Talk:Kingdom of Rwanda

Dynasty ceased to be a legal entity
"From a European perspective, the Banyarwanda dynasty ceased to be a legal entity with the signing of the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty (also known as the Anglo-German Agreement of 1890), which formalized the German Empire's claims to the territories that would comprise its German East Africa colony, or Deutsch-Ostafrika."

The preceding sentence would appear to be wrong and also to not make sense. Is it translated from some other language to English. It is wrong or at a minimum very poorly expressed.

Firstly, a "dynasty" is not legal entity. Secondly, the "dynasty" obviously did not cease to exist in 1890. The King is still alive today.

If it was intended by the author to mean, that the independent Kingdom of Rwanda ceased to be a legal entity because of the 1890 Anglo-German agreement, well that is demonstrably wrong too.

The 1890 agreement resolved the disputed possessions of Britain and Germany on the East African coast, and resolved the border between Kenya and German East Africa. It was an agreement between the British and the German not to interfere in each others' territorial ambitions to control, Kenya, Uganda and Zanzibar on the one hand,  and Tanganyika on the other hand,  in the hinterlands west of the coast, of which neither at that time controlled. This does not of itself cause the Kingdom ( nor dynasty)of Rwanda to "legally" cease to exist, it merely gives the Germans a free hand to attempt to conquer it,  as far as the British were concerned.

In order for the independent Kingdom of Rwanda to cease to exist,  the colonising power would have to either defeat its government,  occupy and annex its territory,   or alternatively negotiate through coercion a protectorate status for the existing regime (as for example in Baganda/Uganda). Neither of these things happened in the year 1890  and neither happened as an actual outcome of the 1890 Anglo-German agreement. Now as to when exactly German extinguished the sovereinty of the independent Kingdom of Rwanda, I don't know for sure, but it does not appear to be before 1897. This would involve some other formal assertion of soverignty over Rwanda by the German Government, which does not appear to be contained in the 1890 agreement,  and some formal assertion of the boundaries ( including the western boundary ) of the territory claimed to constitute German East Africa.

Furthermore, the 1890 agreement does not appear to resolve the question of the western border of German East Africa vis a vis the Congo colony of King Leopold/Belgium  which is clearly the key factor in relation to the soverign territory of the Rwandan Kingdom. Eregli bob 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The flag and coat of arms shown here are NOT the ones of the rwandan kingdom!!

This article needs work
There appears to be some confusion between this article and the Ruanda-Urundi article. The introduction to this article describes the Kingdom of Rwanda as an entity that existed from the 15th to the 19th century, but then the rest of the article only covers the 20th century (when it was part of Rwanda-Burundi). This needs to be cleared up. - 52 Pickup 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

- Yes I agree, what's the relation between pre-colonial Rwanda, post-colonial Rwanda, Ruanda-Urundi and this article's content? //Gotipe (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Words on the coat of arms
Does anyone know what "Imbaga y'inyabutatu ijyambere" translates to? Josh (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)