The Difference between Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and England

[O'Callaghan]

A correction here for O’Callaghan: Crown dependency is the correct term for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
They are not represented in the Westminster Parliament, but fall directly under the Queen.
The Isle of Man has its own parliament, the Tynwald, the world’s oldest existing legislature. The Tynwald is made up of the House of Keys and the Legislative Council.
The Channel Islands comprise two bailiwicks, Jersey and Guernsey. Its legislatures are called the States of Jersey and the States of Guernsey.
Sark and Alderney both fall under the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
When Westminster proposed privatising the Post Office in the 1970s, the States (of both bailiwicks) and the Tynwald disagreed, and were allowed to form their own postal services separate from Royal Mail.
This is why these islands then ceased issuing regional postage stamps (bearing the Queen’s head but no country inscription) and instead issued their own stamps, inscribed Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.
Stamps have occasionally also been issued for Alderney by the Guernsey Post Office.
Private issues of locally valid stamps have been made for Herm island (also part of Guernsey), but these have had no official or international recognition.
During the Second World War, the Channel Islands were the only British soil to be occupied by Nazi German forces.
With permission from King George VI, the island authorities issued their own postage stamps during that time.
Regards,
Mike

I thought the inscription inside my old passport said 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands'. Perhaps it said, or should have said 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands'. Completely different, you see. The current one doesn't say anything like that.

[Mike_Oettle]

Probably the bureaucrats in London were cutting corners and not being as clear as they should have been.
I imagine that British passports have always been valid for the (home) Crown dependencies as well, but the distinctions between them and the UK have been more marked in the past four decades.
Regards,
Mike

[Brian K]

I enjoyed this immensely. It was an entertaining way to flesh out the details of something I understood in the main but was lacking in the some of the details. Thanks, Ron!

Could someone help out a Yank, though? In the video the presenter spoke of British citizens, but I was always taught that the correct term was subjects. I would appreciate a clarification. Some would say it's a question of semantics but, considering the video's explanation of the concept of The Crown, it is, perhaps, an important distinction.

Regards,

Brian

[Mike_Oettle]

Hi, Brian – you are right in recalling the term subject. British citizenship was a new legal creation that came up relatively recently.
Perhaps our British members can tell us more about the change.
I was born a subject of King George VI. Queen Elizabeth was South Africa’s head of state for nine years.
My legal status has always been that of citizenship of South Africa, but I am proud of having also been a subject for the first 11½ years of my life.
Regards,
Mike

[McClef]

The changes from subject to citizen occurred when the British Nationality Act of 1961 came into force in 1983.

More detail can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject .

[Brian K]

Thank you, McClef. It is very gratifying to belong to a group where it is possible to learn so much about so many things.

Regards,

Brian

[O'Callaghan]

The changes from subject to citizen occurred when the British Nationality Act of 1961 came into force in 1983.

More detail can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject .

I haven't read the link, but it set out categories of British Citizen either with or without right of abode in the UK, as well as British Dependent Territories Citizen and British Overseas Citizen, as well as abolishing the status of British Subject.

[OC Richard]

American ignorance of all this came to the fore during the (mens) World Cup in South Africa, where US reporters made all sorts of absurd gaffes.

I'll never forget the news segment in which an American reporter wrapped herself in a Union Jack and strode into the England supporters' campground and asked everyone what they felt about Britain's chances.

The England supporters were either too polite, or too taken aback, to point out that Britain had no team in the World Cup.

I heard, over the course of the World Cup, hundreds of references by US reporters to the "British team" and saw t-shirts saying "England World Cup" but having an image of a Union Jack.