Talk:Suzerainty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 United States 2 Suzerain 3 Monaco. 4 Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 5 Treaty of Shimonoseki 6 Pronunciation, please... 7 Ottomans 8 china 9 Microhermit?

[edit] United States

Is there a reason why the listings at the bottom of the page are reversed for the United States? For all of the other dependancy relationships, the larger power is listed first, but this is reversed for the United States. - Fasrad 16:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suzerain

I dont know what this is but a Suzerain should not link here. A suzerain is a chief or head general. Get rid of the redirection to this page.freestylefrappe 23:29, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

While suzerain can mean a chief of some sort, what is described on this page is one of the definitions of a suzerain, and thus suzerain should redirect here. —Lowellian (talk) 01:12, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

In that case a disambiguation page should be created with links to Suzerainty and a dead link to Suzerain. freestylefrappe 20:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. I don't understand why you want to, as you say, "create a dead link to suzerain". What good is a dead link?

If you are suggesting having a "suzerain (disambiguation)" page which links to "suzerainty" and "suzerain", that is not a good idea. The definition of suzerain as chief is essentially derived from the definition of suzerainty, and what is one to write on the "suzerain" article other than a dictdef, e.g., "Suzerain is a word that can mean a chief."? mdash;Lowellian (talk) 00:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monaco.

Monaco, while it is under French protection, it is not, however under French suzerainty. Monaco is a fully independent state, & French law has no force there. - (Aidan Work 05:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

The souverainity of Monaco was in question because in July 1918, a treaty was signed providing for limited French protection over Monaco. The treaty, part of the Treaty of Versailles, established that Monegasque policy would be aligned with French political, military, and economic interests. That means that Monaco was not only following French interests by its own will and as long as it wanted but that Monaco was mandatory bound by this treaty in foreign and some internal affairs (e.g. its prime minister). Monaco could not not abrogate this treaty`s obligations by its own will. Therefore it could not fulfil its international obligations as a sovereign state without the consent of France. That means that Monaco was not souveraign or otherwise called independent. Meanwhile the legal status and the relations with France have changed - but only with the consent to this change by the suzerain France. --213.55.131.23 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Is there any truth in suggesting that recent devloution in the U.K. has created a Suzerainty ? Frelke 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Scotland and Wales are territories with autonomous rights by British law inside the kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the House of Commons can abrogate their autonomous rights by an ordinary bill and without the consent of Scotland or Wales. Before the union of Scotland and England in 1707 Scotland was a separate territory with its own souvereign which was the same as in the kingdom of England since King James I. Then Scotland was formally a sovereign nation but in fact without an independent foreign and military policy i.e. England was suzerain in Scotland.

Today Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a suzerain to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man which are autonomous crown dependencies and not integrated territories of Great Britain like Wales, Cornwall or Scotland.

--213.55.131.23 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Shimonoseki

Removed that text since that isn't what the treaty stated

Article 1 states

China recognises definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future.

[edit] Pronunciation, please...

Any word like this needs to have its pronunciation made clear at the outset. Please include its pronunciation at the beginning of the article.

It is not a difficult word to pronounce, and there are dictionaries for that purpose, like Wiktionary. Please sign your comments. Elfred (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ottomans

Is there any reason why the ottoman empire is not included in the list of suzerainty's? It is such an excellent example and was organized so well, it seems to be to the detriment of the article that the ottoman's aren't included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.181.78.204 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

What about Palestine vis-a-vis the Ottoman Empire?

Does the relationship between Rome and Jerusalem in 30 AD with Pontius Pilate as prefect or procurator, and the Sanhedrin and High Priest as local government, qualify as Suzerainty?DanB 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] china

some one seems to have a political agenda concerning china and the qing...i have included references to the ethnic distinction between manchurian qing and the chinese as well as to the notion of their empire to further the discussion of problems of modern suzerainty and sovereignty in light of history. my contributions are accurate and lend themselves to completing a broader picture of the opinions of the various non-chinese parties involved in the debate over modern china's territorial claims. yet, my contributions are repeatedly changed to a version which aligns itself with a reading of history more amenable to the the peoples republic of china. whoever it is who insists on concealing the facts, could you maybe just cut it out? i see people contributing to hundreds and hundreds of entries. i, instead, contribute only to those discussion about which i have some expertise. if you dispute something i am saying, comment on it, but if you just revert over and over to your old saved version, i can only imagine that you have an agenda but no expertise. this being the case, go mess around in one of your 500 or so entries, mr. expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyandy (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out that the article says that the Qing signed treaties with Britain over the suzerainty of Tibet. The Qing never signed anything like that, but the Nationalists after the Qing did go to a meeting that was similar, called the Simla Convention. However, they never signed this treaty, although they went to the meetings. This is due to that they see themselves as the sovereign of Tibet, and don't see Tibet as the suzerain. Only Tibet, India, and Britain signed this treaty. Thus the statement would be inaccurate. The Qing did sign treaties with Britain over Tibet, but nowhere in these treaties did the word suzerain(or sovereign for that matter) exist. Gnip 2:54, 23 November 2007

I have deleted "This is important because it establishes a history of rule over Tibet as well as providing a legal theory of Chinese rule of Tibet under international law, albeit one which is disputed by supporters of Tibetan independence." in the Tibet part. This quote is by no way proven by international law that suzerainety induce any rights such as invasion of a country. Tibet was independent indeed (since 1911) when it was invaded. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The UK-Qing convention of 1906 strengthened Chinese rights in Tibet, according to Warren Smith's Tibetan Nation(p162) and Alastir Lamb's The McMahon Line: A Study in the Relations Between India, China and Tibet(Volumn 1), the treaty was interpreted, although not mentioning the exact word, as an implicit recognition of Chinese sovereignty:

"The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibet territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet. The Government of China also undertakes not to permit any other foreign state to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet" (emphasis added) 219.79.27.59 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microhermit?

When searching for 'suzerainty' I came into this page, obviously an 'alternative' Wiki page with lots of errors. What does this mean? And why does it say 'microhermit' in the adress?

http://microhermit.com/index.php/Suzerainty Antipoeten (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)