Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

RE: Commonwealth Realm - comment

...* Most wiki links are nominals (nouns and noun phrases) or words and phrases derived from nominals. With a few exceptions where something else just works better. Let's not forget, the goal is comprehension and convenience for the readers. Peter Grey 21:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Elected Governors-General

In two Commonwealth Realms -- Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands -- the governors-general are elected by the parliament. I think this should be mentioned here, but I admit that I don't understand how this practice reconciles with the legal theory of the Westminster system. Is the Queen appointing the G-Gs in those realms on the advice of her Parliament, rather than of her government? Or has the Queen's reserve powers in those realms been restrained by constitutional law? --Jfruh 21:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ireland a realm?

While I understand why Ireland is on the list of former commonwealth realms, I believe that Ireland's departure from the commonwealth in 1949 predated the existence of the term "Commonwealth Realm" altogether (the term Dominion was in use at the time). In addition, Ireland's political setup for the bulk of this period -- with an elected President coexisting with the monarch -- is different from any other Commonwealth Realm. At the risk of adding extraneous material to this page, I think this stuff ought to be mentioned at least --Jfruh 21:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, never mind, I see that this has already been dealt with in a footnote. --Jfruh 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Nice map, whoever did it, but you left off St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Corrected. --Colonel Cow 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbering Elizabeth

Regarding the Monarch of Australia, would it not be more appropriate to title her Queen Elizabeth I (Queen of Australia) rather than Queen Elizabeth II (Queen of England)? After all, there was no previous Elizabeth who would have reigned over Australia even as a colony. In fact, since Federation 1901, should not the previous Kings of Australia (not of England) too (since after Federation Australia was now an independent country with its own monarch head of state, separate from England) should have had their titles re-ordered in the Australian context by ordinal number?

Numbering is customary, not logical. You could use the same argument to say that she should be Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom, since the kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707. There have been 11 kings Edward of England and the UK, but only 8 are numbered; 11 kings Charles of France and 17 kings Louis, but the highest numbers are X and XVIII respectively; two kings Alfonso of Spain, but they are numbered XII and XIII; Popes John XX and XXI are the same man and there have been two popes numbered John XXIII and so on.

As a matter of law, the various Styles and Titles Act have all proclaimed her under the name Elizabeth the Second. They could have chosen Elizabeth the First, or even Elizabeth the Fifteenth had they wished, but they didn't.

And since the creation of the British Commonwealth, should not other Commonwealth countries now being independent (previous simply existing as colonies of a "empire") now also be titled Elizabeth I to reflect that she is now a monarch of many independent countries rather than previously Queen Elizabeth II of England via her former colonial empire? And since she is the "Queen of the Commonwealth", a new position from during her reign and should, while keeping her as Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of England, then also title her in the Commonwealth context as Elizabeth I of the British Commonwealth?

She is Head of the Commonwealth, not Queen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not a realm, its just a club.

And the "republics" in the commonwealth, while they have elected presidents by the people, are they not actually under the Queen as her popularly elected representatives of the Head of the Commonwealth, with the difference from monarchies like Australia being that her representative as Head of State is appointed and delegated by her personally as as Governor-General?

No. Presidents of Commonwealth republics, whether elected or not, are Heads of State, and not subordinate to the Queen in any respect whatsoever.

In terms of the seats of power, the Commonwealth republican presidents and the Governor-Generals of the Commonwealth monarchies may difffer, but in terms of the seat of delegation, functionally I would see them to be the same: still representing the Monarch under the Commonwealth. Under my understanding then, the Queen would legally (though probably politically no be able to do so) have the authority to dismiss any of her representatives under her delegation of each independent country of the Commonwealth, such as perhaps Robert Mugabe or, in earlier times, Idi Amin? Interesting question!

No. See above.

As a corrolary regarding Australian (and other Commonwealth country) coins, would they be not genuinely actual "Legal Tender" in Australia since it is her image as Queen of England, Head of State of England (Elizabeth II) which bears all Australian coins and not her image as Queen of Australia, Head of State of Australia (Elizabeth I) which ought to be borne on Australian coins? This would lead it to consider that "Australian" coins are not realy Australian Legal Tender but rather they are English Legal Tender but denoted in terms of Australian Dollar / cents denominations! The Australian $5 note would still be Austraian Legal Tender since the image of the Queen does not specify the name. Nor does it make sense for the Australian Prime Minister to swear his oath to the Queen of England (Elizabeth II). Why not swear his oath to the Queen of Australia (Elizabeth I) if he is the Prime Minister of Australia?

He swears his oath to Elizabeth II Queen of Australia. In any case, she is not Queen of England. As a legal entity, England ceased to exist in 1707.

Sincerely, Vytautas B. Radzivanas, Perth, Western Australia

HTH --Chris Bennett 17:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Chris. I had come up with my comments above looking at a similar situation in another part of Europe. Lithuania and Poland were several hundred years in a commonwealth situation where the two countries were independent, but shared a common monarch - most of the time! This was because the Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania married Hedwig the Queen of Poland and therefore Jogaila (in Polish: Jagiello) became concurrently but separately the Head of State of each of the two countries: King of the Kingom of Poland, and Grand Duke of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. My understanding is that Poland being a Kingdom, the King was in a dynastic succession, but Lithuania being a Grand Duchy (a different form of statehood) had as its Head of State being the Grand Duke, where the all various Dukes of the Lithuanian federal duchies state in council would acclaim one of them to be the "first of equals" to be the Grand Duke, or the Head of State OF Lithuania. In most cases, the hereditary accession of the King of Poland would be acceeded by the Lithuanian Dukes to also be the Grand Duke of Lithuania. While in the same Grand Ducal (extended) Family, there were a few cases when the person of the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania were not the same person, and as a result, there were different ordinal numberings among the later same Kings/Grand Dukes. Sometimes there were staggered reigns in each of the two countries. The most notable was where the Lithuanian Grand Duke Zygimantas I was never a King of Poland, and King John Albrecht of Poland was never a Grand Duke of Lithuania. When in a later century Lithuania's Grand Duke Zygimantas II became King of Poland, as Poland's king there was never any previous Zygimantas (name in Polish: Sigismund), so while he was Zygimantas II Grand Duke of Lithuania, he was Zygimantas I (Sigismund I) King of Poland.

When eventually the dynasty died without issue, Poland was no longer able to continue dynastic succession,and joined with Lithuania's "accession of first among equal Dukes" idea for the 2 countries to develop a common voting by nobility to elect a common monarch as King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, which included nobles from each country as Kings / Grand Dukes of the day. Later, royalty from other countries were elected as common King / Grand Duke of each of the two countries and wound up having common monarchs from Saxony, France, Sweeden, Hungary etc. In a sense, it was no longer a "monarchy" but almost a republic with a presidential head of state "for life term" elected from among royalty of any country. In the 1790's, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned and annexed by 3 growing powers in Europe: Russia, Prussia, and Austria (commonly described as "partitions of Poland") and both countries ceased to exist as sovereign states until their independences were restored after World War I, and after the Soviet occupations and sattelite statuses from World War II, the now are fully independent since 1990.

I believe there was also precedent for different ordinal numbers of common monarchs reigning in several countries concurrently, evain in Great Britain, where I believe that a James in Scotland and England had different ordinal numbers at the same time, and that also led me to the question I raised above.

Absolutely, but you were making a different argument, which was that the Queen MUST be Elizabeth I of Australia. And indeed she could have been Elizabeth I of Australia while also being Elizabeth II of the UK. But the Australian parliament has explicitly chosen not to number her this way. --Chris Bennett 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sincerely, Vytautas B. Radzivanas Perth, Western Australia

The Commonwealth Realms choose to have a common numbering. No, it's not perfectly logical, it's better because it helps give the monarchy some of its human charm. (It could be interesting if we ever have a "King Louis", because Canada has already had a Louis XV.) Peter Grey 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I raised this issue in regards to Canada on the Elizabeth II talk page. The outcome of the discussion was that Elizabeth is entitled to call herself whatever she wants in any of her kingdoms. So she is still Elizabeth II. Earlier I thought this was otherwise but I was wrong. So Chris Bennet, you are incorrect about her needing to be called merely Elizabeth in Australia. FDR | FDR 16:20 May 26, 2006 (UTC)

Read again FDR -- it was Vytautas Radzivanas who held this position, and me who was disabusing him of it. You might also try spelling my name right! --Chris Bennett 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have read the discussion more carefully. FDR FDR:MyTalk 15:58 May 27, 2006 (UTC)

Australian republic referendum

Just made a small change to this part - Victoria certainly didn't vote in favour - Only the ACT did. Further to that the 'defeated by a narrow margin overall' is certainly debateable - given the double majority required. 220.235.156.94 12:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right - I've removed that contentious comment and left it with the factual point that the referendum was defeated. --gbambino 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Documenting this issue here re. Section: 'Former_Commonwealth_Realms'

In case I am wrong in assumption of a prior merger being in force or if such a split is contemplated in the future, IMHO as someone who writes frequently in matters historical, this particular section ought to be in it's own article.

In any event, the redirect issue is worthy of expostion in and of itself, so here it is.

This (following) duplicates a post to user talk:Mel Etitis as my UK 'goto guy'. Best regards, FrankB

Hi! This is of national interest to you, so I'll pick on you about this vexation!

• re: Here == #redirect [[Commonwealth_Realm#Former_Commonwealth_Realms]] which should navigate to Commonwealth_Realm#Former_Commonwealth_Realms when used in (historical) articles calling for the distinction.
• iirc, the section linked was 'Merged in' from a prior seperate article, which presents the problem of reaching such nations as a reference.
• Unfortunately, every time (maybe 5-6) I've tried to use the titled (redirect) from within an article, I end up 'fixing the link' with the direct referenced link.
• I guess this is 'proper' from the point of view of not including double redirects, but this doesn't quite 'qualify' in my mind as such, nor does it seem logically consistant with the merge into one article.
• In other words, this is costing me 'productivity' by not working! (We all only have so much free time!)
• Any ideas on how to fix it????? Or do I just have to suffer the necessary double edits. (At least the redirect serves as a repository for the correct link syntax!)

Thanks, Best! FrankB 13:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Are all realms kingdoms?

There is a discussion re whether Canada is a kingdom at Talk:Canada#Canada_is_not_a_kingdom. As this affects all realms, it is relevant here & discussion should probably continue here. --JimWae 20:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. Its a silly discussion. Of course Canada is a kingdom, as are all the other Commonwealth realms, since they are independent monarchies, and their monarch has the title "Queen of <Realm>". --Chris Bennett 23:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate definition

This article is a little inaccurate in how it defines "realm", but I can't think off-hand how to reword it simply to avoid the problem.

For example, the very first paragraph currently says this:

A Commonwealth Realm is any one of the 16 sovereign states of the Commonwealth of Nations that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen and head of state.

The problem with this and other examples that equate being a realm with a sovereign state is the Realm of New Zealand. That realm is not a state, but is virtually a mini version of the Commonwealth in its own right, being made up of three sovereign states and two dependencies:

1. New Zealand proper
2. The Cook Islands
3. Niue
4. Tokelau
5. The Ross Dependency

Constitutionally, the Cook Islands and Niue are equal partners with New Zealand proper within the Realm of New Zealand, and are sovereign states in their own right. Possibly the only way to neatly reflect this in the article is to insert a footnote at the very first reference to realms being sovereign states. Any other approach would probably involve quite clunky phrasing.

Silverhelm 12:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

The Realm of New Zealand is what is considered a Commonwealth Realm - the three states within it are all headed by EIIR as Queen of New Zealand specifically. But the Realm of New Zealand is commonly referred to as simply New Zealand. Should NZ then be called by it's formal name in the article to make clear that the full Realm of NZ is the Commonwealth Realm, and not just the island state within it? --gbambino 15:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The long form full name is the Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependencies. The Royal Proclamation of September 8, 1907 declaring "the Colony of New Zealand shall be known as the Dominion of New Zealand" on and after September 26, 1907 was never formally revoked.

The Cook Islands, Niue (an Associated State), Tokelau and the Ross Dependency are the Dependencies of the Dominion of New Zealand. Someday in the future, Niue will change its Associated State Status, and gain Dominion Status (or perhaps a Republic within the British Commonwealth of Nations).

70.30.193.143 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Legal Reference to define a Commonwealth Realm?

I am researching the history and constitutional law of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The name of this organisation used to be refered to as the British Empire. Then following the formation of the British Dominions of the Dominion of Canada (1867), the Commonwealth of Australia (1901), the Dominion of New Zealand (1907), and the Union of South Africa (1910), the organisation was refered to as the British Empire-Commonwealth. This hyphenated term was used to denote that the majority of the territory was still under the direct government of the United Kingdom (i.e., the British Empire part), whereas the British Dominions were independent countries within the British Empire (i.e., the British Commonwealth part).

On December 6, 1921, the Irish Free State was formed and granted Dominion Status as well. This left the Mother-Country with the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Irish Free State unambigiously retained its Dominion Status (1921-1937), and later left the British Commonwealth in 1949, to become the Republic of Ireland. During this period on August 15, 1947, the British colony of the Empire of India was partitioned into the Dominion of India, and the Dominion of Pakistan (who later became the Republic of India, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in 1950 and 1956, repectively).

Following the partition of 1947, the majority of the organisations' territory were no longer British colonies, and were in fact British Dominions. Thus the usage of the term British Empire was discontinued, and it became known as the British Commonwealth of Nations (later in fact the term Commonwealth of Nations has become prevalent).

Therefore, up until the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, the term Dominion Status was in use, and completely understood in legal and constitutonal terms. The intent of the framers of the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 is clearly and explicitly expressed in the body of the text. Nowhere within the text did it state the intent to abolish the term Dominion Status, and replace it with term known as a Commonwealth Realm.

So, can anyone give me a legal reference to begin my research into the origin and legal definition of the term Commonwealth Realm? If other Wikipedians would be so kind, I would be most greatful indeed.

70.30.193.143 20:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is "commonwealth realm" a legal term at all? It was my understanding that it was really just a common description. john k 18:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonial and post colonial hangovers

Gbambino has objected to Lholden's edit that "This [i.e. replacement of monarchy by republic] was especially true in post-colonial Africa, whose leaders often regarded the monarchy as a colonial hangover, preferring to patriate the office of Head of State."

Initially he objected on the grounds that it was POV. When I pointed out that Lholden's statement is about historical motivation, and therefore not POV, he changed his objection to the grounds that "Evidence is needed that they regarded monarchy as a "post-colonial (sic) hangover". Patriated isn't correct either." He prefers the statement to read "This was especially true in post-colonial Africa, whose leaders preferred not to continue in a personal union relationship with other nations."

The trouble with Gbambino's text is that it says very little -- it's not much more than "African leaders converted their Commonwealth realms to republics because that's what they wanted to do." Lholden's statement actually provides an explanation of why almost all of them converted status within 2-3 years. Which is why I would prefer to keep it.

To my knowledge, Lholden's statement is accurate: it was seen as casting off the last shackles of colonialism. It's what I hazily remember of the period and it certainly fits the general nationalist and pan-Africanist temper of the times. I don't see an obvious alternative that would apply across the continent, and Gbambino hasn't proposed one (let alone provided any evidence for it)

As to hard evidence for it, while I suspect Gbambino's demand is disingenuous (since he is changing his argument to get a desired result), it is also not unfair. However, I am not an African history expert and a quick search of the web reveals very little contemporary material on the transition. If Lholden, or some African expert who follows this topic, is reading this, it would move the discussion ahead if he could cite an item of hard evidence on the point, preferably a speech or article available on the web.

As to "patriation", it seems to me to be a perfectly accurate description -- the Head of State formerly resided in London, but thereafter resided in the presidential palace. However, I believe the word has a very particular connotation in Canada, so I'm not going to fight for it.

--Chris Bennett 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The last edit stated: "...[African] leaders often regarded the monarchy as a colonial hangover, preferring to patriate the office of Head of State". This edit was reverted because "Evidence is needed that they regarded monarchy as a "post-colonial hangover". Patriated isn't correct either." On the second issue:

• Any reasonable definition of "patriated" (I'm going on the Oxford English Dictionary definition) means that the edit is correct because to "patriate" means to bring someone (or thing) to a country, as repatriate means to send someone home. You cannot say that the monarchy is "shared" on the one hand and that when a country becomes a republic they do not "patriate" the Head of state. The Monarch cannot be "patriated" given that the monarch is almost always resident in the United Kingdom. In much the same way, the office of the Governor-General is described as being "patriated" from the time when locals were appointed to the office.
• The question of African leaders' regarding the monarchy as a colonial hangover is fairly easy to answer. Given that most of the leaders in question were pan-African socialists, it is hard to see how their rhetoric of "Imperialism" wouldn't include the monarchy. One only has to read the speeches of the first President of Ghana, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, Such as "I speak of Freedom" to see that the pan-Africanists regarded the monarchy as colonial. Jomo Kenyatta, the first President of Kenya, specifically rejected what he saw as "Imperialism" (probably in the Marxist sense). Indeed, the Pan-African Congress in 1945 declared "We affirm the right of all colonial peoples to control their own destiny. All colonies must be free from foreign imperialist control, whether political or economic." Obviously, that includes the monarchy. We might not view the monarchy in Commonwealth Realms as being imperialist, but that is not the point. The point is, the African leaders reffered to obviously did. The edits should stand--Lholden 23:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I find nothing wrong with the edit, however is it possible to get a external cite for it? Brian | (Talk) 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just had an idea, why don't someone write a Commonwealth Republic article, then you can put it all the arguments/speechs etc in there Brian | (Talk) 06:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be a fine idea but it doesn't solve the current problem. A statement of why African leaders decided to convert their Commonwealth realms into republics could be appropriate in either place, but Gbambino's objection could also be raised in either context.

Lholden's response gives specific evidence backing up my comment about the general nationalist, socialist, anti-imperialist and pan-Africanist tone of the times. I agree with him that, given that mindset, its obvious that a rapid removal of the monarchy was inevitable. I also agree with you that he didn't produce a specific contemporary statement to that effect, but I think the prima facie case is established, and its now up to Gbambino to produce evidence that the proposed text is wrong. --Chris Bennett 14:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have specific examples of African leaders referring to the Monarchy in their country, after independence, as imperialist? Interpretations of their views on imperialism remain solely that - personal interpretations. If specific examples can be found, then fine, insert them into the article. However, to assert that every leader in Africa from 1950 to 1970 regarded the Monarchy as a "post-colonial hangover" is, without evidence, a point of view.

Patriated doesn't apply because by the time an ex-colony became a Realm their constitution had already been patriated - they were independent nations. The actual physical head of state may live predominantly in another country, but the office of the head of state exists only within the state itself. --gbambino 01:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Gavin, the onus now is really on you to show the opposite - that the African leaders in question specifically did not want to "share" the Monarch as their Head of state. If you can prove that, then there is no dispute. On the other hand, your claim that somehow my edit, in light of the nationalist, socialist, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and pan-Africanist, views of the leaders in question is a "personal interpretation" is certainly not correct. That description is better attributed to the original text. Perhaps the word "hang-over" is not correct, and a better word can be found. It is not a personal interpretation to state that the leaders of such African states were vehemently anti-colonial and that in being anti-colonial, they regarded the monarchy (specifically the monarch as their Head of state) as a colonial hangover. It is a given that that is the case – can it be shown otherwise, that the African leaders did not regard the monarchy in their general anti-colonial views as being a colonial era hangover? The speed at which the monarchy was abolished in these states (compared to say, Australia, Canada or New Zealand) indicates that this cannot be so.

As for the issue of "patriate", is the OED wrong? Its definition of the word is to bring someone to a country, as repatriate means to send someone home. Obviously, that indicates physical presence. But you can disagree with the authority of the English language if you wish. --Lholden 01:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Lewis, the onus is not on me to do anything. An edit that makes a fairly sweeping statement was inserted, yet has no source. I'm asking that a source be provided. If one cannot be provided, the information is invalid as it is based on a personal interpretation of the editor, not on any historical fact or interpretation of a credible historian or theorist.

I'm not saying that no African leaders regarded the Monarchy as a "hangover", and I'm not trying to insert such a claim into the article. However, on the same grounds, a broad statement claiming they all saw monarchy as a "hangover" is equally inadmissable without supporting evidence. And being anti-colonial is not the same thing as being anti-monarchy. As you know, a number of former Realms maintained monarchy as their form of government, only not in a personal union relationship.

I will repeat my comment regrging patriation: a Commonwealth Realm has already patriated its office of head of state - the monarch may not be resident, but the office the monarch occupies is. Where else does the office of head of state for Canada exist other than in Canada? The Realms in Africa had already patriated their constitutions, and therefore the office of head of state. Upon becoming a republic (or a disassociated monarchy) all they did was end the personal union with the other Realms of the Commonwealth. --gbambino 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so we've gone from a "personal interpretation" to a "sweeping statement". That's an important change because on the one hand you wanted evidence of the attitudes of the African leaders towards the monarchy, but on the other my edit was claimed to be "POV". Interesting, as that is what the original text is; your point of view.

Originally, the text read "...[African] leaders often did not want to "share" the office of Head of State with the Queen." This is a sweeping statement, for which there is no evidence, it is based on a personal interpretation of the editor, not on any historical fact or interpretation of a credible historian or theorist. If it was, you could easily produce evidence to the contrary, disproving my edits validity. I do concede that the term "hangover" mightn't be the most correct word. I also concede that I have not yet found any evidence that directly shows that the African leaders considered the monarchy as a "hangover". I am still looking however. Perhaps it would be more correct to say something along the lines of "...[African] leaders often regarded the monarchy as a constitutional link to their former coloniser, at a time when anti-imperialist feelings were very strong." I know you won't like that, as you don't get to push your "shared monarchy" argument, but that sentence is by far more historically accurate, on the evidence I presented, than the original sentence.

Your only answer to this evidence presented is "being anti-colonial is not the same thing as being anti-monarchy", on the basis that some Commonwealth Realms are monarchies. That doesn't explain why most African states (the states in question) moved to becoming republics within 1-3 years of independence. How do you explain that Gavin?

Finally, on the patriation issue, I ask again: is the OED wrong? Does patriation not mean physical presence? If so, you should be writing to the editor of the dictionary.

--Lholden 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A personal interpretation can be sweeping. Without a supporting source, the claim is POV, regardless of how narrow or broad it is.

The original text does seem to have been a sweeping POV statement, as well as unclearly written. I did not insert it - it was your friend J.J. who did [1].

It isn't neccessary that I explain why most African nations became republics within 1-3 years of independence from the UK. History explains that itself - each nation having its own reasons.

Please read my comments again regarding patriation. You're clearly missing something. --gbambino 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so instead of defending the text, it's now JJ's fault. Heh. I should have known, that evil Canadian republican!

I think your edit on a "resident Head of state" pretty much concedes the point I was making regarding patriation. And yes, I have read your comments on patriation; I still don't agree.

If (or when) I find evidence of an African leader stating that they didn't like the monarchy because of its colonial connotations, I'll put that up. --Lholden 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I never defended the original edit. Displaying who actually inserted the contested text dispels any implication that it was I who did. Nobody was blamed.

It's odd that you can't see the difference between an office of head of state and the head of state themselves. --gbambino 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh? Your view on patriation relates to the legal effect of independence (the Office of Head of state), the OED definition speaks of physical presence - which relates to the Head of state themselves. Hence your definition is odd. However, since the term "resident" - which I take as being physically present - has been inserted, I take no issue with the text now. --Lholden 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

During the years 1981-1982 the term repatriation of the Constitution was used in Canada. The reasoning for repatriation of the British North America Act 1867, was that it contained within it no amending formula to the Canadian Constitution. As well before December 11, 1931, the limitations of (i). disallowance (i.e., to anull or alter), and (ii). reservation (i.e., to lay aside for consideration before giving Royal Assent) on the legislation passed by the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, where still in place and could be used by the Westminster Parliament. The Statute of Westminster 1931, was a statute (i.e., a law) that forbade the use of disallowance by the Westminster Parliament on any legislation passed by a British Dominions' Parliament.

From 1867 to 1931, the Dominion of Canada had effective legislative independence (please review the scant number of times dissallowance and reservation were actually used), and the Statute of Westminster 1931 only put into law (i.e., statute) a long established informal set of Parliamentary rules (i.e., conventions), which where effectively adhered to in the first place.

After the 1980 Referendum on Quebec Separation, the Federal Government decided (ill-advisedly mind you) to attempt yet again Canadian Constitutional reform. The result was the Canada Act 1982, which was a complete travesty. In English-Canada, it screwed up English Common-Law properity rights completely, and in French-Canada they lost their Constitutional Veto on cultural issues (which was previously contained in the BNA Act). To "top it off" the Province of Quebec never signed it.

So unless Mr. Holden, you were a "resident" Canadian (who was physically present in the Dominion of Canada) and lived through the actual time period (1981-1982) please do not presume to dictate that the proper "word" for this process was patriation. The word used was repatriation, whether your Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says so, or not.

70.30.193.143

Nice diatribe, but what does it have to do with the patriation of the office of head of state by African leaders in the early 1960s, which was the topic under discussion? --Chris Bennett 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The above only proves what Chris Bennett has said before, that the term has a particular usage in Canada. However, I would add that the term "patriation" in the context of what we are discussing is a valid word; as (I say above) it implies physical presence. In any case, this issue has been resolved because the term "resident" has been used. --Lholden 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The UK

As discussed over at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I fail to find any evidence outside of wikipedia-derived sources that the United Kingdom is considered a commonwealth realm. What evidence I can find - mostly on the royal website, suggests the opposite, referring to "the UK and the Commonwealth Realms" as being separate things. I have changed the article accordingly. john k 11:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but this is obviously nonsense. Which part of the phrase "Commonwealth Realm" does not apply to the United Kingdom? Is it not a Realm under the sovereignty of Elizabeth II? Of course it is. Is it not a member of the Commonwealth? Of course it is. Therefore how can it possibly not be a Commonwealth Realm?

As noted by the Australian quote that you yourself cited, the UK is regarded as a Commonwealth Realm within the other Realms. To my mind at least, that is the essence of the distinction between the old "Dominion" and the current "Commonwealth Realm" -- the modern term places all the Realms on an equal footing.

Any discussion of modern Commonwealth consitutional theory makes a point of explaining that all Commonwealth members are equal. But the UK is historically unique in that it is the originator of the Commonwealth, which has evolved out of the British Empire. It is also unique in that it is the queen's country of residence. These things make it first among equals, which completely explains the items you mentioned that distinguish the UK from other Commonwealth Realms. It is certainly not necessary to explain them by resorting to an absurd assertion that the UK is not something that it manifestly is.

I've reverted, If you want to pursue this, please provide some positive evidence that there is some actual constitutional difference between the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms.

--Chris Bennett 17:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't one of "constitutional differences," although of course there are major constitutional differences, particularly in that there is no Governor-General of the United Kingdom. There are also obvious historical differences, but that's not the issue either.

The issue is one of terminology, and whether the term "commonwealth realm" is normally used as including the UK. Most of the (admittedly paltry) non-wikipedia sources I was able to find on the internet that explicitly address the issue, particularly the royal website itself, support the idea that the UK is not considered a commonwealth realm. The only exception I found was a speech by the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, which refers to Canada as one of 16 commonwealth realms. I'm not sure what "Australian quote" I cited. There was a reference on the royal page to Australia as a commonwealth realm, which was defined as "a realm in which the queen is sovereign." However, the same definition was given elsewhere in a context where it was clear the UK was not included.

Here's some other examples: The Canadian Monarchist League, in a piece attacking a Globe and Mail editorial complaining about the Queen and PoW not being present at Trudeau's funeral, clearly refers to the "15 commonwealth realms," and in a way which makes it quite evident that the UK is not included. This article from the Time of India also pretty clearly uses "Commonwealth Realms" to refer to the countries other than the UK that are governed by the Queen. What is needed here is serious evidence that the term "Commonwealth Realm" is normally applied to the UK. There is absolutely no need for constitutional evidence, since the term "commonwealth realm" does not have to have constitutional significance.

The basic fact is that the term "commonwealth realm" is normally used to refer to the countries other than the United Kingdom, of which Elizabeth II is the sovereign. Although it may occasionally be used in a way that includes the UK, this is not its primary meaning. I am reverting. john k 17:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, though, I'd be willing to accept wording which suggests that the question of whether the UK is a commonwealth realm is ambiguous or unclear, and that it is sometimes referred to as such, particularly in the (other) commonwealth realms. But we should certainly not state that it is unambiguously considered a commonwealth realm, when there are pretty clear examples of major sources using the term in a way to exclude the UK. john k 17:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad form to re-revert once there is clearly going to be a debate. It settles nothing and just makes your opponents mad at you, which makes it harder to reach a settlement. I've gone back to the status quo ante and it should be left there until there is an agreement. Please don't do it again until there is agreement.

As this discussion illustrates, what's "normal" usage depends on who you talk to. As you said yourself, the backups you found for your POV are "admittedly paltry". One data point is the history of this article, which has been through many editors. It has made an explicit point of regarding the UK as a Commonwealth Realm since almost the first version of the text, and, as far as I can tell, this has never previously been challenged.

We should certainly not state that it is not considered to be a Commonwealth Realm, when it manifestly meets both terms. In the spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept wording which states that the UK is sometimes (or even "often") distinguished from the other Commonwealth Realms because of its historical role in the Commonwealth, and because it is the queen's principal residence, which means she is more directly involved in the workings of its government than it that of the other Realms. That, obviously, is why there is no GG of the UK. If she (and the rest of the royal family) moved to Jamaica, the GG of Jamaica would resign and a GG would have to be appointed for the UK. Not that it is likely to happen of course.

The substantive issue is certainly one of constitutional differences. By distinguishing the UK in the way you propose, you are asserting that there is an actual difference in status between the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms. That is simply not correct. The whole history of the evolution of the Commonwealth has been about removing such differences in status between its members, starting with differences in status between those members who have the queen as head of state. For example, there have been repeated discussions on this site and others, about whether changes to succession law in the UK (including transformation into a republic) would affect the other Realms, and the conclusion is that they would not, unless the other Realms took specific action to align themselves with the UK.

So, I'm suggesting we add a sentence in the introduction which reads something like "The UK is often distinguished from the other Commonwealth Realms, for historical reasons and because it is the Queen's country of residence, but all 16 Realms are equal in status."

Finally, there may well be opinions from other people who monitor this page. They should be given a chance to chip in. --Chris Bennett 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, of course there is a difference in status between the UK and the (other) commonwealth realms, which is blatantly obvious to any reasonable person. The ridiculous hypothetical situation of the royal family moving to Jamaica is completely irrelevant, and, it seems to me, completely wrong. There is no legal provision currently in place for the institution of the office of Governor-General of the United Kingdom. If the Queen moved to Jamaica, this would not lead automatically to the appointment of a Governor-General of the UK. Parliament would have to pass some sort of law instituting the office. I'm not even sure how the analogy works on the other end. As I understand it, in most of the commonwealth realms, the law basically says that royal functions are vested in the Governor-General. I am not aware of any automatic provision whereby the office of Governor-General ceases to exist in the instance that the monarch chooses to reside in one of the commonwealth realms.

Beyond that, saying that the UK is not called a Commonwealth Realm does not assert anything about whether there are actual substantive differences. The term "commonwealth realm" is not, so far as I can tell, a term with any formal legal mean. As such, it merely means what it is used to mean. That usage is very often in a way which excludes the UK. Certainly, people in the UK itself almost never refer to their country as a "commonwealth realm," in stark contrast to people in the other commonwealth realms, who frequently refer to their own countries in that way. The term "commonwealth realm" is generally used to refer to the 15 countries other than the UK of which Elizabeth II is the Queen. It is usually done in a way which does not make it clear whether or not the UK is included. When that question is specifically addressed, the answer is, at best, unclear - sometimes we see references to the "16 commonwealth realms," or "the United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms," while at other times we hear about the "15 commonwealth realms," or "the United Kingdom and the commonwealth realms."

To demonstrate that the United Kingdom is considered a "commonwealth realm", the task at hand is to prove either a) that the term "Commonwealth Realm" has a specific formal legal meaning, and that this specific formal legal meaning includes the UK as one of the commonwealth realms; or b) to demonstrate that everyday usage overwhelmingly favors inclusion of the UK as a commonwealth realm. Whether or not the UK and the Queen's other realms are "equal in status" is completely irrelevant. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that the status of the UK and the (other) commonwealth realms is equal. But that does not mean that the UK is called a "commonwealth realm." To demonstrate that, you have to prove that, er, the UK is called a commonwealth realm. The constitutional status is irrelevant.

As far as I can gather, the term is most often used to apply to the 15 realms other than the United Kingdom. When an overarching term is needed for all the realms ruled by the queen, the term "the Commonwealth realms" is occasionally used, but it is rare that such a distinction needs to be made. At any rate, at bottom, this is not a constitutional issue, unless "commonwealth realm" can be demonstrated to be a term with a clear constitutional meaning, and that said meaning includes the UK. Otherwise, this is, at bottom, a question of usage. And usage does not support any kind of unambiguous statement that the UK is a commonwealth realm. john k 19:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that, if it can be demonstrated that "commonwealth realm" is a term with a formal legal meaning that includes the UK, I would be happy with Chris's proposed wording. Until that time, though, I'm going to oppose any attempt to label the UK as being a commonwealth realm as though it is a statement of fact. john k 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see if someone can come up with something on that point. Actually, I am (mildly) curious to know exactly when and how the term "Commonwealth Realm" came to replace "Dominion", and it might be an interesting factoid to add to the article.

But, regardless of whether there is a legal definition of the term, I do not accept your view that "common usage" requires the article to distinguish between the UK and the other realms. The term is not one of common usage, it is somewhat technical. While admittedly a data point of one, it never occurred to me that there was such a distinction, outside the historical and residence issues, until you raised the matter -- I suppose because my Australian high school history course on the evolution of the Commonwealth made a point of stressing that the Statute of Westminster meant that the Dominions and the UK were equal in status under the shared Crown. More significantly, as I said, there is the (at times rather active) editorial history of this article itself, by many hands from many countries and political persuasions, as direct evidence to the contrary. You have also avoided addressing my original question: In what way is the UK either not a member of the Commonwealth or not a Realm of the sovereign?

In any case, I think this has gone as far as it can for now, pending either further evidence or other viewpoints. --Chris Bennett 19:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, I did a search through the online UK Parliamentary Archives. The term "Commonwealth Realm" came up only once (which is a bit surprising in itself), in response to a written question to the Prime Minister in 1995. I quote the full exchange:

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister (1) in which country of which Her Majesty is Head of State the inheritance of the Crown is prohibited to adherents of certain religions; [20852]

(2) in which countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State (a) the oldest child and (b) the oldest male child of the monarch succeed to the throne. [20853]

The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 April 1995]: I am not aware that any other Commonwealth realm has rules relating to the succession to the throne.

The answer clearly shows that the Prime Minister's office of the UK, which ought to be acceptable as an authoritative source, considers the UK to be just one of several Commonwealth Realms. --Chris Bennett 20:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how the fact that the UK could be described as a "Commonwealth realm" (i.e. a realm in the Commonwealth) automatically means that it is a "Commonwealth Realm" (a technical term and the subject of this article). You can't just randomly change the capitalisation of a phrase and expect its meaning never to change.

Good, we agree it is a technical term. That eliminates John Kenney's concern about common usage right off the bat.

What? I said it was a technical term, not a legal term. Speakers of languages are allowed to invent technical terms for themselves and define what they mean, you know. You don't need official status to invent a phrase with a specific meaning. Proteus (Talk) 21:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And I agree that, in principle, the capitalization can make a difference to the meaning. The point at isuue here is whether, in this particular case, it does have a different meaning. My understanding has always been that it does not. The Hansard quote I have just added, while not completely definitive, is strong evidence that it does not.

No it's not. Even if it were factually "authoritative", as you claim (and I don't generally turn to politicians when looking for authoritative answers, but maybe you think they're infallible), most people don't think very carefully about how they capitalise things in ordinary writing. I'm sure I could find a quote with the PM's office calling him the "prime minister", but I doubt anyone would accept that as authoritative proof that his office is capitalised thus. Proteus (Talk) 21:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Commonwealth Realm" is essentially a politically correct renaming of the term "Dominion" (which is defined legally, by the Statute of Westminster 1931).

That definition is as follows: In this Act the expression "Dominion" means any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.

I think I can safely say that this definition has been rendered obsolete by subsequent events, regardless of whether "Commonwealth Realm" really is (as you contend without evidence) a "politically correct" renaming of "Dominion".

It's pretty definitive that the UK's not included. The fact that other colonies were added to the list later is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Proteus (Talk) 21:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The UK wasn't a Dominion, and so there's no reason to suppose that when that term was changed it suddenly became one.

No one is suggesting that. The question is whether the change in terminology signified that the UK was now just one Realm among equals.

Or maybe people didn't like being called "Dominions" any more. Projecting your strange obsession onto the member states of the Commonwealth rather than realising the obvious reality staring you in the face is quite bizarre. Proteus (Talk) 21:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It'd also be a pretty useless technical term if it meant what you said — instead of describing the unique form of stateship held by the Commonwealth Realms, with an absent Head of State represented by someone who acts for all intents and purposes as a Head of State but who isn't one, and who is constitutionally appointed and dismissed on the advice of the Prime Minister of (essentially) his own government, with all the complicated political and constititional consequences of that arrangement, it would just mean "countries of which Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State", which isn't a terribly important grouping in any practical sense. Proteus (Talk) 20:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Whether the UK is defined to be in or out of the group, it remains a group of states with a particular (and rather peculiar) set of arrangements, somewhat ad hoc but with many common characteristics, for reconciling a theoretically shared head of state with complete actual independence in law and in policy. Inclusion of the UK doesn't affect the complexity of the constitutional and political consequences of the arrangements, nor the interest (or lack thereof) that they may have. To the contrary, I would argue that they can't be explained in any sensible or meaningful way unless the UK is included in the group. --Chris Bennett 20:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The UK doesn't need to reconcile anything. It has a Head of State who lives in the country and performs her functions in person, like all normal states. None of the "particular arrangements" (like Governors-General) exist in the UK. In fact, if the other states of which QEII is Head of State were completely annihilated by natural disasters tomorrow, it wouldn't affect the UK one bit. The term "Commonwealth Realm" is necessary for the non-UK countries because they aren't normal countries. The UK doesn't need that term: it's simply a "Realm", like Spain, the Netherlands or Belgium, and no further classification is necessary. Proteus (Talk) 21:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If "commonwealth realm" basically means, as a formal term, "what we used to call a dominion," the UK is clearly not included. There is obviously some actual usage to the contrary, which refers to the UK as a commonwealth realm, but that, at best, makes the issue "somewhat ambiguous." There is yet to be any clear evidence that the UK is included in any kind of formal way. john k 21:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It also seems there's a lack of clear evidence that the UK is not included. Though I follow the same logic as Chris Bennett - 1) since 1931 all the countries under the crown have been regarded as fundamentally equal in status (regardless of the presence of governors general), and 2) the UK is a) a member of the Commonwealth, and b) a realm of the Crown, and therefore is a Commonwealth Realm - it does seem that there exists out there words that include the UK as a CM, and those that exclude it. Perhaps, until some truly consistent, and authoritative definition can be found, this article should somehow simply state that some sources include the UK while others do not. --gbambino 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's pointed out that one of the sources that doesn't include the UK is the monarchy itself. Proteus (Talk) 10:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what I said before - the UK should be indicated as being sometimes considered a commonwealth realm, and sometimes not. I would say that, from what I've found, especially the monarchy's own website, the default position is that the UK is not a commonwealth realm, but the position is, at best, ambiguous. john k 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK it looks like we are all willing to add text to point out that the UK is distinguished from the other countries (I'll avoid the word "realms" for the moment) which have QEII as head of state in some contexts. Hopefully we can agree that all these countries are equal in status as sovereign nation states within the Commonwealth. I think we can also agree about why the UK is so distinguished: that, historically, the monarchy is indigenous to the UK; that it is resident there, which makes its relationship to the UK government necessarily different to that which applies in the other countries; and, that the UK has moved from a position of paramountcy to one of equality, while the other countries have moved from positions of subordination to one of equality. Have I got that right? If so, I think that we have agreement on the substantive points.

We are left with the definitional issue. That argument is clearly going nowhere. I don't agree with the additional points made above by Proteus and John Kenney, but I also don't think that entering into point-by-point rebuttals is going to get us any closer to agreement. (I also do not appreciate Proteus' snide and unwarranted little insults -- apparently you don't understand the concept of an honest disagreement.) Unless one you starts crowing about my lack of response, or insisting that your particular perspective is the one that absolutely must be represented as definitive in the article, despite the apparent haziness of the evidence, I'm not going to pursue these points.

I am willing to put a little effort into hunting the definitional issue down to the source (e.g. I'm thinking of putting this issue out on ATR, where it may attract the attention of some experts), but I'm actually only mildly interested in it, so I'm only willing to do so much. Unless someone else with more passion and better resources is able and willing to track it down I suspect we'll never get it definitively resolved.

Failing that, I propose a slightly different approach. Gavin proposes leaving it ambiguous. I don't think that works. Since this is an article about Commonwealth Realms, I don't see how it can avoid taking a position on the question on which countries comprise the Commonwealth Realms. But it doesn't have to assert that that position is definitive. It only needs to take a position for the purposes of the article, which is to explain the arrangements by which QEII is and has been queen of more than 30 sovereign and independent countries.

Herewith a revised suggestion of introductory text, to replace the current opening sentence.

The United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states of the Commonwealth of Nations currently recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch. This article describes the evolution of this arrangement and the mechanisms by which the monarch is shared while the individual states retain their sovereignty. For the purposes of this article, each of these countries is considered to be a Commonwealth Realm.(Footnote ref here)

(Footnote text)The term has replaced the older term Dominion, in part because the older term historically implied a residual subordination to the United Kingdom. The newer term appears to lack a formal definition. The United Kingdom is often still distinguished from the other Commonwealth Realms, for historical reasons and because it is the Queen's country of residence, but all 16 countries are now fully equal in status.

Comments? --Chris Bennett 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've summarized the substantive issue fairly. I don't like the idea of wikipedia explicitly defining terms for the purposes of an article in ways they may not be properly defined. The article as it is now mostly discusses the non-UK monarchies anyway, and the UK only really comes in by way of comparison and in terms of its relationship with the others, which could perfectly well be done without considering the UK to be a commonwealth realm. In other ways, not including the UK simplifies things, as for instance discussions of governmental structure. john k 21:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are advocating here. If you don't like the idea of wikipedia explicitly defining terms for the purposes of an article, when we can't otherwise pin down an agreed definition, then why does it make sense to define it in one specific way rather than another? I think the logic of your premise is that we are stuck until someone can actually come up with a citation that we agree is authoritative. (I also do not see how excluding the UK simplifies things, since the essence of the commonwealth monarchy arrangement is that the head of state resides in the UK, but that's incidental.) --Chris Bennett 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, no matter how we define "commonwealth realm," the UK and the monarchy in the UK will be discussed in this article. That's not really the point. It's simpler not to consider the UK to be a commonwealth realm, because the basic issue is how the commonwealth realms relate to the UK (the relationship of the commonwealth realms with one another is negligible), which becomes more complicated to explain if we call the UK a commonwealth realm as well. In addition, the non-UK realms have a similar governmental structure, which is not shared with the UK (in the form of the Governor-General). john k 22:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that even though you agree that we haven't found an agreed authoritative source for either the current definition or your proposed change, and even though you don't like the idea of making a definition for the purposes of the article, you nevertheless think we should change the definition, at least for the purposes of the article, to exclude the UK anyway?? And the reason I should accept that proposal, when I still think your proposed redefinition is clearly wrong, and that I have found good, if not final, authority proving that it is wrong in Hansard, is what exactly????

I'm trying to find a way forward here, in the absence of mutually acceptable evidence. My proposed text is a conservative solution in that it leaves the current definition (with its 4 years of stability on this point) in place while clearly acknowledging that there is an unresolved issue here -- i.e. don't change it until it is proven to be broken. If and when the issue actually becomes resolvable, then it can be reedited appropriately at that time, taking the "right" definition on board while also acknowledging that the "wrong" view exists. In the meantime, at least we have text that doesn't claim authority it doesn't have. --Chris Bennett 23:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As I alluded to at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom earlier, the only really authoritative definition of the term "Commonwealth Realm" was that previously on the royal family's website [2], where it said "A Commonwealth realm is a country where The Queen is the Sovereign. The Queen is Queen not only of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, but also of the following realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu." Logically, this means that the term includes the UK, yet that very page, and the rest of the royal website consistently used the term in a way that suggests (without definitely implying) that the UK is not included.

The fact that the UK was not referred to as a dominion is irrelevant. The use of the term "Commonwealth realm" (the royal website never capitalises the r), came after the dominions stopped being "the British dominions" but were simply "the Queen's realms" instead. Much of the point in the change in the terminology was to better reflect the consitutional equality. There are indeed more similarities between the arrangements in the 15 other countries than between them and Britain, and so it would be reasonable to have a term to describe them, but it is not clear that "Commonwealth realm" is that term. As for usage on the web, most of it is from Wikipedia or is similarly guessing what the term means based on the royal website. Some sites use the clearly wrong "the Commonwealth Realm" or the "UK Commonwealth Realm". The term actually has had fairly limited usage on the royal website and a few other places always in the context of issues involving the Queen herself. As far as I can tell, the wider usage of the term originated with Wikipedia, which is probably not a good thing. JPD (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That answer is still there, if you do a search for "Commonwealth realm". The term certainly predates Wikipedia. I have found in JSTOR a 1983 book review of a book on Commonwealth matters which uses the term (both words capitalized). I've also found a number of cites to an article in the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History called "The Strange Death of Dominion Status", which sounds very relevant, and which I think I can get easily. There is a speech online by the GG of NZ, which says (citing this article) that the PM of NZ ordered government departments to stop using the term "dominion" as obsolete in 1946, and noted that NZ has officially been a Realm since 1953. This suggests that the transformation of Dominions to Realms is connected with the changes in royal styles and titles. But I'll get more information if and when I get the article. --Chris Bennett 15:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that the term predates wikipedia, but it does seem as though wikipedia has put it into broader use. Beyond that, it would seem on the one hand that formal definitions of the term generally seem to include the UK, but that usage of the term is generally reserved for the 15 commonwealth realms which are not the UK. Particularly notably, nobody in the UK seems to refer to their own country as a "commonwealth realm," while people in the (other) commonwealth realms do refer to their own country in this manner (and sometimes also include the UK). When the term "Commonwealth Realm" is used in the UK, it seems to be largely used to mean "other countries of which the Queen is sovereign." In other commonwealth realm countries, it means "Our country and other countries in which the queen is sovereign, possibly including the UK." The royal website seems rather schizophrenic about it - it in a couple of places gives a definition which would include the UK, but never actually calls the UK a commonwealth realm, and frequently implies that it is not by contrasting "the UK" with "the Commonwealth realms." john k 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, 1953 makes a lot of sense as the date for a change, since before that the royal titulary was "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dominions beyond the Seas," and afterwards it was "Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms and territories." john k 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you should bring up titles - though after 1953 each of her titles throughout the Realms separated the relevant name of the country and the United Kingdom from "Her other Realms and Territories"; today only Canada and Grenada continue to do so. Within the Queen's title, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis have stopped referring to the UK as exterior to the Realms.

Also of great interest is the fact that the British proclamation of Elizabeth's accession to the Throne used the title "Queen Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, Queen of this Realm, and of Her other Realms and Territories," clearly including the UK as a realm itself among many.

If, as you've noted, John, the formal definition seems to include the UK, then why would we contradict that here? Besides the common usage being vague and often contradictory in this matter, shouldn't we stick to formal definitions rather than popular interpretations anyway? Or, at least, acknowledge that widespread (as limited as it is) usage sometimes adheres to, and sometimes contradicts, the formal definition? --gbambino 20:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anybody is disputing that the UK is a realm. Just whether or not it is normally described as a "Commonwealth realm." This term is normally applied to the other monarchies, but not to the UK. I'm happy to say that usage sometimes adheres to, and sometimes contradicts, the formal definition. I think it would be particularly appropriate to say that the UK normally does not describe itself as a commonwealth realm, nor do people in the UK normally refer to is as such, but that people in the other commonwealth realms do use that term in reference to the UK. I also think that, both in this articles and others, we should try to be clear when we are including the UK by explicitly saying that we are doing so. We should also be clear when we are excluding the UK. john k 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you're arguing that the UK is formally defined as a Commonwealth realm, but, because it does not call itself one, should therefore not be included as a Commonwealth realm. I'm not sure this justifies the exclusion, whether explicit or through vagaries, of the UK as a Commonwealth Realm throughout this, and other, articles. Should we not stick to the formal definition everywhere necessary, and only further elaborate in a sub-section here that though the UK is technically a Commonwealth realm, common usage sometimes does and sometimes does not label it as such? The UK either is or is not a Commonwealth realm, regardless of what it calls itself. --gbambino 22:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Gbambino - as far as I can gather, "commonwealth realm" is not a term which can really be said to have a formal or technical meaning. Insofar as it has a formal or technical meaning, it may be as you say, but it is unclear if this is the case. The UK is a realm which is in the Commonwealth. By one standard this may make it a "commonwealth realm," but it is not normally spoken of as such. And, in fact, no, the UK is not necessarily either one or the other. You are assuming a prescriptivist interpretation of language. In some instances where there is a clear technical meaning of something, this may be appropriate, but here the issue is really, really fuzzy. The closest we can come to a "formal" definition of "commonwealth realm" is one on the royal website, which also uses the term in a way to suggest the opposite. The idea that commonwealth realm "technically" means anything is problematic, as we have yet to discover a "technical" definition. john k 23:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify what I said earlier, the page on Commonwalth Realms from which I quoted the "definition" is no longer on the royal website, although part of the definition does remain as an answer in the Q&A section. The rest of the website does indeed focus on the role of the monarchy in the UK, inserting "the Commonwealth realms" as though an afterthought. Anyway, apart form the influence of Wikipedia, all the references to the term I have seen are in the specific context of sharing the Queen as sovereign, rather than other consitutional arrangements such as Governors-General, etc., including the quote above from the British PM implying that the UK is a Commonwealth Realm. I don't think it is fair to say that the term is used in the UK to refer to the UK any less than it is used in, say, Australia to refer to Australia. It simply isn't used very much anywhere. I also think that all the usages I have seen do use the term in a formal or technical manner. After all, even our use of "dominion" in this discussion has been with the technical meaning - the UK clearly is a dominion according to the more normal meaning of the word. JPD (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First, a quote from today's Washington Post, in setting up the background to an interview with Helen Mirren on her latest film: In "The Queen," opening in Washington on Friday, Mirren plays one of the world's longest-ruling monarchs, an iconic figure known around the globe, head of state of the 16 commonwealth realms -- not only Britain, but Australia, Papua New Guinea, the Bahamas and (we always forget) Canada. But no doubt the reporter had consulted Wikipedia on the point.... ;-)

Yesterday I got hold of Bogdanor's book "The Monarchy and the Constitution" and also McIntyre's article on Dominion Status I mentioned above. Neither uses the term "Commonwealth Realm", which reinforces JPD's point, that it is not actually that common. However, both underscore in great detail that Britain is today only seen as the first among equals in the Commonwealth, and especially so among the Realms. For example, Bogdanor's listing of Commonwealth membership treats them in three groups: "Monarchies under QEII", "Indigenous Monarchies" and "Republics", and the UK is in the first list, not the second.

What is clear from both sources is that Whitehall bureaucracy was very concerned about these issues in the late 1940s and early 1950s. McIntyre reports that the UK government made a deliberate decision to abandon any formal use of the term "Dominion" in 1949, and also to replace the title "British Commonwealth of Nations" to "Commonwealth of Nations", because of the subordination implied by the older terms. At the time the Royal Titles Act was passed in 1953, it was argued that the whole point was reflect the established fact that the Crown was now legally divisible and all the Realms were legally equal in status. Each Realm became free to choose its own title (thus overturning the convention laid out on this point in the Statute of Westminster), but they agreed to use the format "Queen of [local variant] and her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth".

Bogdanor approvingly quotes Patrick Gordon Walker in the debate on this: "We in this country have to abandon .. any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms and to the Commonwealth as a whole." Bogdanor then goes on to argue (correctly IMO) that this legal reality is not a practical reality.

My conclusions about the formalisms here: (1) "Realm" is not synonymous with "Dominion". The term was chosen precisely because there was a need for a new term to reflect a new reality. (2) The whole point of the term is to stress that each of the 16 countries involved, including the UK, is, legally and formally, equal in status to the others under the Crown. (3) Therefore, in any discussion of their formal status in relation to each other (such as this article), the starting point must be that all 16 countries must be treated equally as Realms. (4) The term "Commonwealth Realm" does appear to be rarely used. However, as a practical matter, there is a need in wider contexts (such as Wikipedia) to distinguish these Realms from other realms, the term "Commonwealth Realm" does demonstrably exist outside Wikipedia, and it serves the purpose perfectly well. (5) When distinguishing the UK from the other realms, Bogdanor repeatedly uses a term that I think gets to the heart of the distinction John Kenney wants to make: "overseas realms". It might be worth mentioning this.

IMO these sources, both by respected academics specialising in constitutional and commonwealth subject areas, establish that it is reasonable and correct to use the term "Commonwealth Realm" for all 16 monarchies. Accordingly, I now propose to leave the initial paragraph alone (including the addition some anonymous user made yesterday, though I didn't think that was particularly necessary), but to add a short paragraph at the end of the section "Current Commonwealth Realms", reading something like:

For historical and practical reasons, the UK is often distinguished from the other Realms. For example, because it is the Queen's country of residence, there is no Governor-Gerneral for the UK, and her relationship with the UK government is direct and personal to an extent that is not possible for the other Realms. From the UK perspective, the other Realms are sometimes considered to be "overseas realms".

There are a couple of other points to emerge from Bogdanor and McIntyre that imply some small changes to the article, but hopefully these are not controversial. --Chris Bennett 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I think we have to always be careful in making the distinction between the capitalized "Dominion" and "Realm" and the non capitalized "dominion" and "realm." With the latter, the two adjectival nouns are synonymous, and apply to all sixteen countries: each is, and always has been, a dominion and a realm of the Crown. However, as a "title" Realm is not equivalent to Dominion - as you say, Chris, Realm was deliberately chosen to replace Dominion in an effort to eliminate the previous associations of subordination attached to a country holding official Dominion status. And, of course, to follow through on that commitment to equality the UK itself would have to be a Realm; hence we see the proclamation of Elizabeth II's accession (based on those of her predecessors, which always referred to the UK as a Realm) explicitly replace all mentions of Dominions in favour of Realms - demonstrating that the UK was always dubbed a Realm, and after 1953 all the other countries under the Crown were now Realms of a completely equal stature.

Secondly, it seems to me that your proposed paragraph is more than acceptable, and much of the great research you've done can add some real substance to this article. However, I'm now left wondering about John's selection, albeit somewhat vaguely, of the UK as a country separate from the Commonwealth Realms at the Elizabeth II article. If we agree that the UK is a realm, and the realms are indeed equal, then instead of Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states, collectively known as the Commonwealth Realms, it should be stated that Elizabeth II is Queen of sixteen sovereign states known as the Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, but John's gone awfully quiet in the last few days. I'd like to feel that he agrees with this approach, or at least no longer opposes it, before moving ahead with my proposed change -- I'll ping him in his mailbox. Point taken about Dominion vs dominion -- the term "dominion status" continued to be used long after the title "Dominion" was abandoned. The Proclamation is a good source document, I agree. I plan to upgrade the History section of this article in a few days to mention some of these points. --Chris Bennett 23:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I have seen no signs that John Kenney is still interested in this topic, either here or in his mailbox or mine, I'm about to make the changed I proposed above. My apologies in advance if he has simply gone offline for a few days and objects to this resolution. I also propose to archive this discussion in a few days, since it is rather long. --Chris Bennett 17:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed still interested in the topic, and have been busy in the real world for the last few days, so I've not had a chance to keep up with this topic. That being said, given the evidence so far presented, I am satisfied with the solution you have proposed for this article, Chris. However, I continue to disagree with Gbambino's insistence that we can never separate the United Kingdom out. Whatever the constitutional technicalities, the most important fact about QEII is that she is the effective head of state of the UK, and I see no particular reason not to specify the UK specifically. I'd be willing to accept a different phrasing of the matter that makes it more clear that the UK is one of the commonwealth realms, but I do think it is perfectly fair to mention it first, and separately, from the other fifteen. It is "first among equals" as somebody said above, and that still means, er, first. For historical reasons alone, it is worth mentioning separately from the others, and I'm certainly not going to budge on that. john k 09:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to accept my solution. I hope we can now regard this issue as resolved. I'm about to shoot out the door and probably won't be able to look at wiki things for a few days myself, so if someone would like to archive this discussion please feel free! --Chris Bennett 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't once stated that the UK can never be separated out. But the provision of equality amongst all 16 countries cannot be ignored either. The UK will always be singled out by the very fact that the Monarchy is resident there, I think we need not heap any more importance on it than that. Mentioning the "United Kingdom and the [15] other Commonwealth Realms" twice within the opening of an article titled "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", along with five other references to the UK in the same space, would certainly be considered as giving too much prominence to one country over all the others. However, of course, that is not relevant to this article.

Pertaining to the text here, Chris, do you have proper references for the Bogdanor book and McIntyre article you found earlier? I think some of that information would serve this article well. --gbambino 15:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I already added a Reference section which includes full citations for these sources -- is that what you had in mind? I have already made some minor corrections based on them. I plan to beef up the history section with some pre-1926 and post-war information from these sources when I find some time, but probably not in the next week or so. --Chris Bennett 18:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see now where your reference section is. The content I was speaking of was Bogdanor's listing of Commonwealth members in three groups: "Monarchies under Queen Elizabeth II", "Indigenous Monarchies" and "Republics", and the UK being in the first list, not the second. Also the points about Whitehall being concerned about the issue of Dominion/Realm equality in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the UK government's deliberate decision to abandon formal use of the term "Dominion" in 1949, the replacing of the title "British Commonwealth of Nations" to "Commonwealth of Nations", because of the subordination implied by the older terms. Was this also some of the content you wanted to insert? As I have a little time now I'll take a stab at it myself. --gbambino 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Jordan 1984 speech

What is the issue noted about the Queen's speech in Jordan during 1984- states her speech contradicted Australian government- but does not provide details. Astrotrain 20:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Bogdanor, opinion in Australia was that the speech was too pro-Arab, and did not reflect the view of Australian government. He quotes an Australian constitutional lawyer as saying "If the British Government continues to use the Queen in this way the conclusion must be that it is intolerable to have the same person as Head of State of two independent states." I thought that the fact of the dispute was worth mentioning but its details were not. --Chris Bennett 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "Commonwealth Realm" does not really exist

This is truely one of the stranger articles at Wikipedia. The term Commonwealth Realm does not exist. There is no legal and constitutional basis for this term. This article is really a complete fantasy. Sadly so.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

On the existence of the term outside Wikipedia, please read the debate immediately preceding this comment on whether the UK is a Commonwealth Realm. Among other things I draw your attention to the use of the term in Hansard in 1995. On its legal and constitutional basis, please also read the article. --Chris Bennett 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read them. The term Commonwealth Realm does not exist outside of Wikipedia. There is not one bone fide legal or constitutional reference to this term. Not one.

Note in Added Proof: The Hansard of the House of Commons only records the words used in Parliament, it does not make them legally or constitutionally bone fide (i.e., formally defined in law) entities unto themselves. Hansard just records what was said. Nothing more, nothing less.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you are raising (and confusing) two quite separate issues. (1) Does the term exist outside Wikipedia (2) If it does, does it have legal or constitutional meaning?

As to (1), you assert that "The term Commonwealth Realm does not exist outside of Wikipedia. " but you also agree it does exist in Hansard. The only logical way to reconcile these two statement is to suppose that Hansard is part of Wikipedia. Is that your position?

As to (2), since when did Wikipedia become a legal or constitutional document? The entities describe certainly do exist as legal and constitutional entities, they have certain common characteristics that are unique to them as a group, and the term is useful to identify them regardless of whether it is a legally defined term or not.

Our earlier discussion concluded (a) the the term does exist outside Wikipedia, although it is not common and (b) it is useful as an entry point for an article which describes them. --Chris Bennett 06:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are using false logic, Chris Bennett. A simple mention of the words Commonwealth Realm in Hansard does not validate the term. Simply put, there is no accepted legal and/or constitutional reference/definition of this term. On the other hand, the term Dominion (and Dominion Status) have long been apart of the "Legal-Lexicon" . Case-in-point, the short form name of the Union of England and Wales (1536-1707) has offical status as England and Wales. Yes it does, just read a law-book (please do Chris!).

Bluntly put, the term Commonwealth Realm has no standing what-so-ever , and this article is a complete fantasy (but this has never stopped Wikipedia before, eh)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 09:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

AVD - The term doesn't have to fit within a given legal framework to be a valid term within Wikipedia. All that is required is that the term is verifiable, which it appears to be. --Lholden 10:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As we discussed earlier, the term is hardly used outside Wikipedia, and definitely does not have legal status. Perhaps this should be made clearer in the article. However, it does exist outside Wikipedia, and so it may be useful to use it, as long as the article does not claim that it has legal status. I'm not convinced that we really need to use the term, but to say that the term does not exist is complete nonsense unless you mean it does not exist as a legal term, and Wikipedia doesn't only cover legal terms. JPD (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK lets start from basics.

AVD, what do you mean by describing this article as "complete fantasy"? Not the term "Commonwealth Realm" -- the article. You can't deny that there really are 16 countries which share Elizabeth II as their head of state, a number of others which have previously done so, and that there is a certain common history and evolution to this arrangement, which is not shared with countries that have not taken part in this arrangement. These things are all perfectly real. So how can you describe an article discussing these things, under whatever name, to be a "complete fanstasy"? --Chris Bennett 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris Bennett, on the contrary, the TERM Commonwealth Realm is a complete fantasy. This whole Wikipedia article is a complete perversion of the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953.

An Act to provide for an alteration of the Royal Style and Titles.

1 & 2 Eliz. 2 c. 9 [26th March 1953.]

WHEREAS it is expedient that the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown should be altered so as to reflect more clearly the existing constitutional relations of the members of the Commonwealth to one another and their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth: And whereas it was agreed between representatives of Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon assembled in London in the month of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, that there is need for an alteration thereof which, whilst permitting of the use in relation to each of those countries of a form suiting its particular circumstances, would retain a substantial element common to all:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows:

1. The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the adoption by Her Majesty, for use in relation to the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible, of such style and titles as Her Majesty may think fit having regard to the said agreement, in lieu of the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown, and to the issue by Her for that purpose of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm.

2. This Act may be cited as the Royal Titles Act, 1953.

ROYAL PROCLAMATION reciting the altered Style and Titles of the Crown.

London, 29th May, 1953

(British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 160, p. 2; citing the Eleventh Supplement of The London Gazette of 26th May, 1953.)

BY THE QUEEN A PROCLAMATION ELIZABETH R.

WHEREAS there has been passed in the present Session of Parliament the Royal Titles Act, 1953 [1 & 2 Eliz. 2. c.9], which Act recites that it is expedient that the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown should be altered so as to reflect more clearly the existing constitutional relations of the members of the Commonwealth to one another and their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth, and which Act also recites that it was agreed between representatives of Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon assembled in London in the month of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, that there is need for an alteration thereof which, whilst permitting of the use in relation to each of those countries of a form suiting its particular circumstances, would retain a substantial element common to all:

And Whereas by the said Act the assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom was given to the adoption by Us, for use in relation to the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Our Government in the United Kingdom is responsible, of such style and titles as We may think fit having regard to the said agreement, in lieu of the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown, and to the issue by Us for that purpose of Our Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm: We have thought fit, and We do hereby appoint and declare, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, that so far as conveniently may be, on all occasions and in all instruments wherein Our style and titles are used in relation to all or any one or more of the following, that is to say, the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Our Government in the United Kingdom is responsible, Our style and titles shall henceforth be accepted, taken and used as the same are set forth in manner and form following, that is to say, the same shall be expressed in the English tongue by these words:—

"Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ". And in the Latin tongue by these words:—

" Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor ". Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and fifty-three, and in the Second year of Our Reign.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

No-where in these two above documents does your "beloved fantasy term" Commonwealth Realm ever get defined in any legal and/or constitutional fashion. This whole Wikipedia article is in essence "Political Science Fiction".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the use of the term on the British Monarchy website will convince you? "Some countries within the Commonwealth have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs. They are known as Commonwealth realms." [3] --gbambino 20:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree ... that seems vaguely relevant, somehow. :) Newyorkbrad 20:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello gbambino. Thank you very much for your helpful comment. I am an English-Canadian Constitutional-Monarchist, just I believe you are as well. You adhere to the Split-Crowns constitutional construct, whereas I adhere to the Single-Crown Personal Union constitutional construct. Other than that major difference, I believe you and I see eye-to-eye on the value of the British Constitutional-Monarchy system that governs our home-country of the Dominion of Canada.

Now the British Commonwealth of Nations (also known as the British Empire, British Empire-Commonwealth, [the British Commonwealth of Nations], the Commonwealth of Nations, or the Commonwealth) may be REFERED TO by a series of NAMES. Some are explicitly legally and constitutionally defined (i.e., the British Empire, the British Commonwealth of Nations) and others are NOT (i.e., the British Empire-Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Commonwealth).

Plainly stated, the simple usage of Commonwealth Realm is a politically-correct "nick-name" UN-OFFICAL euphemism for the Mother-Country and the British Dominions (i.e., the terms Dominion and Dominion Status are the bone fide genuine article).

euphemism

http://www.answers.com/topic/euphemism

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a constitution.

Even in legal terms you are wrong. The very Act you quote does not mention the word Dominions. The phrase used, which appears in the monarch's Styles and Titles of each of the countries concerned, is her other Realms and Territories.

Research? What kind of research? Just looking up the superfical citations and taking them at face value.

The two resources used are cited at the end of the article. Vernon Bogndanor is probably the leading living scholar on the British (unwritten) constitution. David McIntryre is a leading scholar of Commonwealth history. Both of theitr works are highly authoritative sources.--Chris Bennett 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A Dominion is a Constitutional-Monarchy (excluding the UK) that has a Governor-General to represent the British Monarch that is their accepted the figure Head-of-State (i.e., an independent country within the British Commonwealth of Nations). The politically correct euphemism of a Commonwealth Realm granted fully responsible status is nothing more than hollow "phrasiology" the placate Asian and African Colonies who did not want to retain their Dominion Status anyways. We should of let the Republic of India LEAVE the Commonwealth, and kept it CONSTITUTIONAL-MONARCHIES ONLY (i.e., membership by Dominion Status only).

One more thing, the Dominion of Fiji (1970-1987) happens to have been created AFTER 1948 eh.

The term "Dominion of Fiji" does not appear in either the Fiji Independence Act of 1970 or the Fijian Constitution of 1970, both of which you can read online at http://www.ccf.org.fj/publications/constitutions/1970/01x3.shtml. McIntyre discusses fully in his article how this misconception came about. The term was used frequently during the debate on Fijian independence, and it was used for political reasons, to reassure Fijian chiefs who were concerned about possible Indian domonation after independence. But it was never used legally or constitutionally, which seems to be your guideline. --Chris Bennett 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As research showed the last time this topic came up, the last actual Dominion to be created was Ceylon, in 1948, and formal use of the term ceased shortly thereafter, to be formally replaced by Realm (as in this Act), which applies to those members of the Commonwealth which recognised the Brritish monarch as their own. --Chris Bennett 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Chris Bennett. The term Realm is identical in law to a Kingdom, Dominion, Union, Commonwealth (its the same bloody thing!).

In legal terms I am wrong?

How so? (i.e, this I would love to hear eh).

Explained fully in the article and the references cited therein. --Chris Bennett 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, in legal terms a Dominion (i.e., an independent country within the British Commonwealth of Nations) that has accepted the British Monarch as their figure Head-of-State (i.e., been granted Dominion Status) is the CORRECT designation. In has the force of British Commonwealth Constitutional Law behind it. The term Commonwealth Realm is simply a politically correct euphemism. There is NO LEGAL/CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION that you can find to contradict me on this point. Try as you may, you will find nothing, Chris Bennett (Go check the Law-books, bub!).

You are about 50 years ot of date. --Chris Bennett 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with those of you who say that "comonwealth realm" is a real term, which is commonly used to refer to these countries, even if it is not a technical legal term, I would suggest that the fact that it is not a technical legal term ought to be sufficient to lead us to move the article to the form Commonwealth realm, unless someone can supply particular usage for the capitalized, proper noun form. Otherwise, ArmchairVexillologistDon seems to be strangely fixated on the legal/constitutional situation. As Chris has several times pointed out, it goes against wikipedia usage to change a commonly used name because it is not technically correct. Should our article on Austria-Hungary be moved to The Lands and Territories Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of Holy Saint Stephen's Crown? The name "Austria-Hungary" has no formal legal validity. On the other side, though, I will note that the term "commonwealth realm" does, to a certain extent, seem to be being promoted by wikipedia to the point where wikipedia is leading usage, more than following it. I'm not sure, though, that there is any other term which it would be appropriate to use.

Exactly so. I don't think Wikipedia is "promoting" anything. It may be pointing to a gap in the language, but that is not such a bad thing. I suppose this gap exists because in most practical cases where it is actually necessary to consider this set of countries as a group it is within a pre-established context, either monarchical or Commonwealth, so the term "Realm" (or "realm") doesn't need qualification. But a Wiki article on these countries needs to establish a context. --Chris Bennett 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly "dominion" is not the right term, especially as it has apparently never been used to describe any of the countries under discussion save Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, formerly, South Africa, Ireland (?), India, Pakistan, and Ceylon. It seems as though "commonwealth realm" is the best term available, even if it isn't used all that much. john k 03:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello John Kenney. On the contrary the term Dominion IS the proper legal/constitutional designation of the 15 Constitutional-Monarchies that have a Governor-General to represent the British Constitutional Monarch. The United Kingdomg of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has NO Governor-General as the British Monarch resides within the country.

The Feudal Rank of a Kingdom is equivalent to that of a Dominion (i.e., they are both ruled by a King).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If I can make two points: first, a Google search of "realms site:gov.uk" turns up 2,680 hits. It is almost always used in the same way that we use it in this article. Whereas all the references to "dominions" on gov.uk sites (1,510 hits) appear to be historical references and/or proper names, such as "Hill Samuel Bank and United Dominions Trust Act 1994". So "Commonwealth Dominions" isn't a good title because Dominion has clearly fallen out of use. FWIW, I don't think the term Dominion was ever in common usage here in Australia, except by historians and constitutional lawyers. (Unless you count the Interdominion series in harness racing.)

Second, Football (soccer) isn't called "football (soccer)" in real life either. Sometimes we have to use the best title available and I think gbambino is right, use of the term "Commonwealth realm" on the monarch's own website should be proof enough. Grant65 | Talk 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Grant65, I want to apologise to you. I probably came off to you as being "heavy-handed" and arrogant. I am sorry about that, it was not my intent. I am very passionate about the British Commonwealth of Nations and our bretheren in the United States of America (did you know that in the Benjamin Franklins' 1st draft of the Articles of Confederation (of the USA) that he proposed that the newly independent country (formed from the seceeding 13 of the 19 Colonies of British America) be styled and titled the United Colonies of North America).

Please note the pattern in the names,

Colonies of British America

United Colonies of North America

United States of America

Anyways, if you wish not to continue this discussion with me, I understand. I can get a "wee-bit cranky" when I feel people are not listening. For this I apologise to you, Grant65.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Grant65. Point-in-fact,

The German Empire (1871-1918) was a Federal Empire.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Unitary Kingdom.

The United States of America is a Federal Republic.

The Dominion of Canada is a Federal Dominion.

The Commonwealth of Australia is a Federal Dominion.

The Dominion of New Zealand is a Unitary Dominion.

The Union of South Africa (1910-1961) was a Unitary Dominion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is arguing that what your statements here aren't valid, AVD. The point is that it's not relelvant. The term does not need to be backed up by constitutional documents in order to be a real term. The article is only terribly wrong if it implies that it is an official name. As I have said before, I am slightly concerned that the main usage of the term appears to be on Wikipedia, but it is ridiculous to suggest that the term is "nonsense". I agree with john k that the title should use a lower case "realm", especially since that is the form used on the royal website. JPD (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comments, I appreciate them alot indeed, JPD.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JPD for confirming what was said above :-) --Lholden 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken, Don. I'm sorry for not responding earlier — and maybe my brain isn't functioning perfectly this Sunday afternoon — but I couldn't quite figure out what you were getting at in your reply. Are you exemplifying the interchangeability of names? Grant65 | Talk 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Grant65, thank you for you kind response.

Do you note the pattern in the names listed below?

Colonies of British America

United Colonies of North America

United States of America

A country (or colony) possesses a long form name, and a short form name. The long form name is of the syntax (Rank) (short form name). If the country is a Monarchy the (Rank) is a Feudal Rank (i.e., Empire, Kingdom, Principality, Duchy, Marche, Earldom, County, or Estate). If the coutry is a Republic, then the (Rank) is just "Republic".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but its connection to the issue of "Dominions v realms" continues to elude me :-) Grant65 | Talk 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A Realm is a general term for a country that is ruled by a Monarch. An older term for Realm is Fief (i.e., a Fiefdom).

The generic syntax is given below,

The Lord of the Fief rules a Fiefdom.

The Order of Precedence (he who procedes first) is given as follows (from highest to lowest Feudal Rank),

An Emperor rules an Empire.

A King rules a Kingdom.

A Prince rules a Principality.

A Duke rules a Duchy.

A Marquis rules a Marche.

An Earl rules an Earldom.

A Count rules a County.

A Baron rules an Estate.

The Feudal Rank of a Kingdom, Union, Dominion, Commonwealth are EQUAL, i.e., they are ruled by a King.

Get it now eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that realm is a diminutive or too generic, compared to Dominion? Grant65 | Talk 01:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Realm of an Emperor is an Empire.

The Realm of a King is a Kingdom.

The Realm of a Prince is a Principality.

The Realm of a Duke is a Duchy.

The Realm of a Marquis is a Marche.

The Realm of a Earl is an Earldom.

The Realm of a Count is a County.

The Realm of a Baron is an Estate.

Err...? Estate is a generic term. I'd think that a "barony" is the word you're looking for, at least in British peerage terms. I'm also rather dubious on whether any native speaker of English has ever uttered the sentence "The realm of an Emperor is an Empire". john k 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Feudal Rank of a Kingdom, Union, Dominion, Commonwealth are EQUAL, i.e., they are ruled by a King.

King Oliver I, for instance? "Commonwealth" literally means more or less the same thing as "Republic" (Res publica), and the two terms were used interchangeably for a long time. I also don't recall the Union of Burma having a King. Additionally, the "Dominion of Canada," from the time of its creation until the Statute of Westminster, was pretty explicitly not equal in status to a Kingdom, and, in fact, Queen Victoria and Edward VII were never separately Queen and King of Canada - they ruled over Canada as Queen and King of the UK. You are reifying terms that have, in fact, had pretty constantly changing meanings over the last couple of centuries. john k 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(1). King Oliver I? Poopy-cock. If I recall correctly his approxiate Style and Title was Lord Protector wasn't it?

Er, apparently sarcasm is lost on you. My point was that the Commonwealth of England did not have a king. john k 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(2). A Commonwealth does not mean a Republic. That is an American assumption that does not happen to be true (i.e., any more than a Protectorate means a Republic).

Res publica means "public thing". This was interpreted as meaning something along the lines of "Public good." Which is exactly what "Commonwealth" means. The two terms do not mean the same thing today, but they have pretty much the same etymology, it's just one word is Latin and the other Anglo-Saxon. john k 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(3). The Union of Burma was placefully granted independence in 1948 as a Unitary Republic outside the British Commonwealth of Nations. Whereas the Union of South Africa was gratned peacefull independence in 1910 as a Unitary Dominion within the British Commonwealth of Nations. Union simply means unitary.

My point is that, contrary to your claims, there are "Unions" that do not have Kings. Your claim was that any state called a Kingdom, Dominion, Commonwealth, or Union had a King. This is not true for Commonwealths and Unions, at least. john k 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(4). The the Dominion of Canada always had the British Monarch as its figure Head-of-State.

Yes, but there was not a separate throne for Canada - Queen Victoria was not "Queen of Canada," - the Dominion of Canada did not have equal status to the UK until at least 1931. john k 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You had better check you facts John Kenney, as you have screwed up on at least 4 points here eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You had better make an effort to understand what I'm actually saying. john k 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

John Kenney, in my apartment I have 4 large book-cases. 3 of them are devoted to Flags, Coats-of-Arms, British Commonwealth History, and Law. I understand FULL WELL what you are saying, I and dare say that in all likely-hood, I have read most of the HISTORICAL REFERENCE MATERIAL that you have read. I just have a different point-of-view on these subjects than you.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, the Realms of a King are a Kingdom, Union, Dominion, Commonwealth.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

and...? Grant65 | Talk 09:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

and what....?

What is that you don't understand? Its pretty damned obvious.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really understand what the real point is either. Of course realm, dominion, kingdom, etc., all mean the same thing, but what has it to do with this article? --gbambino 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please name a country with the word Realm as part of its' name?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I can't; but, that's certainly not the point. As you've so expertly pointed out, "realm" is synonymous with "kingdom" and "dominion": hence, realm is a perfectly accurate term to use to describe those states under the Queen's sovereignty. Thus, there is no error in referring to the "realms of the Crown" within the Commonwealth as Commonwealth Realms. If you feel this terminology is misleading, incorrect, or whatever problem you see with it, then you'll have to take it up with the royal household, the Prime Minister of the UK, and various commonwealth historians. --gbambino 00:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm a newcomer to this article and I gather there's quite a history here, but I have a question for ArmchairVexillologistDon. I gather that you believe that the name and focus of this article aren't the best way of describing the information contained in it. Having said that, I'm sure there are other articles on Wikipedia that you believe contain a more accurate description that could be even further improved with the benefit of your expertise. My question is, why don't you spend more of your time and energy working on editing and improving those articles, and less time venting negative energy at this one? Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Negative energy? Nope. This is not negative energy. Next, edit the article itself? Bah! Gah-fah-hah! NO EDIT WARS for me bub.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no ... edit some other article. One you like. Newyorkbrad 00:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no proposal on the table here. AVD doesn't like the term Commonwealth Realm nor the article that discusses it. This is his right, whatever I or anyone else may think of his reasons. But he's also not actually proposing to change anything, and nor is anybody else. So let's just drop this whole discussion. --Chris Bennett 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)