionary: A British colony whose legislature and administration was controlled by the Crown, represented by a governor (Oxford Dictionaries). Simply put, a Crown colony was a colony with no self-government, no representative government, or very little of it. For instance, the "Crown Colony Period" in New Zealand history is said to be the period when the colony had no elected assembly (1840-1853).

We could also dispense with "The List" but I know too many editors insist in having those lists with the proper little flaggy flags. Ok, so let's keep the list (full of errors as it is), but let's have at least a decent article, starting with a simple, clear definition. -- Lubiesque ( talk) 22:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Is that actually true, though? That seems to be usage in Australasia, but in Westminster, my understanding is that self-governing colonies and colonies completely controlled by the central government were all "crown colonies," which are mostly to be distinguished from protectorates or chartered colonies or proprietary colonies or dominions. Is that incorrect? john k ( talk) 16:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Is it really necessary to have all those flags on the list of colonies? I mean, some have four flags! It's messy and confusing. Why not have just the Colonial flag (is it really that important to have the modern-day flags, too)? 99.102.176.146 ( talk) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The article on British Hong Kong states that it was a Dependent Territory from 1981 to 1997, not a crown colony. ZFT ( talk) 03:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The British Nationality Act was passed in 1981, but the law came into force on 1 January 1983. Many British colonies became British Dependent Territory in 1983 not 1981. 202.55.32.56 ( talk) 16:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Having checked the article on the act and referred to my own text books on the subject I can see nothing that would substantiate that claim. You may be confused by the fact that the status of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man changed on 1 January 1983, moving from dependent territories to become part of the UK. The British Nationality Act 1981 moved former Crown Colonies to become British Dependent Territories. [3] W C M _email 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

[N.B. text redacted by 202.55.32.56] Kahastok talk 18:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

All crown dependencies and crown colonies were affected by the same British Nationality Act of 1981, and that's why the effective date was also 1 January 1983. 202.55.32.56 ( talk) 16:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Don't be ridiculous, the date there refers to the fact that on 1st January 1983 the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man moved from being dependent territories to become part of the UK. This is stated explicitly in that document. W C M _email 09:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The Channel Islands and Isle of Man have never been part of the UK, so it can't possibly refer to that. john k ( talk) 16:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The list seems weirdly incomplete. I'm not sure any of us are completely clear (or in agreement) as to what exactly constitutes a crown colony. But most of the British colonies in the Caribbean are not listed, including the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, the Leeward Islands, and the Windward Islands (as well as the individual colonies that made up the last two, and which were all separate colonies after 1962, I believe). Also not listed: Fiji, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Transvaal, Orange River Colony, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island. john k ( talk) 17:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Londonboy2002 ( talk · contribs) and Anonymousboii ( talk · contribs), both redlinked editors, have been adding nonsense about India being a crown colony. Please read carefully Charles Bruce (2010), The Broad Stone of Empire: Problems of Crown Colony Administration, With Records of Personal Experience, Cambridge University Press, pp. xi–, ISBN  978-1-108-02359-7, which says very clearly, "The Empire may be grouped approximately in this table: United Kingdom, Dominions, Crown Colonies, India." What it is they do not understand? I can add dozens of other sources, but this is a classic account. I hope they will refrain from tendentious editing. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Fowler&fowler: So my disinterestedness in having a user page and having a redlinked name automatically make my contributions worthless? Where is that written and who made you Viceroy and Governor-General of Wikipedia? Both the sources I've presented explicitly mention British India (the collection of Provinces, not the princely states or the Indian Empire) as the "Crown Colony of India", and just like your source are also from the same period. Even today, people commonly refer to South Asia/India as a "subcontinent". Does that actually create a political, geographical or cultural split between Asia and the Indian subcontinent? Until you have a source that explicitly says British India was NOT a Crown Colony (as opposed to things like 'not a traditional colony' or 'a unique government', which is something I've read a lot that actually refer to the Indian Empire/Raj), my addition and citations can stay here. -- friendlyneighborhoodanon 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Anonymosboii: Here you go. From: Mark Doyle (2018), The British Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes], ABC-CLIO, pp. 82–, ISBN  978-1-4408-4198-9

"During the 19th century, many colonies formed by chartered companies increas-ingly ceded their control to the British Crown. In the second half of the century, the term "Crown colony" could be used to refer to almost all British colonies not granted "Dominion" status (except for those still run by a chartered company). In 1867 Can-ada became the British Empire's first official Dominion, with an elected Canadian gov-ernment acquiring wide-ranging control over domestic affairs. Although Dominions usually retained both the monarchy, represented by a governor-general and, until the 1931 Statute of Westminster, a British-led foreign policy, the level of internal self-government was what marked Dominions out from the Crown colonies. If one excludes the Dominions and chartered companies, then the only other colony that was not considered a crown colony was British India, which was governed separately after the 1858 India Act via its own department of state in London. "

Now please remove the text you have been adding. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Please also see: GlobalSecurity.org, British Empire, which states clearly, "By the early 20th Century British Empire could be divided into five distinct groups so far as its government was concerned - the United Kingdom, the self-governing Dominions, the Crown Colonies, the territories under the jurisdiction of chartered companies, and British India." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Dear @ Anonymousboii: Please note that the Crown Colonies were governed through the Colonial Office, whereas British India was governed through the India Office. It wasn't just the governance; the passport applications required different processes. See Pitman's Business Man's Encyclopædia and Dictionary of Commerce, I. Pitman, 1920, pp. 1194–

"(1) In the case of natural-born British subjects and persons naturalised in the United Kingdom .... (2) In the case of children under the age of sixteen years requiring a separate passport .... (3) In the case of persons naturalised in any one of the British self-governing Dominions, upon production of a recommendation from the High Commissioner or Agent-General in London of the State concerned ; and in the case of natives of British India and persons naturalised therein, upon production of a Letter of Recommendation from the India Office. Persons naturalised or ordinarily resident in any of the Crown Colonies must obtain a Letter of Recommendation from the Colonial Office.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC) PS See a clearer version of the same in: William Thomson; Lloyd Christian (1921), Dictionary of Banking: A Concise Encyclopaedia of Banking Law and Practice, Sir I. Pitman & Sons, Limited, pp. 479– Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Fowler&fowler:Okay, I’ve changed it. But if you’re using the India Office for India not being a Crown Colony, what do you think of Burma Office and British Burma? -- friendlyneighborhoodanon 23:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Anonymousboii: British imperialism was a complex system, wherein different forms of governance were added on at different times in response to different geographical and cultural presentations, not reducible to simple categories. I am not using any one criteria, only telling you what the sources say, which was different for different periods. By 1937, the traditional usage had changed. They separated Burma from India; the part of the India office which was assigned to Burma began to be called the Burma office, without moving physically (in London) to a different building, such as the Colonial Office. Burma was too small to have a separate category such as "British India," so what could they do? They called it a Crown Colony, but it was not a traditional crown colony, it had some measure of self-governance inherited from the Government of India Act 1935. Then WWII intervened, Burma was overrun by the Japanese, and by the time the war ended decolonization had begun. It was an anomalous crown colony, for a brief period. But the usage with respect to British India was always clear. See Antony Best (2011), Imperial Japan and the World, 1931-1945: Economics and finance, 1931-1945, Routledge, p. 60, ISBN  978-0-415-45276-2

"On the contrary, British India, the Dominions, the self-governing colonies and Crown colonies all intensified their discrimination against Japanese goods as a result of the Ottawa Agreements. India raised tariff after tariff and, in 1933, ..."

Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Add Maryland

Was not Maryland a Crown colony from 1692? [4] https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/01glance/chron/html/chron16.html#:~:text=Royal%20assent%20to%20establishment%20act,%2C%20April%206%2C%201692). Philfromwaterbury ( talk) 13:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)