[echen]

Can anyone please help?
I am a South African who would like some clarity on whether I could have
become British Citizens on 1 January 1983.

Is there anyone who thinks I may have become such if:-

(My great-grand father born in England 1884 as natural-born British Subject)
My grand father was born 1882 in Natal colony as natural-born British Subject.
My father born 1916 in a newly formed (as of 1910) Dominion (prior to 1949) being the Union of South Africa as British Subject
I was born 1956 (being after 1949 and before independence in 1962) as a Commonwealth Citizen and British Subject

Question is what citizenship did my father have on 1 Jan 1949?
Did he immediately become a CUKC as the Union Citizenship law only took effect on the 2 Sept 1949?
Then what happened when he automatically became a Union Citizen/Commonwealth Citizen, did he "loose" his CUKC status?

According to the BNA 1948 (quote)
"British subjects before commencement of Act becoming citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies:-
12.—(1) A person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act shall on that date become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he possesses any of the following qualifications, that is to say—

(a) that he was born within the territories comprised at the commencement of this Act (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon) in the United Kingdom and Colonies, and would have been such a citizen if section four of this Act had been in force at the time of his birth;"

It seems to me that since he was a natural-born British Subject as well as his father and grand father, then surely he should have become a CUKC and remained so, even though he was later to become a Commonwealth Citizen?

And therefore he should have become a British Citizen with the Right of Abode on 1 January 1983.

He never obtained a British Passport, so I have no record of his status.
I never applied for a British Passport before 1962, (or thereafter) so have no idea what my status would have been had I done so. But it is my guess it would have been British Subject with Right of Abode (or whatever would have been the equivalent at the time) He for sure would have been able to enter the UK freely and stay or work.

Would be grateful if there is anyone who can shed some light on this.

[JAJ]

Originally Posted by echen Question is what citizenship did my father have on 1 Jan 1949? Did he immediately become a CUKC as the Union Citizenship law only took effect on the 2 Sept 1949? Then what happened when he automatically became a Union Citizen/Commonwealth Citizen, did he "loose" his CUKC status? According to the BNA 1948 (quote) "British subjects before commencement of Act becoming citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies:- 12.—(1) A person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act shall on that date become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he possesses any of the following qualifications, that is to say— (a) that he was born within the territories comprised at the commencement of this Act (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon) in the United Kingdom and Colonies, and would have been such a citizen if section four of this Act had been in force at the time of his birth;"

First, the text in bold is not part of the 1948 Act. Unclear what your source is.

On 1 January 1949, under British law, your father did not become a CUKC as he was a "potential citizen" of South Africa. See section 12(4) and s32(7) of the 1948 Act. Instead he remained a "British subject without citizenship".

Also note that South Africa did have a limited form of local citizenship prior to 1949.

On 2 September 1949, if he became a South African citizen, then he was no longer a "potential citizen" of South Africa. See section 32(8) of the Act. If he had not become South African on that date, he would have become a CUKC.

Being a "British subject" under the 1948 Act simply meant (with one or two exceptions) being a citizen of a Commonwealth country and it was not a substantive nationality status.

[echen]

Thank you for replying JAJ.

I quoted s. 12(1)(a) BNA1948 source: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

I did however add in bold the countries that clause seemed to refer to as in s.1(3)

I do realize that on 1.1.49 my father (and my grandfather, and my 4 siblings for that matter) was a potential citizen of the Union of South Africa as according to the South African Citizenship Act 1949 (Publication date 2.9.49), therefore "automatically" becoming such on 2.9.49. And prior to 1.1.49 he was a Union National/British Subject (by birth), but unsure why s.12(1)(a) did not apply to him as he was already a "British Citizen" (then Subject). I read this clause to say that those who were British Subjects would become CUKC on 1.1.49 if they were born in the countries mentioned in s.1(3). (hence my confusion)

I also read and see the clause you mentioned s.32(7) as he becoming on 1.1.49 a "potential citizen", thus implying that from 1.1.49 to 12.9.49 he was without citizenship.

But how could he be without citizenship if he already was a British "Citizen"/Subject, by birth? That's what doesn't make sense to me.

At the time of his birth in 1916 the Union had only just been formed and according to the South African Act 1909 there was no mention of the Union being a Dominion or anything other than an unified Colony, and he was beyond doubt a natural-born British Subject.

I fail to see how he could go from natural-born British Subject to having lost such status during his lifetime. Surely he was a "British Citizen"/Subject FIRST before any other citizenship. His grandfather was born in England, his father was born in a colony, he was born in the four colonies of Southern Africa unified, this was a British family, who fought in 2 wars under the Crown, thought they were British (pioneering for the Crown). Surely he would have had the opportunity of passing down his status at least one generation to his children, as he himself was not a British Subject by decent but by birth in a Crown Colony. (In spite of what terminology the Crown wished to bestow on it's citizens sworn to allegiance)

Had he applied for his British passport say at the age of 18 or 20, and his children (say my siblings born between 1938-1944) had received their passports, then they would surely have retained their status' as British Subjects with Right of Abode (or the equivalent at the time), which would have been updated to the new terminology of equivalent status when and if, as time went by.

I do realize that at on 1.1.49 the term of British Subject lost it's previous substance with regard to British Nationality and transcended in term to Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but the way I see it is that it was just the term that changed not the status of the people. In other words a British Subject was equivalent to a British Citizen of today, and a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies also of equal substance to that of a British Citizen today. (Or maybe BNA1948 was simply designed to eradicate people from "the list" of Crown Subjects through sheer confusion)

It is just that I am having great difficulty in understanding the BNA1948 and how it specifically applied to my grand father, my father & my four siblings who were born from 1938-1945, who were all alive at the time (1.1.49).

If I can firstly understand their situation at the time then thereafter consider my own.

I sincerely appreciate your input which seems to be most authoritative and trust that you would bear with me on that which I may be failing to see.

[JAJ]

Originally Posted by echen Thank you for replying JAJ. I quoted s. 12(1)(a) BNA1948 source: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm I did however add in bold the countries that clause seemed to refer to as in s.1(3)

Which was incorrect. Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies meant just that - based on connection with the UK or a Colony, based on the 1949 frontiers. Dominions such as South Africa were not colonies at that time.

I do realize that on 1.1.49 my father (and my grandfather, and my 4 siblings for that matter) was a potential citizen of the Union of South Africa as according to the South African Citizenship Act 1949 (Publication date 2.9.49), therefore "automatically" becoming such on 2.9.49. And prior to 1.1.49 he was a Union National/British Subject (by birth), but unsure why s.12(1)(a) did not apply to him as he was already a "British Citizen" (then Subject). I read this clause to say that those who were British Subjects would become CUKC on 1.1.49 if they were born in the countries mentioned in s.1(3). (hence my confusion)

Where do you get the idea he was a British citizen from? There were only British subjects prior to 1949, no such thing as a British citizen. As for the rest, read the legislation as it is, don't confuse yourself by adding words not there.

At the time of his birth in 1916 the Union had only just been formed and according to the South African Act 1909 there was no mention of the Union being a Dominion or anything other than an unified Colony, and he was beyond doubt a natural-born British Subject. I fail to see how he could go from natural-born British Subject to having lost such status during his lifetime. Surely he was a "British Citizen"/Subject FIRST before any other citizenship.

Here is what his status was under British law:

Prior to 1 January 1949 : British subject
1 Jan 1949 to 1 Sept 1949 : British subject without citizenship
2 Sept 1949 onwards : British subject by virtue of South African citizenship.

Had he applied for his British passport say at the age of 18 or 20, and his children (say my siblings born between 1938-1944) had received their passports, then they would surely have retained their status' as British Subjects with Right of Abode (or the equivalent at the time), which would have been updated to the new terminology of equivalent status when and if, as time went by.

No, not true.

I do realize that at on 1.1.49 the term of British Subject lost it's previous substance with regard to British Nationality and transcended in term to Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but the way I see it is that it was just the term that changed not the status of the people. In other words a British Subject was equivalent to a British Citizen of today, and a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies also of equal substance to that of a British Citizen today. (Or maybe BNA1948 was simply designed to eradicate people from "the list" of Crown Subjects through sheer confusion)

Also, no, not true.

British subject (prior to 1949) : covered the UK, Colonies and Dominions

CUKC (from 1949) : covered UK and Colonies only. The Dominions all developed local citizenship.

British citizen (from 1983) : as a rule, covered UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man only. British Dependent Territories citizenship covered the Territories.

[echen]

Hi JAJ,
Sorry for the delay, duty called.

Thank you very much, I am beginning to understand the Act (a little) more clearly.

Question: Would s.12(2) have applied to my Grand Father, who was 66yrs old at the time?

BNA1948 s.12(2) A person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act shall on that date become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if at the time of his birth his father was a British subject and possessed any of the qualifications specified in the last foregoing subsection

[JAJ]

Originally Posted by echen Hi JAJ, Sorry for the delay, duty called. Thank you very much, I am beginning to understand the Act (a little) more clearly. Question: Would s.12(2) have applied to my Grand Father, who was 66yrs old at the time? BNA1948 s.12(2) A person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act shall on that date become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if at the time of his birth his father was a British subject and possessed any of the qualifications specified in the last foregoing subsection

As long as your great-grandparents were married, your grandfather would have become a Citizen of the UK & Colonies by descent (based on his UK born father) on 1 January 1949, as well as any claim he might have had to South African citizenship.

I cannot see how this would help the next generation, however.

Without other ties to the United Kingdom, the only way your father could have become CUKC is if for some reason he did not become a South African citizen in 1949, and even then it would be CUKC by descent.

[echen]

Hi JAJ,

You have been a great help, thank you very much for steering me in the right direction.

(My great-grandparents were married and I have a copy of their UK marriage certificate)

With regard to the actual event at the time of the enactment of the BNA1948 on 1.1.49, it seems that most British Subjects here in SA thought that they ”automatically” became citizens of SA without any choice in the matter and remained ignorant of whether or not they had any rights to CUKC status. Besides people were still recovering from the War and the depression and questioning their citizenship was probably not a priority at the time, for most. Having spoken to my siblings, they say that none of the implications of the BNA1948 was made public in SA at the time, and if it was made public then not public enough for my parents and siblings i.e. to be aware of the goings on at the time. In fact they were not even aware that the citizenship laws had changed 1949 and the first time they heard of the BNA1948 and “Citizens of the UK and Colonies”, was when I referred to it recently, and in response I just got blank stares from them! The only thing they recall is being issued with a little green card called and identity card. Although finding it very strange, say that they never questioned why they, now all of a sudden, had to have an identity card and number for the first time in their lives, my parents lives, my grand and great grand parents lives! The only time they recall a significant change was in 1962 when we became independent from Britain and became a Republic and left the Commonwealth, which was made very public of course with great pomp and ceremony. So I think a lot of people who could have exercised any rights in 1949 may not have done so out of ignorance.

However, in your opinion, do you think my father could have made an “application to the (then) Secretary of State” under s. 12(6) of BNA1948?

(or am I misreading this clause?)

And could my 4 siblings, who were all born before 1949, have done the same?

Considering that they were all minors at the time, could they have made application at a later date? Or, could they i.e. make application (for British Citizenship) at this time, based on the fact (if so) of their entitlement (if any) to such application in the past?

I realize that this leaves me out in the cold as I was born in 1956, but just curios to know how hard you think ‘they’ would laugh if I rocked up with an application on behalf of my late father!

Thanks again for sharing your views with me, much appreciated.

Regards,
e