The CBB :: View topic - Imperial Nationalities

through

#1: Imperial Nationalities Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:33 pm
—
OR was Daisy English or Australian? Or both? There is that time when Joey says "You are an English girl, Daisy, and you've never even seen your own home." or something along those lines. But wasn't the girl actually born in Australia? Was it that, in that time, you took the nationality of your parents rather than the place you were born?

*confused*

#2: Author: Rosie, Location: Land of Three-Quarters Sky

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:43 pm
—
English parents in an English colony?

#3: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:52 pm
—
Jo Scott was also seen as English and she was born in Kenya. And Joey was born in India, I think. The Bettanys were born in India and spent their early years in Tirol - and David and Sybil were born in Tirol. And rememeber in Shocks when Emerence arrived - Miss Annersley points out to the prefects that they wouldn't call her "a foreigner".

I'd say it was mostly that all their parents were English. The imperial argument works for Jo Scott, the Australian girls and the India-born children (ie that because the countries were English colonies the children would be English) but not so much for David and Sybil, for example, so I wouldn't say that was the only factor.

Although, I must say it annoys me a little when it says that Kay O'Hara (Harris) had never travelled abroad before she came to Austria. She was Irish and had gone to university in England! Surely that counts as abroad! But I guess not in the 1920s/1930s.

#4: Author: Pat, Location: Doncaster

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:59 pm
—
English kids botrn abroad can be registered at a Consulate and are British. My daughter's birth certificate is a copy of the netry at the Hanover Consulate.

#5: Author: Sarah_L, Location: Leeds

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:05 pm
—
I'm sure that in Bill Bryson's book Down Under he says that Australian citizenship didn't exist until 1949 (I think). Therefore, people born in Australia before that date were British, there was no such thing as being Australian.

#6: Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:53 am
—
Is there a difference in your nationality if you are registered as 'British' at a foreign embassy? ie are you some kind of 'foreign national' or is your status exactly the same as that of a person born in Britain?

Even if Daisy was registered at the British embassy (did they travel to it after the birth of every child, all the way from Queensland?!), surely it could be said that she was culturally different from her CS colleagues who were 'fully' British? Which means that she was probably culturally different from her Australian friends as well -> unless she had no Australian friends, if Stephen and Margot kept her separate because they didn't want her mixing with the locals, a la Peter and Anne with Beth Chester. But then they were living in such a remote area, perhaps the nearest family of *any* kind, never mind whether they were suitable or not, were too far away to associate with.

This must have been the case for a lot of the CS girls (it's almost Austen-like, the obsession with 'suitable' companions) - their parents were British, but worked in some other country/part of the empire - then sent them to this British-school-abroad. They were neither here nor there in their set of cultural or national references - perhaps this is something the CS gave them, some gap it filled... which led to their uber-strong allegiance to the School, which lasted all their lives, and which made them Chaletians first and foremost... before any other definition (eg Peace League politics).

#7: Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:53 am
—

Sarah_L wrote:

I'm sure that in Bill Bryson's book Down Under he says that Australian citizenship didn't exist until 1949 (I think). Therefore, people born in Australia before that date were British, there was no such thing as being Australian.

Basically, yes, Sarah is right. The Australian Citizenship Act was passed in 1948. Before that time, people born in Australia were as British as people born in London. This is why Daisy is a British girl - she would never have registered as being Australian after 1948 because she was living in the UK.

Incidentally, after 1948 potential citizens had to fulfil three criteria:

1) being born to an Australian father,

2) five years residence for those from Britain and Ireland, be of good character, have a knowledge of English, have an 'adequate knowledge of the rights and responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship' and intend to reside in Australia,

3) by naturalisation, if an alien, which required all of the above, or to have resided in Australia for one year or have worked for the government for four years, to have applied and been accepted, and on swearing an oath of allegiance to the monarch of Great Britain.

It may be that Daisy never qualified under these points, as Stephen Venables was, I believe, British. (He certainly meets Margot Russell in England and I can't think of any idea that he's from Australia.) There are comments made about "her [Margot's] life in Australia" that suggest Jem was not there to share it. Also, when the Russells go to the conference in the later books, there's no hint they will meet family there, which is surely what they would do if the Russells were Australian.

#8: Author: Cath V-P, Location: Newcastle NSW

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:26 am
—
Also, the dominant intellectual and social culture in Australia at this time was essentially Anglo, with the UK being regarded and spoken of as 'home.'

I also think the Venables were extremely isolated - they were in northern Queensland, and the only way for them to get to the State capital, Brisbane, was by boat. And if Stephen Venables took up land after the First World War, as a lot of returned and newly migrating soldiers did, the chances were high that he would have to go somewhere that was relatively undeveloped.

#9: Author: Caroline, Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:58 am
—
There's a difference even now between being a British Subject and a British Citizen. According to Wikipedia (I've edited a bit):

Quote:

In British nationality law, the term British subject has at different times had different meanings. The current definition of the term British subject is contained in the British Nationality Act 1981.

Prior to 1 January 1949, the term "British Subject" was used to describe any person who owed allegiance to the British Crown, wherever he was born in the British Commonwealth and Empire. Within the Empire, the only people who were not British subjects were the rulers of native states formally under the "protection" of the British Crown, and their peoples. Although their countries may for all practical purposes have been ruled by the imperial government, such persons are considered to have been born outside the sovereignty and allegiance of the British Crown, and were (and, where these persons are still alive, still are) known as British Protected Persons.

Between 1947 and 1951 each of the various existing members of the Commonwealth of Nations created its own national citizenship. In 1948, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the British Nationality Act 1948, which came into effect on 1 January 1949 and introduced the concept of "Citizenship of the UK & Colonies".

After 1 January 1949, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her crown colonies became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

However, UK & Colonies citizens, in common with citizens of other Commonwealth countries, also retained the status of British subject.
Hence, from 1949 to 1982, a person born in London, England, would have been a British Subject and Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, while someone born in Sydney, Australia, would have been a British Subject and Citizen of Australia.

Between 1949 and 1982 (and as late as 1987 in Australian law), the status of British Subject was a common status held by citizens of countries throughout the Commonwealth, and many Commonwealth countries had statutes defining the term "British Subject" in their laws, in much the same way as the status of Commonwealth citizen is now defined.

In Australia, the status of British Subject in Australian law was retained until it was removed by provisions of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 which came into force on 1 May 1987. 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.

On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.

The use of the term "British subject" was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other part of the Commonwealth. British citizens are not British subjects under the 1981 Act. The status of British subject cannot now be transmitted by descent, and will become extinct when all existing British subjects are dead.

More that you ever wanted to know!

#10: Author: Mia, Location: London

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:25 am
—
This grates on me linguistically, surely all British people should be subjects not citizens as we technically have a monarchy not a republic?

#11: Author: Caroline, Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:46 am
—
That's what I thought, until I actually went to look it up... Rolling Eyes

Apparently, it can make a difference when you travel, too. If your passport says subject rather than citizen (or is it the other way around?), you don't come under the visa waiver program for entry into certain countries. I read a letter to one of those travel forums from a British chap who's Irish wife had been refused entry to a country becuase she held a subject passport rather than a citizen one. D'oh!

#12: Author: Dreaming Marianne, Location: Second star to the right

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:00 pm
—
This is such an interesting subject to me. I was born in the Middle East to expat parents. And I have English nationality (and a birth certificate in Arabic!), but whenever I am asked where I am from, I never know what to say. We came to the UK when I was seven, and once here I went to an international school, so really much the same as what I had left. Goig to secondary school was a *big* culture shock for me - even though I had technically left the Middle East behind me five years previously.

When asked where I am from, I never know what to say. Do I say where I was born? Or where we came to England when we first moved here? Or where my parents' family are from? NO matter what I say, I always feel as if I am lying - or at least misleading people. I feel culturally a bit lost. Am I technically British Asian? (have great fun filling out forms sometimes!) I don't feel whooly one or the other. And that's not a bad thing - but a bit disorientating sometimes.

Interestingly, my children do NOT have automatic right of abode in the UK - fortunately my husband is UK-born.

#13: Author: fio, Location: swansea united kingdom

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:02 pm
—
I've always taken it as what your parents are. After all, if it's where you were born, if you're born in a biscuit tin,does that make you a biscuit? Laughing

#14: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:10 pm
—

fio wrote:

I've always taken it as what your parents are. After all, if it's where you were born, if you're born in a biscuit tin,does that make you a biscuit? Laughing

Arthur Wellesley (ex-prime minister of the UK), who was born in Dublin, Ireland, famously said when asked about his Irish connections: "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse."

Rolling Eyes

#15: Author: macyrose, Location: Great White North (Canada)

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:26 pm
—
Kate wrote:

Quote:

Arthur Wellesley (ex-prime minister of the UK), who was born in Dublin, Ireland, famously said when asked about his Irish connections: "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse."

I recognized that quote right away. Lucy Maud Montgomery used it in Anne of the Island:

Quote:

"No, it doesn't," retorted Anne. "Wasn't it Dan O'Connell who said that if a man was born in a stable it didn't make him a horse? I'm Island to the core."

#16: Author: Dreaming Marianne, Location: Second star to the right

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:29 pm
—
But if I am what my parents are - I'm Scottish (and never been there in my life!!!)

#17: Author: claire, Location: South Wales

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:22 pm
—
What do you identify yourself as? I count myself as Welsh - I was born in Germany, both my parents were born in England (though my mother was nearly born in Kenya but my grandparents came back before her birth), I've lived in Wales since I was 11, this is my home (and if people as where I'm from I'll give the town I live in now as that is my home (and has been for the past 8 years - my husband is from here, my kids were born here)

#18: Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:16 am
—
My brother is a missionary in India and comes accross this all the time. A lot of his co workers have kids that were born in a different country to where their parents are from and go to International School and so never feel completely Australian. When they eventually come here they feel really lost because although they're considered Australian, they're a mixture of all the cultures they've experience.

#19: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:49 am
—
The legalities vary by country. For Canada, for example, if you are born in Canada you are a Canadian. If you are born outside of Canada to Canadian parents, you are Canadian. If you are born outside of Canada to Canadian parents who were born outside of Canada you are not automatically a Canadian, but have to prove ties such as an extended period of residency as a child to claim it. Also, if you are born in Canada to non Canadian parents you are automatically Canadian. However, in other places (Taiwan and Germany, offhand), this is not true.

In England, if you were born before 1984, citizenship passed through the legitimate male line, so I believe if you were born outside of England to an English mother and a foreign father, you would not be English, same as with an English father who was not married to the mother. It's since changed, but is not retroactive.

Some countries do not allow dual citizenship, so if a child had multiple citizenships, they would have to renounce one at the age of majority.

This crops up a lot in my field, because people tend to move around a lot, and marry internationally, so you could have a child born in Canada to an English citizen and an American citizen, which would, I think, give them three citizenships initially.

#20: Author: Dawn, Location: Leeds, West Yorks

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:20 pm
—

jennifer wrote:

This crops up a lot in my field, because people tend to move around a lot, and marry internationally, so you could have a child born in Canada to an English citizen and an American citizen, which would, I think, give them three citizenships initially.

We were with friends last weekend who live in New Zealand. Their nearly 2 year old son is the only one of them to have NZ nationality, he is also British and as his mum is dual nationality Birtish/American he also has the potential to have a US passport. But that would mean Margaret (who grew up mainly in the UK) being able to prove that she spent the equivalent of 5 years in the USA - which she has done, she just decided it would be too much hassle!

#21: Author: Tiffany, Location: Is this a duck I see behind me?

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:01 pm
—
Going back to Emerence, Daisy, Sybil etc: I wonder what their self-definition would have been, where their loyalties lay? Joey, for instance, identifies pretty strongly with Tirol as a place, but not with the people there: she sees herself as an Englishwoman who comes from Tirol, sort of thing. Emerence lived in Australia til she was 14 or so: surely she'd have more identification with Australia and other (white, at the time, I guess) people there than with Britain, which she'd never seen.

One of the things that's always bothered me about Guides in the Tirol books is that, in a multinational school, you can't really ask all the girls to swear loyalty to the British king: but their parents all seemed happy for them to do so, even Elisaveta's folk. Did the school, consciously or not, foster an attachment to Britain in its pupils?

#22: Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:03 pm
—
Is swearing loyalty to the British monarch part of all Guideyness? I didn't know that. I was never a Guide, but we do have them in Ireland (Republic of) which would surely not be the case if an oath of loyalty to the B. M. was required.

#23: Author: Lottie, Location: Humphrey's Corner

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:19 pm
—
I promised "on my honour, to do my best, to do my duty to God, and the Queen, and to keep the Guide Law", if I've remembered accurately after all these years! I always assumed that it differed for Guides in different countries, and I, too, wondered about exactly how the CS Guides got around that little difficulty.

#24: Author: francesn, Location: away with the faeries

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:21 pm
—
Well if they counted as British Guides In Foreign Countries then I assume that the Guide promise would have contained "King and country" which could be seen as swearing alleigance.

With the spread of international Guiding each country has it's own promise for it's own Guides, but no such thing existed when at least the early CS books were set. So, no, in Ireland you wouldn't be expected to swear alleigance to the Queen - apparently your promise is:

I promise on my honour to do my best,
to do my duty to God and my country,
to help other people at all times,
and to obey the Guide Law.

There's also a Gaelic version.

#25: Author: Róisín, Location: Gaillimh

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:24 pm
—
But what would say Elisaveta have had to promise?

PS thanks for that Frances.

#26: Author: Lottie, Location: Humphrey's Corner

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:31 pm
—

Róisín wrote:

But what would say Elisaveta have had to promise?

In Princess it says

Quote:

Up went Elisaveta's hand to the half-salute as she replied in clear tones, "I promise on my honour to do my best to be loyal to God and the King; to help other people at all times; and to obey the Guide Law!"

#27: Author: francesn, Location: away with the faeries

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:46 pm
—
Apparently:

On my honour I promise to do my best,
to do my duty to God, my King and my country,
to help other people at all times,
and to obey the Guide law.

Is the Guide promise they took actually stated in any of the early books?

Therefore one could conclude that she promises to do her duty to her king and country, so there's no problem.

ETA: Thanks Lottie! And either t'interweb is wrong or EBD didn't know her Guide promise. Although when exactly was Princess set?

#28: Author: Kathy_S, Location: midwestern US

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:40 pm
—
It wouldn't surprise me if it's changed along the way. I know there've been at least two other versions of the American promise since the one I first made:

On my honor, I will try:
To do my duty to God and my country,
To help other people at all times,
And to obey the Girl Scout laws.

The next variant had:
On my honor, I will try:
To serve God, my country, and mankind,
And to live by the Girl Scout law.

I had to look up the current model. Embarassed

On my honor, I will try:
To serve God and my country,
To help people at all times,
And to live by the Girl Scout Law.

The changes look fairly superficial, until you try comparing law(s). Shocked

#29: Author: claire, Location: South Wales

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:52 pm
—
It doesn't specify WHICH king - Elisaveta would take THE king as being her grandfather, rather than the British King

#30: Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:22 pm
—
Wonder what Evvy and Cornelia's promise was...

#31: Author: Squirrel, Location: St-Andrews or Dunfermline

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:48 pm
—
I suppose you could stretch a point, and call God the King... Would that be one way to get round it?

#32: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:52 pm
—

claire wrote:

It doesn't specify WHICH king - Elisaveta would take THE king as being her grandfather, rather than the British King

Just what I was going to say. Smile

#33: Author: Miranda, Location: Perth, Western Australia

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:10 am
—
The Aussie Guide promise still makes mention of the English monarch:

I promise that I will do my best
to do my duty to God
to serve the Queen and my country
to help other people
and to keep the Guide Law.

(although of course, each girl is free to adapt it if necessary - in relation to 'God', and also 'the Queen'. For example a potential choice is 'to serve my country and the country in which I reside...)

One thought that crossed my mind at the time of the referendum as to whether Australia would become a republic in 1999 was - what will happen to the Guide promise? Laughing

Back on the topic of Daisy though, I never ever get a sense that she considers herself the least bit Australian... Is it ever mentioned apart from the intial explanation of where Margot has been?

#34: Author: Chelsea, Location: Your Imagination

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:44 pm
—
We pledged to the Queen in our promise. And learned to sing "God Save the Queen".

Of course, we are part of the Commonwealth so it is somewhat different when compared to the US (and Chalet Students)

#35: Author: Katya, Location: Mostly Bradford

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:03 pm
—
For those countries where the Queen (of England etc) is Head of State, presumably this section of the promise still stands. In any case, I'd always interpreted it as being more a commitment to fulfil one's civic duty than a specific pledge of allegiance to the monarch, and is therefore adapted to the circumstances in each country.

In the UK, the words 'and my country' were only reintroduced to the promise relatively recently. Whether this perhaps reflects increasingly republican feelings could be a matter for debate. Plenty of people I know in the Guiding world are either anti-monarchy or ambivalent on the issue, but they still agree to observe the laws of the land and do their best to live with the status quo. And doing one's best is the key thing...

On the subject of Daisy's sense of identity, it could also depend on who the family spent time with in Australia. I'm very hazy on the details, but didn't they live in a fairly isolated area? If her family were really the only people she mixed with, then it's possible she would take her sense of national identity from them.

#36: Author: KB, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:41 pm
—

Miranda wrote:

Back on the topic of Daisy though, I never ever get a sense that she considers herself the least bit Australian... Is it ever mentioned apart from the intial explanation of where Margot has been?

There are one or two mentions:
From Lavender: They used to live in Australia, but Daisy never talks much about that time. Auntie Margot, their mummy, brought them to us in Tirol when Prim was just a kid. She died after we went to Guernsey, and I think that’s why Daisy won’t talk about it.

From Joey Goes: There’s that opal ring Daisy brought me from Australia for Con

#37: Author: francesn, Location: away with the faeries

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:06 pm
—
Is it me or does that imply Daisy's been back to Australia as an adult?

Surely as a nine year old she wouldn't have been bringing back opal rings for Robin.

#38: Author: Chelsea, Location: Your Imagination

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:19 pm
—

francesn wrote:

Is it me or does that imply Daisy's been back to Australia as an adult?

Surely as a nine year old she wouldn't have been bringing back opal rings for Robin.

I was wondering the same thing. Especially since Daisy (or more importantly Margot) would not have known who Robin was.

#39: Author: Charity,

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:22 pm
—

Dreaming Marianne wrote:

Interestingly, my children do NOT have automatic right of abode in the UK - fortunately my husband is UK-born.

My cousin had that problem recently. She was born in Ghana to British parents, and now lives in Portugal with her husband, who holds Brazillian and Japanese passports. She had to come to the UK to have her baby, so that it could get a UK passport.

#40: Author: jennifer, Location: Taiwan

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:01 am
—
I'd guess that Daisy probably regarded herself as English more than anything - she was in Australia until the age of eight, then in Austria for about four years but living in an isolated location and attending a British run school, and then in England from 12-mid twenties.

I would guess that a lot of it would do with how the people lived in the foreign country. If they were living among the locals and speaking the local language and going to the local schools and eating native food, then the identity would be more likely to be with their birth country. If they attended English schools and spoke English and interacted with the locals mainly in the form of servants and kept to English food and customs and holidays, then the home country could win out.

There is also a big difference between a set term posting and permanent immigration. If you know you're going home at some point, even years later, that's one thing. If you've moved away permanently it's another.

The CBB -> Anything Else

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Page 1 of 1