The UK did claim Canada, along with most of North America, in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Canada was granted progressively more autonomy over time but the UK still maintained ultimate sovereignty until the Canadian constitution was patriated. The UK effectively ceded its sovereignty over Canada when UK parliament passed the Canada Act 1982.
Denmark granted Greenland autonomy with the 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government, but Denmark still maintains the authority to modify Greenland’s constitutional arrangement. So, much like the UK still held sovereignty over Canada prior to 1982, Denmark still holds sovereignty over Greenland. Apparently there have been some efforts to draft a constitution for Greenland, but that has not been passed into law by Greenland’s lawmakers nor has it been patriated by Denmark.
Not really either. While greenland and the others are highly autonomous and practically their own countries, national security is not in their competence but instead the job of the kingdom. Not like NATO where every country has their own military and has to help each other but as a federation where there is only one military.
Niels Anderson does a way better Job than me explaining it:
Are you saying that the Danes have nothing to do with the kingdom of Denmark?
Does the UK “claim” Canada because of their relationship to the crown?
The UK did claim Canada, along with most of North America, in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Canada was granted progressively more autonomy over time but the UK still maintained ultimate sovereignty until the Canadian constitution was patriated. The UK effectively ceded its sovereignty over Canada when UK parliament passed the Canada Act 1982.
Denmark granted Greenland autonomy with the 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government, but Denmark still maintains the authority to modify Greenland’s constitutional arrangement. So, much like the UK still held sovereignty over Canada prior to 1982, Denmark still holds sovereignty over Greenland. Apparently there have been some efforts to draft a constitution for Greenland, but that has not been passed into law by Greenland’s lawmakers nor has it been patriated by Denmark.
This makes sense. I completely understand this thank you.
Ooohhh.
I did not realize until this moment that I didn’t understand their relationship correctly.
It’s not the same as the UK-Canada relationship either though, because the UK isn’t responsible for Canada’s defence and foreign policy.
Yes, but mostly because it’s a rock in the middle of the ocean, albeit a really big one.
Don’t touch our rock collection.
They do stand in a relation to each other, but they’re not the same thing.
As I said, Denmark (country) is in the kingdom of denmark, so they have something to do with each ither.
Oh so this is more of a pedantic thing than an actual reasonable difference gotcha.
I don’t think it is for the people on the inside.
It’s comparable to saying: no, Scotland is not in England, Scotland is in the UK and England is in the UK.
No, tht’s not it either.
Think of the kingdom of denmark as kind of a Mini-EU consisting of Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
So if Trump tries to annex it Danish people won’t come to try to protect it. Making the image not accurate?
Not really either. While greenland and the others are highly autonomous and practically their own countries, national security is not in their competence but instead the job of the kingdom. Not like NATO where every country has their own military and has to help each other but as a federation where there is only one military.
Niels Anderson does a way better Job than me explaining it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlK3f1cs_l4