Your definition is fine. Trevelyan was not a colonial administrator at the time, he was a civil servant in the treasury. He was a colonial administrator in oth

Your definition is fine. Trevelyan was not a colonial administrator at the time, he was a civil servant in the treasury. He was a colonial administrator in other parts of his career. The definition you cite doesn't match the conclusion you draw, since Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. This is the sole point I was raising. There is a wider pattern of English military, cultural, and political dominance within the UK. That complexity should argue for use of precise language and avoidance of provocative metaphor. For Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, the north, did the domination of England within the UK mean that their national freedom was curtailed? Yes. Is that bad? Sure. Does that make them colonies? No. They were not ruled by the FCO, did not have an appointed governor, did have a say in the laws that affected them. To abuse the ugly counterexample you raise at the end: I'd have the same lack of patience for someone insisting that what is going on in Ukraine is "not a war" because of the involvement of two major powers. A "world war", it is not.