Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Send in the Crowns (continued)

If Canada abolished the Crown its Crown its "crown"

If Canada abolished the monarchy or changed the succession rules it would have no impact on the UK. Conversely, if the UK were to change its succession rules and Canada maintained the status quo, we would be faced with the possibility of having to completely change our system to accomodate a resident monarchy - when our political system and constitution are not designed for an absentee monarch (hence the position of governor general which does not exist in the UK).

The "British monarchy" is "first among equals" in political terms as the abolition of the monarchy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc would have no impact on the monarchy in Britain whereas the abolition of the monarchy in the UK would almost certainly lead to its extinction in the rest of the Commonwealth Realms.

The fact is that the system in the "Commonwealth Realms" (outside of the UK) was designed with the assumption that the monarch would be resident in London. Do you deny that? The fact is that the monarch is present most of the time in Britain. She has spent 2% of her reign in Canada and, I suspect, around that percentage or less in the other Commonwealth Realms. The fact is that this means there is quite a different relationship between the monarch and a) her British subjects and the British political system and b) her subjects and the political systems in the other Commonwealth realms.

The most obvious constitutional difference is that the duties and constitutional role played by the Governor General in the Commonwealth Realms is played by the Queen herself in Britain. i.e. The Queen, with increasingly rare exceptions, does not give royal assent to bills passed in Commonwealth legislatures or even give the Throne Speech (what in Britain is called the Queen's Speech because the Queen herself gives it). She does not name the Prime Ministers in Commonwealth Realms, does not resolve constitutional or parliamentary crises that may result in Commonwealth Realms and does not have weekly meetings with her Commonwealth PMs.

Now monarchists like to believe that the Queen is fully informed and intimately involved in, let's say, Canadian affairs. The reality is that in the Commonwealth Realms the role of the monarchy has developed so that it is really more of an abstract and theoretical entity, much more so than in Britain. Let me give you a hard example. We now know that the Queen was not at all consulted on the dismissal of Gough Whitlam in Australia in 1975. This was done by Governor General Kerr in her name but she was not consulted or even informed until after it had happened.

Let me give you another example. We now know thanks to the 30 year disclosure rule that the Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales quite regularly write letters and make phone calls to Cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats in Britain complaining of this or that government policy (this is actually quite shocking considering all the propaganda we are fed about the monarchy being "above politics"). We also know from biographies and autobiographies that UK Prime Ministers do give some consideration to what the Queen thinks about this or that thing or even this or that minister. It may not be a decisive consideration but its in the picture. That is simply not the case for Commonwealth Realm PMs. There is no evidence of royals writing Canadian or Austrlain ministers complaining about this or that policy or of Canadian or Australian PMs being particularly concerned about what the Queen might think, at least not to the extent as is the case in the UK.

Now you might say but the Governor General acts on HMs behalf so there's really no difference. But there is, the Queen's role in the UK is unmediated, in the realms it is mediated by a GG and she is almost a complete absentee from the process. Therefore, it's quite clear that her role is much more important in the UK than elsewhere. Also, the fact that the systems in the Commonwealth Realms are designed with an absentee monarch in mind and have a GG in place Britain becoming a republic would have an impact on the realms where Commonwealth realms becoming republics has had no impact on the Queen's role in the UK.

The fact is if Britain became a republic the Commonwealth Realms would have to figure out which one of them would become the new home for the Windsors, or if some sort of shared custody arrangement should be worked out where, say, she spends one month in each realm. The fact is they would also have to deal with the royal family's wishes, including the possibility that they would not want to move to Canada or Australia but would prefer to either remain in a British republic as ordinary citizens or live in exile in Europe (or even the US). That would raise the possibility of abdication and having to find a new monarch or even of splitting the monarchy into pieces. Then there's the question of what happens to the GG and the other political and constitutional impacts of one of the realms suddenly having a resident monarch.

Bosh! you might say. Original research (actually no, because the differences between her role in the UK and elsewhere are well known and the realities of say, her not being consulted about the Australian constitutional crisis are well documented) Speculation! Well the possibility that the UK may become a republic is speculation, but the implications of that on the realms is based on the facts that her constitutional, political and social role in the realms is much more remote than in the UK and, in any case, quite a lot of constitutional theory has to deal with speculation (what happens if this happens in parliament, or if this happens in an election, or if a PM does this or refuses to do that). And the fact is that all these questions arise out of the fact that the Queen is resident in the UK and not resident anywhere else despite the legal fiction that she is as much a Canadian or Jamaican as she is a Briton.

It's more than sentimental. Even putting aside the hypothetical situation of the UK becoming a republic the difference between her constitutional role in the UK and in the other realms is quite clear to anyone with eyes to see and lacking the tunnel vision caused by wishful thinking and sophistry.Andy 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh? Where did Peter point that out?

Southern Comfort mentioned it in the British monarchy article. Andy 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the diatribe, but what does it have to do with your admission that there are numerous crowns within the "British Crown"? And, I don't actually see your 'example' of Peter pointing out that there is no such thing as the "Canadian Crown." --gbambino 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So can I take it from that that you agree with me on the different relationship between the Crown and the UK and the Crown of Canada and the impact a change in the UK succession would have in Canada? As for Peter, ask SouthernComfort where he saw the comment.Andy 21:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In any case, reading Rouleau, I don't see his argument as acknowledging "multiple crowns", quite the opposite. He talks repeatedly of a single crown, of Canada being united "under the British Crown", "sharing the British monarch" etc. He never refers to the Canadian Crown (though he talks of the British Crown) but, once, to the Crown of Canada in reference to the hypothetical situation of Canada changing the rules of succession. That doesn't strike me as an admission of "multiple crowns" but more of a short form for "Crown in right in Canada". the talk of a "British crown" is inconsistent with the MLC's claim of a "Maple Crown". Andy 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course there's a different relationship between the Crown in Canada and the Crown in the UK -- I pointed that out ages ago when I said the Canadian Crown has distinct Canadian aspects. But it doesn't answer the question of what legal effect any alteration to the line of succession in Britain would actually have on the line of succession in Canada. And it still remains unclear as to what it has to do with your admission that there are numerous crowns within the "British Crown". --gbambino 21:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"[Crown of Canada as] more of a short form for 'Crown in right in Canada'"-- that's exactly it! The Crown of Canada, the Canadian Crown, the "Maple Crown" (not a technical term), is the Crown in Right of Canada, distinct and different from the Crown in Right of Australia, or the Crown in Right of the UK! You've again admitted there are numerous crowns within the one. Rouleau refers to the Crown of Canada in regards to the real situation of the UK altering the line of succession. He also speaks of the two distinct crowns twice. He also states: "the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain." --gbambino 21:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

But it's the same crown, that's the point, one crown, not several, not multiple crowns, one . See the Crown. Andy 01:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Fawltiness

Re: the abdication - yes the Irish had not yet passed the abdication into law, but that was 100% the fault of Eamon de Valera, not Britain. A date had been agreed to recognise the abdication by. States made their own legislative plans (some asked the UK to include them in the UK legislation, as they could request under the Statutes of Westminster). De Valera thought that he could do nothing and that it would all fall into place naturally. Then his new Attorney-General, James Geoghegan, pointed out that if he didn't do something, deV would be left with King Edward as King of Ireland, and worse than that the twice-divorced Mrs Simpon as Queen Wallis. That freaked him out.

He (de Valera) didn't want to tag the Free State along with the UK legislation, but he hadn't left himself enough time to draft and pass an Irish law, especially as he had made things needlessly complicated by deciding to amend the Irish constitution to abolish the crown and governor-generalship, something that went pearshaped when his Attorney-General, James Geoghegan, his chief civil servant, Maurice Moynihan, Mr Matheson in the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office and others all told him he had made a balls of the abolition; sure he had removed the crown in constitutional law but stupidly forgot that both the crown and the representative of the crown continued to exist in statute law, letters patent, orders-in-council, etc and all of them had to be repealed too. (He re-abolished everything in the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1937 and dated it retrospectively back to 1936.)

Faced with a crisis over having Edward and Wallis as King and Queen, he tagged on a recognition of the abdication and the accession of George VI to the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936. But because he had screwed up his timetable by having the Dáil pass the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act purportingly abolishing the crown and governor-general, there physically was no time to pass the External Relations Act with its recognition of the abdication on the same day as everyone else. So it went through a day late, meaning that for one day, Britain and Ireland had a separate king; the UK had George VI, Ireland had Edward VIII.

It was entirely de Valera's screw-up. Britain at that late stage could not reschedule His Majesty's Instrument of Abdication Act as the King had already signed the abdication and dated it. The rest of the Commonwealth subscribed to the attitude of "de Valera screwed up. It is his problem. We are not delaying to let him clean up his mess" and went ahead. Ironically, just how bad a mess de Valera had made of things was never made known at the time and the neither the opposition nor the media copped on. (There is a lot more to it. De Valera ended up with an abolished governor-general who hadn't technically been abolished - he ended up asking him to pretend that he had been abolished and play along with the scam while de Valera drew up a new law - and invalidly installed a Chief Justice and half the Supreme Court - the governor-general was central to installing judges. De Valera forgot to change the procedure only to have the Chief Justice drop dead at the worst possible timing. The new guy played along with a sham ceremony which de Valera had insisted he had created in a law some months earlier (he hadn't).

(ROFL! - Mediator SV.)

And he even had an invalidly installed Attorney-General when he overlooked the fact that he couldn't appoint the AG: the governor-general (the supposedly abolished office that wasn't really abolished) alone could. (Oh and his ex-pal, Governor-General Ua Buachalla was suing him for damages over it all - as well as for damage to curtains, a table and a dog kennel no. I'm not making it up. It is one of the funniest stories in the Irish National Archives. I couldn't stop laughing while reading the files on the farce!.)

The whole thing was like an episode of Fawlty Towers. But de Valera covered it all up and got away with it. The only thing he couldn't hide was that he had left the Free State with King Edward VIII for a day longer than everyone else.

FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\^(caint) 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whose fault it was, the fact remains that Edward VIII's abdication was legal without Ireland's consent. Had the preamble of the Statute of Westminster been binding on British legislation then that wouldn't have been possible, Britain's abdication act would have been invalid until Ireland's external relations act was passed.

Back to Rouleau, with a closer reading of what he said he only refers to the "Crown of Canada" once and that's in discussion of the hypothetical sitution of Canada having not recognized Edward's abdication (in which case there would have been a Candian Crown). I didn't "admit" anything, gbambino, I simply answered your question about what Rouleau might have meant and in rereading the entire judgement I think I was wrong and that he was not implying there are "numerous crowns within the 'British Crown'" as you put it. Andy

Of course it was all legal-- it was technically a breach of convention on the part of every Realm, including the UK and Canada, as they all agreed to proceed with their legislations despite the lagging of Ireland, and they thus broke no actual laws.

What this also points out is how independent the crowns in right of each realm are -- Ireland, due to its domestic machinations, ended up with a seperate king from the other realms for one day. That's precisely what Rouleau was refering to when he speaks of the Crown of Canada and the concequences of Canada not passing the Succession to the Throne Act.

Sorry, Andy, but you can't go back and change your answer when you've realised you've just contradicted yourself. You acknowledged the existence of multiple crowns within the one, and that's all there is to that particular matter. --gbambino 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A few things to point out:

• The concept of multiple Crowns is a useful metaphor for describing the shared vs. separate character of the monarchy. It is apparently not, in Canadian law at least, the correct usage of 'Crown' as a legal term. Rouleau clearly discussed one shared Crown - "Canadian Crown" was only used in a counterfactual, so clearly there are not two Crowns to be compared. Of course, Crown, as an informal word, may mean the Crown as shared (physical person) or separate (legal person) depending on the context.
• The Irish Free State deliberately "opted out" of the shared succession, so it's not a precedent.
• Royal marriages do not require changes in legislation.
• In Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, I would guess, everywhere else, all of these obscure legal technicalities have been superceded by more recent legislation.
• Various French, English, and British laws have applied in Canada, and in some cases continue in force to some degree. New legislation in the UK including amendments do not apply in Canada. If the UK changed the succession and Canada wanted to follow suit, it would still need a s.41 amendment in order to be recognized by Canadian courts of law. Peter Grey 21:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino, I see that Peter has kindly reaffirmed his point that there is legally no "Canadian Crown" and that his reading of Rouleau's use of the term concurs with mine. So, the multiple crown theory has no standing in Canadian constitutional law. So, no, there's no reason to remove the "One Crown or several" section.Andy 21:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, he's affirmed what I've been saying all along -- one Crown shared, one Crown operating distinctly within each legal jurisdiction. You've acknowledged this situation as well, and so the section goes. --gbambino 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So a single crown and not a multiple crown, in contradistinction to the MLC's argument that there is a "maple crown" and various refernces to "multiple crown" theory which, as Peter says, "is apparently not, in Canadian law at least, the correct usage of 'Crown' as a legal term".

Please, try to read for comprehension in future. Andy 22:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Of course, Crown, as an informal word, may mean the Crown as shared (physical person) or separate (legal person) depending on the context." One Crown acts seperately in each legal jurisdiction -- sound familiar?

How about you give reading for comprehension a try. --gbambino 22:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Irish Free State deliberately "opted out" of the shared succession, so it's not a precedent."

Would that have been possible had the preamble of the Statute of Westminster been binding? One can't say something's not a precedent just because one of the parties was being difficult since it means there's nothing barring Britain, for instance, from opting out of the shared succession as long as they did it deliberately.Andy 22:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Royal marriages do not require changes in legislation." Unless they violate the Royal Marriages Act. But anyway, the marriage of Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson would not have required any change in legislation yet the dominions were consulted and asked their opinion, whether they agreed with allowing the marriage, wanted a morgantic marriage, or wanted abdication if the marriage went ahead. The Commonwealth Realm PMs (with the exception of Tony Blair) were not consulted this time even though it's quite possible one or more of them could have opposed the marriage and insisted that Charles give up his claim to the throne. Andy 22:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• "Multiple Crowns" is a metaphor that the Monarchist League of Canada uses, so I would suggest that for that article only it should be mentioned with notice taken that it's not technically true in the legal sense. In other contexts the shared vs. separate natures may have to be spelled out with more general language. Peter Grey 22:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• In legal terms, 'Crown' in context may mean the Crown specifically of Canada or of a province. A provincial Crown Corporation is obviously not shared across the Commonwealth. The point is that it's not the term used when the distinction is explicit. Peter Grey 22:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The MLC's multiple crown theory is propaganda meant to make the Crown acceptable to Canadian nationalists in a post-imperial age. Andy 22:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Please refer again to the numerous non-MLC sources given above which confirm that one Crown operates seperately in each realm. --gbambino 23:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So the Crown in Canada is British then? Andy 23:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

British in historical terms, yes. British as in under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament, no. Peter Grey 23:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Multiple crowns is not an MLC theory. That's a bit like saying wearing white was a decision of Pope Benedict. Academics the world over talk of multiple crowns, and that included academics who have never heard of the MLC. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\^(caint) 23:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Couple points - Prof. James, thanks for the input, (and the ROFL). Andy/HOTR (?) theres no point whatsoever in seeking concession or approval from Gbamgino, though it seems that youve made your point regarding a bias. That bias, is best emphasised by Gbambino himself, who claims that (prphrsng) 'the thing is thus, and therefore it is not debated.' Thats all for now. Very good stuff guys. Now how best to redirect the energy from the talks toward particular articles. I need to make a list, dont I? Let me make a link: Template:Commonwealth. Ill be back. ROFL. -SV|t 01:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"Britain cannot simply alter the Statute of Westminster at its whim"

Britain can alter the Statute of Westminster the same way it can alter any ordinary piece of statute of law. By introducing a bill, having it go through three readings in the Commons and three readings in the House of Lords and then give it royal assent. Britain cannot mandate that any such change have any jurisdiction outside of the UK but it can amend or repeal the Statute of Westminister as far as British statute books are concerned. There's certainly no legal mechanism to stop the UK from doing this if a British government was, for whatever reason, committed to doing it. Andy 05:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy strikes back

Yes, I suppose the mulitple crowns theory is not the MLC's invention, they've just latched on to it like white on rice. Gbambino, you asked earlier what would happen if the UK changed the succession rules and Canada did not. I gave you one answer. Now, upon further reflection, he's another possibility. Canada's succession rules would change automatically once Britain changed its rules. Why is this?

The courts may read the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867, which reads "Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" ...and they may rule that what this means is that whoever is monarch of the UK is automatically monarch of Canada. Of course, that's not absolutely clear as a) it's in the preamble and may or may not be binding (then again, if the preamble of the Statute of Westminster is binding on Canada wouldn't the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 be as well?).

Second, the courts could well rule that this whereas clause simply explains how the act came to being and is not intended to be interpretive. But Rouleau reads the whereas clause above and interprets it in the following manner: "[21] This portion of the preamble confirms not only that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, but also that Canada is united under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. A constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is shared with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries, is, in my view, at the root of our constitutional structure."

Further Rouleau also says "The same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain." Well, if that's the case then Canada is bound to Britain's rules of succession regardless of what the Canadian parliament says.

Now, Peter has interpreted part of Rouleau's ruling... "Such changes would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982." ...as meaning that the rules of succession in Canada can only be changed through a constitutional amendment even if the other realms change theres.

Well, hold on a second, let's look at the whole paragraph " Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession, whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would be contrary to the commitment given in the Statute of Westminster, would break symmetry and breach the principle of union under the British Crown set out in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Such changes would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Well, I see that as meaning that a constitutional amendment is needed for unilateral changes to the rules of succession, not that one is needed for a non-unilateral change. I think a very strong argument can be made that any change by Britain in the rules of succession would automatically apply to Canada by virtue of what the current constitution of Canada says. Andy 01:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

New legislation in the UK including amendments do not apply in Canada

Prior to the Statute of Westminster, the British parliament could pass a law which carried within it a declaration that it would apply in this or that dominion. Britain cannot pass a law and declare that it is binding in Canada or Australia etc. However, that does not stop a Commonwelath realm from voluntarily adhering to British jurisdiction in a certain area. Arguably, the Canadian constitution does this in the case of British laws pertaining to the succession.

New Zealand's constitution does this explicitly in a related area: (Section 4 Regency) "(1) Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are being performed in the same and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that Regent. [1] Hence, notwithstanding the Statute of Westminster, New Zealand's constitution declares that the country is bound by "the law of the United Kingdom" as it pertains to a regency. Andy 02:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

And my second question from earlier: If Canada is subsurvient to British constitutional law, then why does the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster specifically state that the Realms are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another", as Rouleau points out?

Because neither the Balfour Declaration nor the Statute of Westminster amended what was then called the British North America Act, 1867 in order to remove the preamble committing Canada to having the same monarch as the United Kingdom. Andy 02:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This is trying to confuse an involuntary or "accidental" change in law with a voluntary one. Canada is not keeping the monarchy against its will. A sovereign nation can make any law it wishes, including choosing to have another country's law have effect. Income tax law is full of examples of this. Peter Grey 03:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This is also a very creative 'interpretation' which still remains AndyL's, and AndyL's alone. He still hasn't provided any examples of constitutional scholars, lawyers, judges, etc., who agree with or support this interpretation. Unless AndyL himself is one such person, I can't see how this interpretation can be taken as encyclopaedic. --gbambino 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hm, it seems that in your own rather grudging way you are conceding that my points about the constitution are correct and that your previous assertion is incorrect.

The fact remains that, at least according to Rouleau's reading of the 1867 preamble, Canada is bound by whatever Britain decides to do with the succession. The opposite is not true making Canada a subordinate partner whether by design or by "accident".

As for Canada being able to get rid of the monarchy whenever it chooses, only if you accept the McWhinney formula. Otherwise, unanimous consent is required among the federal government and all the provinces which is not an easy chore as monarchists eagerly point out at every opportunity and has never actually been accomplished, even in the case of the 1982 Constitution Act.

Certainly, Peter, you meant something when you argued that if Britain changed the succession unilaterally, it would have no legal impact on Canada? Now, that at least according to Rouleau, that seems not to be the case, certainly that has a detrimental effect on our argument? You cannot assert that the former would be a significant proof and then say the latter is insignficant and of no importance. And if you don't think a situation where a foreign country can unilateraly determine who another country's head of state with impacts on the latter country's sovereignty then you must have a unique definition of sovereignty. Andy 05:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• The point was with respect to the Constitution of New Zealand. Plus a regent is not a head of state.
• at least according to Rouleau Incorrect. (Again.) Peter Grey 10:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What a stunning rebuttal! On your first "point" I didn't say a regent was a head of state. I said that passage of NZ's constitution was an example of a Commonwealth Realm deferring to current British law. On your second point, assertion is not fact (or even an argument in this case).

Do you actually have a counterargument? Andy 14:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"As for Canada being able to get rid of the monarchy whenever it chooses, only if you accept the McWhinney formula." Another of Andy's creative interpretations. I wonder if he is aware of the ammending formula in the Constitution Act 1982. --gbambino 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You really should try to read the entire paragraph when you cite a quotation. The sentence immediately after the one you quote is: "Otherwise, unanimous consent is required among the federal government and all the provinces which is not an easy chore as monarchists eagerly point out at every opportunity and has never actually been accomplished, even in the case of the 1982 Constitution Act." So yes, I am aware of the "ammending" (sic) formula in the Constitution Act 1982.Andy 23:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

(1) Then we agree that deferring to current British law is not in any way a compromise of sovereignty. (2) Is there an argument to counter? It's a misrepresentation of Rouleau's judgement, plain and simple. This seems to be your earlier tactic of taking a comment on the 1867 act out of context by ignoring all the legislation in the nearly 140 years since then. Rouleau in 2003: alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain. Peter Grey 14:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Rouleau in 2003: alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain.

There Rouleau is relaying the intent of the Statute of Westminster, to commit the UK to not unilaterally changing its rules of succession. He does not comment on what would happen if the UK were to disregard this commitment. As we know, under parliamentary supremacy, there is nothing stopping the UK from altering the rules if it so wishes and there is no mechanism to prevent the UK from doing so and we have seen in the example of Edward VIII"s abdication the requirement for unanimous action by the realms is not necessary in practice. If the UK were to break its commitment to not change rules unilaterally what would happen? Would Canada be forced to follow the UK's new succession law because of the preamble of the 1867 Constitution (as other parts of Rouleau's ruling suggest). Could a court rule that since the UK broke its commitment in the Statute of Westminster, Canada is not bound by the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867. We don't know and you don't know. However, the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 suggests that as with New Zealand's constitution, Canada has wedded itself to whatever law exists in Britain in a particular matter notwithstanding the Statute of Westminster's provision that Britain can no longer legislate for the dominions. Again, as you concede in the case of the NZ constitution, Canada has voluntarily committed itself to harmonization with British law and to accepting British jurisdiction in a particular area, in Canada's case in the matter of succession, in NZ's case in the question of regency. Andy 15:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course deferring to a foreign law in the determination of one's head of state certainly does compromise sovereignty. How could it not? In any case I think you misread Rouleau in regards to the need for a constitutional amendment for a non-unilateral change in the succession. Andy 15:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"If the UK were to break its commitment to not change rules unilaterally what would happen?" More conjecture and hypothesis. Whatever the future holds, it does not change current, existant, accepted realities. --gbambino 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Things are as they are and always thus they will be. Andy 23:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The New Zealand Constitution doesn't commit Canada to anything. However: Constitution Act 1982 52. (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada. Unless they made us a colony too - I hope Australia and New Zealand don't go to war over Canada. Peter Grey 16:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The New Zealand Constitution doesn't commit Canada to anything.

Of course not but, as in Canada's case, the NZ constitution commits it to accepting British jurisdiction in a particular area.Andy 16:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

as in Canada's case Still wrong - this was explained earlier. Also see (4) in the summary Peter Grey 16:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

a) The Act of Settlement isn't actually listed in the schedule of the Constitution Act, 1982 b) amendments to it would not require a constitutional amendment unless they put Canada out of synchronicity with the UK (thus requiring an amendment altering the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867). Andy 16:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Succession is part of the Constitution, notwithstanding omission from the Schedule, that was the whole point of Rouleau's finding. You're taking a quote out of context to try to defeat the very purpose the decision. Peter Grey 16:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

From Succession to the British Throne: "This provision, however, is a part of the Preamble of the Act. Since it does not follow an enacting clause, it has no legal force. It only applies as a guideline"Andy 16:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

First you argue Rouleau's ruling calls the preamble "legally binding", and now you're saying he argues it's not? Rouleau clearly states that it is the principal of the agreement between the Realms which is most important. In future circumstances that agreement could be adhered to, or it could be broken, but we can't sit here and hypothesise about future possibilities. Rouleau made his ruling based on the relationship of Canada to the Crown over the Realms, as well as the Crown in Right of Canada as it stands now-- acknowledging that there is a Crown of Canada which is part of a larger "British Crown" but seperate from the Crown in Right of the UK (the British Crown attached to the British parliament). You've acknowledged this above, and acknowledged the existence of the Australian Crown as well. With your admission that there is a Crown in Right of Canada, and a Crown in Right of Australia, you're therefore admitting there are two seperate legal entities (crown) within the larger "British Crown". "Multiple Crowns" is an analogy -- not a legal term -- but the MLC's description of the situation doesn't change the fact that the larger "British Crown" is indeed 'divided' in its operation throughout the Realms. I've provided numerous non-MLC sources which support this.

Possible future actions of Britain or Canada is all just a distraction from the real issue -- the needless question of: "one crown or many?" If rouleau points out there is a Crown of Canada which is a part of the larger "British Crown"; if you acknowledge that Rouleau states this, and acknowledge there is a Crown in Right of Canada; if you acknowledge there is also an Australian Crown; then how can you continue to ask "one crown or several"? The question's been answered. --gbambino 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"First you argue Rouleau's ruling calls the preamble "legally binding", and now you're saying he argues it's not?"

No. The quotation I posted a) refers to the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, not to the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 b) is not from the Rouleau ruling but from the Wikipeida article on the Statute of Westminster (hence, the link prior to the quotation). The quotation supports my argument that Britain is not bound by the Statute of Westminster, particularly not on the question ofthe succession. Gbambino, this is the second example of inferior reading comprehension you've demonstrated today. Andy 23:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

gbambino, in his rush to deny there's any actual debate, neglects the fact that FearÉIREANN has pointed out that there are theorists who advocate the multiple crown theory while Peter Grey points out that the multiple crown theory is factually wrong.

Incidentally Gavin, you made much of your argument that Britain waited for Canada before passing the bill recognizing Edward VIII's abdication. Given that it's been confirmed that Britain *did not* wait for Ireland I'm surprised you've failed to concede that this has any implications for your argument. It's almost as if you're engaging in tunnel vision and ignoring facts that contradict your theory, even when the facts came up in response to your own question. Andy 03:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino is also oversimplifying things to a ridiculous degree. The argument has never been about whether or not there's a unitary crown, it's been whether or not there is true equality between the British Crown and the "Crowns" in other countries; whether there is really an overarching British Crown which is the Queen's principle role, one that is superior to her role in the Commonwealth realms. Clearly, despite claims of equality, the British crown is superior, the Queen's role in the UK takes precedence over her role elsewhere, paritcularly, in constittutional terms, in Canada. Andy 03:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• There has not been an argument as to "whether or not there is true equality". The equality principle is the easiest part of all this. What little ambiguous and indirect support there might be for that particular bit of original research has been based on quotations out of context and obsolete legislation. Peter Grey 08:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

the multiple crown theory is factually wrong "Crown" is simply, in terms of legal vocabulary, a less specific term. Crown has been a metaphor for the state for as long as people have been wearing crowns, and there is no question the Commonwealth realms are sovereign states. Peter Grey 08:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter, you're quite right. I often suspect the vocabulary I am using is not sufficient to explain the 'many-crowns-in-one' situation with ample clarity. But your point about the word 'crown' being synonymous with 'the state' helps to clarify things immensely. --gbambino 14:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Rouleau, in any case, refers to the British crown throughout his ruling. His only use of the term "Crown of Canada", as Peter points out, is as a a counterfactual, so gbambino's claims that Rouleau has been misread or taken out of context is erroneous. The passage "One Crown or Several?" is correct. Andy 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Using your theory to back up your theory again. So, "One Crown or Several?" is not correct for an encyclopeadia. --gbambino 18:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what my theory is or is not, it's a question about whether or not there are different views in the literature and Rouleau's view differs from the "multiple crown" theory. As Peter pointed out earlier, in Rouleau's ruling ""Canadian Crown" was only used in a counterfactual, so clearly there are not two Crowns to be compared." Andy 19:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No, your (mis)interpretation of Rouleau's ruling differs from the "multiple crown" theory. You're also misinterpreting what Peter is saying. And lastly, you're attempting to needlessly complicate things to distract from the real issue here -- using Wikipedia as your personal soapbox. --gbambino 19:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, gbambino, if you read the article titled the Crown the section on "The Crown in right of" makes it clear that what we are dealing with are a single crown and the Crown in right of only refers to that single crown's authority in a particular jurisdiction. The Crown in Right of Canada and the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom are not different or seperate crowns but the same Crown in the same way that if gbambino owned properties in Bermuda, Jamaica and Canada, gbambino's interests in Bermuda and gbambino's interests in Jamaica would not refer to different bambinos but simply to the singular bambino's interests in different areas. Andy 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You're very, very close. The only thing to add is that there would be no overlap between my interests in Bermuda, my interests in Jamaica, or my interests in Canada save for how I am voluntarily and equally shared as their head through an agreement between them -- they would be separate and independent from each other even though they are both my interests, and my acting on behalf of the one would not coincide or interfere with my acting on behalf of the other. I'm glad you're finally beginning to understand. --gbambino 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is it's a single crown, a British crown, not several baby crowns, so the multiple crown theory is contestable. Glad you agree. The section stays as a result. Andy 01:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy, you've gone round and round in circles, contradicting yourself, drifting into corners and then back-peddling to get yourself out again, launching into pathetic attacks as distraction from your convoluted arguments, because, as our mediator has stated, you're only here to argue your idealistic (and I'd like to add: at times ridiculous), republican viewpoint. Well, you may be argumentative, but you are hardly convincing. After all, who would you really have believe that this country is subsurvient to Britain!? As well, and perhaps this is your greatest drawback, you are alone in this. Perhaps you should be given one more chance: provide some credible secondary sources from experts in this matter who support your claim that there is actually an existing debate on the matter of the Crown over and in the realms. Don't give us Rouleau again, as it has already been clearly pointed out that it is only your interpretation of Rouleau which supports you -- a misguided theory to support a misguided theory. Rouleau's ruling supports Peter and myself, and in addition, you've been provided with other court rulings, essays by constitutional theorists, legal documents, reports from constitutional committees, and more, as support for what Peter and I are saying. Let's actually see something from you. I think it's more than fair to say that if you can't do that, your argument is a personal one, and thus has no place in an encyclopaedia. --gbambino 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

gbambino's Irish problem

BTW gbambino, I'm still waiting for you to comment on the signficance of the abdication of Edward VIII proceeding despite the fact that Ireland had not yet consented. Andy 22:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I already did earlier. --gbambino 23:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You didn't explain how you reconcile the Irish reality with your theory that the abdication could not have occured without the consent of every dominion parliament. Andy 01:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Do we really know for sure Ireland had not consented in some form or another? Possible, but hard to believe. At any rate, the worst that it could imply would be a consitutional crisis lasting only one day. It's not exactly an issue now. Peter Grey 23:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Do we really know for sure Ireland had not consented in some form or another?

We know that the requirements outlined in the Statute of Westminster were not fulfilled.

" the worst that it could imply would be a consitutional crisis lasting only one day."

No, the worst that it could imply is that the preamble of the Statute of Westminster is not binding and that the claim that the UK cannot unilaterally change the succession is fallacious. Andy 01:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

But you argued before that Rouleau said the preamble was binding. Do you now disagree with Rouleau? These are your circles I spoke about earlier. --gbambino 04:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

(sigh) I can't believe I'm correcting you for the *same* mistake a second time. I was aruging that Rouleau said the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 was binding. What I am referring to in the post directly above yours is the preamble to the Statute of Westminster. Andy 13:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Andy. Allow me to remind you. From User talk:Gbambino/12 Statute of Westminster:

gbambino: "Parliamentary supremacy is still irrelevant to the altering of a Realm's line of succession as the preamble to the Statute is not leaglly binding, it is a convention only. Though Canada does face more challenges than New Zealand when it comes to constitutional ammendments, the Canadian governments could still alter the line of succession to the Canadian Throne without the consent of the other Realms anyway! Whether or not the words in the preamble to the Statute are there or not, each Realm can alter its line of succession if it so chooses. The words merely verbalise the importance of the maintenance of the amicable and agreed upon relationship between the Commonwealth Realms as central to the unity of the Crown. --gbambino 8 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)"

AndyL: "Rouleau ruled that the preamble was legally binding (in Canada anyway), otherwise he couldn't have dismissed O'Donohue's challenge."

AndyL: "But the only part of the Statute of Westminster that deals with the monarchy and the succession is the preamble and it is the wording of the preamble that Rouleau based his ruling upon. Therefore the preamble is legally binding, at least in Canada."

AndyL: "But in any case, in clause 31 of his ruling, Rouleau specifically invokes the preamble to the Statute of Westminster without any qualification whatsoever and treats it as the equal of ever other part of the codified constitution, ie that part of the constitution that is supreme law (there are other parts of the Canadian Constitution that are simple statute law and thus are not supreme, I suspect the Act of Settlement would be an example of this were it not for the preamble to the Statute of Westminster which Rouleau cites as legally binding.)"

So, as you were saying? --gbambino 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that Rouleau is relying on the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867. Andy 15:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You really must be joking... --gbambino 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it just means the abdication wouldn't have been effective until the following day. Canada is independent - why do you find that so hard to accept? Why do you hate Canada so much? Peter Grey 02:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You're smarter than to demean yourself with a question like that. It's as unfair as asking a monarchist why he or she hates democracy so much? Anyway, the poitn, as you well know, is that the failure to meet the requirements of the Statute of Westminster was insufficient to delay the abdication by even one day. Andy 03:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This is irrelevent to Canada's sovereignty, and the Crown of Canada, aside from the fact that it demonstrates that each realm does indeed have its own crown within its government's control. Had this not been the case, Ireland would have had George VI forced on it (which is what you claim would happen to Canada if the UK unilaterally altered its line of succession). However, instead of having a new king forced upon them, Ireland had a seperate king for one day until the Irish Parliament passed it's own Act recognising the abdication and assention of the new king. The Irish Parliament was in no way forced by the UK, or any other Realm for that matter, to do anything! Sounds like sovereignty and independence to me. --gbambino 03:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"This is irrelevent to Canada's sovereignty, and the Crown of Canada, aside from the fact that it demonstrates that each realm does indeed have its own crown within its government's control."

No, it's not irrelevent. It means that under the current constitution Canada is not free to alter the rules governing who is our head of state while a reciprocal arrangement does not exist for the UK. It also means that, due to the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 we are obligated to follow the UK's succession rules ie a foreign country determines who our head of state is. (And in case gbambino is still getting his preambles confused I am referring to the premable to the 1867 constitution, not the preamble to the Statute of Westminster.)Andy 13:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The 1867 Constitution reasserted the consitutional reality of the day, which was that Canada was under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament. "Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is obviously reinterpreted in light of the Statute of Westminster and the 1982 Constitution Act. Plus the fact that technically "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" no longer exists. Andy has already used, unsuccessfully, the exact same argument, based on the same 140-year old quotation taken out of context. Peter Grey 14:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Then, Peter, what is Rouleau arguing in regards to the 1867 preamble? Please quote him directly in your response. Andy 15:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The crown as shared. You're trying to twist that into the crown as subject to the UK Parliament, not because you believe it, but because you don't think your political convictions can stand on their own merit, and require an invented constitutional crisis. (O’Donohue v. Canada, 2003, paragraph 21, 31, 33, 34) Peter Grey 15:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy's flopping like a fish out of water. His arguments have crumbled. It's time to stop playing games. --gbambino 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Legalese does not equate to encyclopedic language

Then at issue, it would seem that, if Britain theoretically changed "the" Statute of Westminster, that the Realms would be left with original copies, not the UK version. But alteration of that document would, theoretically breach the overall contract agreement, and therefore null and void the wider aggreement entirely. Naturally the loyalist argument would be "thats never going to happen" simply because the UK has no interest in doing that: "Her Majesty" is everyone's "Her Majesty," and no else's "her majesty" is theirs, so the UK doesnt seem likely to do such.

So, in the end, the "law" as instituted by The Statute, by Balfour, etc., etc., by various other agencies, were simply the visible formalities for a disorganized, improper, and a sometimes unethical executive process, by a ruling monarch (and its prime ministers) to establish revised concepts of Reserve powers and of the Commonwealth itself, whilst making the necessary and impending transition from a classical monarchy to a "modern" and "ceremonial" one, due to the humanist changes brought by WW I, the "loss" of India, WW II, etc. Thats perhaps the encyclopedic way of summarizing the actual nature of the transition, and hence give a general, very honest sense of the history of the creation of the Commonwealth itself.

Naturally, its not clear that a non-democratic process would be sufficient to appease more developed (or current) concepts of democracy and republic. Hence, the loyalist argument (as always) is one based in stability and continuity of the general society. (Though a strictine "deference" to such established law, as it simply echoes thier values, is simply a game for loyalists to play.) The reasonably mild and benevolent temperment of the current UK monarch has served to strenghten popular support for this view, wheras some future monarch might by their actions severely test that support, forcing people in Commonwealth entities to rethink the status of their relationship to the UK monarch. At such a time, the concept of loyalism would naturally change from a popular sense of continuity, to a narrow and "legalistic" claim to "originalism" in interpretation. Thats the basics, as I see it, from an objective view. -SV|t 16:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Initially, the Statute of Westminster only applied to the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and the Irish Free State. Even then, it was difficult getting all the realms on the same page when a crisis came up as we see with the Irish situation. Now there are 16 realms with much more disparate interests than the "original six". Say Charles comes to the throne and some of the realms are less than thrilled and wish to skip to William. Could consensus be achieved among the 16? Frankly, it's more likely that some realms will withdraw from the monarchy entirely... but what if Britain wishes to change the succession rules for some reason, whether for reasons of principle in order to remove the bar on Catholics and the practice of male primogeniture or because a sitting or prospective King (say, Harry) is considered "unreliable" or a "loose cannon" as far as being a constitutional monarch is concerned. The system really does depend on a monarch who is willing to abide by the constitution, if a monarch is a short fused, intellectually limited hothead who feels he knows better than the PM and wishes to exercise actual power parliament would have little choice but to remove him. But if Britain faced this sort of crisis would it really wait for the 15 other realms to agree, particularly if some of them are holding out for their own reason (say a poorer country wanting something in exchange for their consent, or a country with an ideosyncratic PM who happens to like having a right wing fanatic for a king)? Would Westminster really defer or would it go ahead and (regrettably, they would no doubt say) act uniltaerally? Of course, Britain could just declare itself a republic at that point (which would create a new set of headaches for the "realms" stuck with a homeless monarchy) but if Britain wanted to retain a monarchy but just have a different monarch I find it hard to believe that Westminster would allow, say, Grenada to exercise a veto. Andy 17:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Sovereignty at work. Maybe this should go under Politics of the United Kingdom. Peter Grey 17:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter: "Sovereignty at work. Maybe this should go under Politics of the United Kingdom." Well, Andy's right in the sense that the concept of Monarchy is removed from politics, and therefore to claim that such debates are all political without accounting for the ultimate Royal trump cards is a bit constrained. In my country, for example, our "politics" is largely money-driven, which means its corporate and "elite"-driven. (You could say its also consumer-driven, greed-driven and fear-driven.)

But there are two separate entities, considering the political individual and the political corporation, but both still debate on the field of "politics." The UK monarch does not debate, because to do so would symbolize thier need to ask permission, which she doesnt need. Conversely the monarch doesnt directly excercise her supreme powers much, because that would open the door to the fact that such are not democratic.

I think the interesting thing, because this diverges from both Andy and Gbambinos general points, is the fact that the monarchy has been maintained only by its relative silence. It was not in fact instituted by law, but rather the "laws" and "treaties" were simply the byproduct of a process by which it executively changed itself. It remains simply because it remains quiet, not because its bound to do so, but because its obliged (politically) to do so by the precariousness of its continuum, relative to the everpresent democratic potential for removing it. So, yes, at a certain level it would seem that the monarchy is a "political balance," though the term political seems to have different meaning when talking about "supreme" authorities. -SV|t 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You've never given the monarchy much actual thought, have you Peter? How is it justifiable in a democratic society supposedly based on principles of equality and merit to have its nominally highest office determined by heredity? How is it justifiable in Canada to have as part of our constitution the exclusion of Catholics from an office of state? Monarchist claims that monarchy is above politics or the embodiment of the nation do not withstand serious examination. Take Edward VIII's Nazi sympathies, his father's meddling in regards to Ramsay Macdonald's Labour government or George VI and his consort heartily endorsing the Munich Pact by greeting Chamberlain on the balcony before the deal had even been debated in parliament.

Sure, make snide remarks, use reductio ad absurdum arguments, gnash your teeth all you like but I think you know underneath that the romantic illusion of monarchy is incompatible with and ultimately untenable in a modern democratic society. You're smarter than Gbambino; hopefully you'll come around at some point. Andy 18:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You've never given the monarchy much actual thought. Incorrect. Perhaps you should give some thought to what might be wrong with an extremely small minority trying to impose a narrow vision of democracy on others. Peter Grey 21:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What on god's green earth are you talking about? Where are these republican minorities imposing their will on monarchist majorities? Andy 23:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"You're smarter than Gbambino"? What happened to no personal attacks, Andy? Your hypocracy shines through yet again. Your republican bias is also shining strong -- full of weak argument, manipulation, and sales-tactics as always. I was accused earlier of having bias by Stevertigo. I hope he can now see the motives behind your attempts to push your own misinterpretation of law, convention and rulings, and your hypotheticals, as fact, all still lacking any secondary sources from experts or scholars who agree with your theories. --gbambino 23:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Andy is acting a bit out of line, and seeking m:more heat than light. I do understand that hes fishing for a more balanced view, which Im sure you can be of help with. -SV|t 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a balanced view should be maintained where opposing views actually exist. However, in this case the only opposing view is Andy's own personal one. His question "one crown or many?" implies a debate. Yet, though Andy has been asked to provide other respectible sources (constitutional scholars, judges, lawyers, parliamentarians, academics, even anything published in a journal somewhere) as example of others who question the accepted reality of the operation of the Crown over and in the Realms, he has not. He certainly attempted to say that the ruling of Ontario Justice Rouleau has put the situation into question, but Andy has only used his interpretation (influenced by heavy and convenient editing) of Rouleau's ruling to back up his own questioning of the Crown -- using a theory to back up a theory! To prove how weakly the ruling supports Andy's assertions, Peter Grey and myself have used the same ruling as verification of our points. Thus, without concrete evidence of any debate, I can't see what opposing view actually needs to be balanced with the accepted one. Also, it seems in some ways that Andy is coming round, against his own will mind you, to seeing things as they are. He's acknowledged the existance of the Australian Crown, he's acknowledged the existence of the Canadian Crown (Crown in Right of Canada, Crown of Canada), and by doing so has acknowledged that at least two seperate legal entities (crowns) exist within the larger "British Crown." He thus answers his own question "one crown or many?" -- it is one crown and many, many in one. That, of course, would end this debate on whether or not there is a debate about the Crown in and over the Realms. --gbambino 01:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's see, you suggest I'm unaware of the amending formula to the constitution based on your partial reading of a paragraph when, had you read the entire thing, you would have known I'm quite aware of the formula and then you read a quote from an article on the Statute of Westminster and think it's a quote by Rouleau on the Constitution Act 1867. Two sloppy examples of failure to read comprehensively in a few minutes and you have the nerve to protest my claim that Peter Grey is smarter than you? I think you owe Peter an apology. I suggest in future you read everything twice in hopes that you might actually understand what is being said and be able to make a semi-intelligent contribution.Andy 23:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Getting back to Commonwealth realm: The Constitution (in Canada) works, and the courts don't think there's anything wrong with it. Perhaps there are a few people who don't like how it works, but that is not the same thing. Could Consitutional amendment become desirable in practical (as opposed to ideological) terms because of a change in circumstances? Of course - that's true of any legislation. Would Canadian politicians blindly follow the rules of another country and pass up the opportunity to assert Canada's sovereignty, and all the potential photo-ops that that might involve? Would the courts even allow them to? A matter of speculation. The original concern was AndyL misrepresenting, seemingly intentionally, a political opinion as a question of law. A political opinion may merit a mention in an appropriate context, but deliberate, politically motivated errors of fact do not belong in an encyclopedia. Peter Grey 00:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Good of you, Peter, to come to gbambino's defence. Well, in any case, good of you to try to change the topic even if you don't feel moved to defend poor Gavin.

Anyway, I'm still curious about this purported minority trying to impose its views on a democracy. Give us some details, Peter. Who are these people and what are they trying to do? Can republicans be so dastardly as to try to impose their views by encouraging a democratic discussion followed by a vote? How devious of those bastards! Imagine, encouraging debate when we all know that only a tiny minority of 48% of Canadians (according to Ipsos-Reid) favour the replacement of the monarchy following the Queen's demise. Anyone with a different view should shut up rather than try to "impose" them by expressing them in public since we all know that voicing a dissenting opinion is an imposition on everyone who is happy with the status quo. How undemocratic of them to exercise their "rights" to express their views!

In any case, despite Peter's straw dog arguments about supposed errors of fact, we have through this discussion, cleared up the "multiple crown" myth (which has resulted in corrections being made to various articles). As the professor points out, though, this theory is purported by various theorists so there is some purpose in discussing the debate in the article, notwithstanding gbambino's confused and ever shifting objections.

I'm curious though how Peter reckons that the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 which Rouleau cites in his ruling has ceased to be binding? If it ceased to be binding how can Rouleau refer to it and use it to reject O'Donohue's petition?

I'm also rather moved by Peter's confidence that unanimity amongst the provinces is no obstacle to the demoratic will of the people. But as a democrat, Peter, (and aren't all monarchists democrats at heart?) don't you think it would make more sense to allow the monarchy to be abolished by a simple majority in a national referendum? Andy 01:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Encouraging misinformation is not compatible with "encouraging a democratic discussion". Peter Grey 02:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

So then, the misinformation promoted by the MLC concerning "multiple crowns" and the "Canadian monarchy" is beyond the pale in your opinion? Then you should speak up and tell them that! Or is there some other misinformation you are referring to? Since you are casting aspersions in such a vague way (the norm with smears) it's difficult to know precisely what you are talking about. Andy 02:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

MHTL

Andy, with all due respect, I think youre putting out more heat than light, and instead of arguing over what ifs or what should or should not be, you should focus on answering the material issues, which are how to best represent the material and explain the issue. At this point, Im a bit sympathetic to Peter and Gbambino, because at least they tend to be more brief. I dont need a history lesson. Rather I need to know what your actual purpose is. Your interest seems to be much more in arguing rather than helping clarify this topic for others (ie. at least the simplistic and strict approach promises to be "clarifying").

For example, you go into statements like these: "...Could consensus be achieved among the 16? Frankly, it's more likely that some realms will withdraw from the monarchy entirely..." This becan as a hypothetical, for which you gave your speculative opinion, stating it as "Frank[]" fact. You could be more tactful. Your questions seem like they contain their own answers: "How is it justifiable in a democratic society supposedly based on principles of equality and merit to have its nominally highest office determined by heredity? How is it justifiable in Canada to have as part of our constitution the exclusion of Catholics from an office of state?" I personally would tend to agree that the single Crown concept was and still is undemocratic, but you appear as if on a quest to convince those who may not have quite an idealistic concept of "democracy" as others.

At the root of your motivations is a youthful and naive concept of idealism, which simply ignores the "pragmatic" "real-world" notions which are somewhat embodied in conservative traditionalism and loyalism. From the conservative POV, societies arent created in a day, and therefore things which are too radically changing (like bloody revolution) simply weaken the society, hence they are considered dangerous. Meaning, that popular revolt may very well equal war and famine, etc. and that undoes the both the work of building the society, as well as the work of the society itself --to make a more "secure" future for people. From that point of view, "change" often does more real damage in contrast to the idealistic good that comes from idealistic change. But from the liberal pro-democracy side, stalled progress toward greater idealism simply means that society can slip backwards, which likewise leads to damage and destruction. Though democracy is a principled thing, its name is typically trampled through the mud, and its commonly understood that the acceptance of a trampling climate (for example in my country) leads to destruction, just as assuredly as it leads to revolt.

So, understanding all of that, I think your purpose (if there really is one) is to make some kind of contrast between the idealistic concept of a democracy, (as in the U.S. for example? LOL) and the monarchy-Commonwealth system established by the UK and its former outposts, colonies, and slave camps. But, if you understand history, then you can understand this is cyclical between shifing popular poles. I see this debate as more an issue of youthful interpretation on your part, than on the facts themselves. ("Issues" are somewhere between interpretation and facts). Lastly, the issues you raise are overly general, --perhaps you chould centralise your efforts on democracy article itself. The fact of the matter is that "democracy" is, as you suspect, under attack from many fronts. In light of political panderism and corporate influence over my country's "democracy," I cant say that the "ultimate deference to the Queen" model is any worse. But, again, this isnt the place for discussions. Sinreg, SV|t 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

So many Crowns, so little content

It strikes me that for the article to raise the question rhetorically, "One Crown or several?", and describe the various meanings which people attach to the word crown, would be an excellent way of presenting the shared vs. separate dichotomy of the crownmonarchy, rather than trying to pin down exactly one answer to the question. Peter Grey 19:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That would make sense for the Crown article but it would be a largely irrelevent tangent for Commonwealth realm. Andy 21:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, however, all of the relevant articles need to be associated with each other in a Template:UK Commonwealth. This would make it feasible to sort what goes where. -SV|t 05:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Edits to 'Commonwealth Realms and the Crown'

For well over one month now AndyL has been attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to push his biased POV through the use of personal interpretations of a primary source, which constitutes original research. Throughout more than a month of debate he has been asked to provide proper secondary sources of constitutional experts, judges, lawyers, parliamentarians, scholars, or publications of any kind, which also support his theories, but has given none. Thus, the passage has been edited to remove any POV and original research. --gbambino 14:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You're not the mediator, gbambino. Respect the process and wait for him to say something rather than usurping the mediation role for yourself. Andy 15:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Read his comments above.

You've been asked more than ten times to provide sources who argue the same points as you, but you have not. Thus you're putting forward POV and original research, and due to your self-contradictions and vacillations, weak POV and original research at that. You're playing silly games here, and its time they stop. Keep it up and you're up for vandalism. --gbambino 15:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

POV and Original Research are for the mediator to find, not you. You consented to mediation so, since I'm sure you want to be considered a man of your word, you are obligated to wait for the mediator to decide and not usurp his role.Andy 16:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I understood that he had already commented and suggested "perhaps you chould centralise your efforts on democracy article itself." However, if we need a ruling on the existence of POV and 'original research' behind your questioning of the Crown, then wait we shall. In making a decision I hope he views my solution which, as it has been reverted, is now in the history at the time 12:43, 19 July 2005.

As well, I have put in a request for temporary page protection until a decision is reached. --gbambino 17:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You want the page protected from yourself? I would have thought you'd have more self control than that. Andy 18:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Try to stop being so odiously obnoxious for once, would you please? I reccommend the page protection to stop anyone from 'tampering with the evidence', so to speak. But let me know if you don't want it protected -- that just means it's open for anyone and everyone, including myself, to edit. Your call... --gbambino 18:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You two are having such a great time spatting with each other, I hate to interfere. But this is getting distinctly tedious. So I'm going to dip my oar into this teapot-tempest just this once to suggest a slightly different perspective.

1) This is just one minor aspect of the overall topic of Commonwealth Realms. Whatever is said here should be kept brief. Long extracts from Rouleau or the Australian Constitutional Commission used in argument are not only PoV, they are completely out of proportion. On both grounds they are inappropriate.

2) Bagehot said something about the need to preserve a certain mystery in the workings of the monarchy. The way it is currently worded, this topic is part of that mystery. I don't see anything wrong with that -- there is no reason to force a conclusion one way or the other.

3) Despite the recent citation of Australian and NZ material in this discussion, your fight appears to be entirely about the significance of Rouleau, and the politics of the MLC. Both of these are parochial Canadian concerns, and should not be allowed to set the tone for an article about an institution that affect 16 countries. Whatever Rouleau's significance for Canada, it has no force in any other Commonwealth country; it might get cited amicus curiae but that's as far as it goes. Personally, I read it as a decision not to rock the boat and nothing more. And the politics of the MLC are just not relevant, either to the topic or to the 15 other Commonwealth Realms.

My recommendation: leave the article as is, a short statement of fact and of the differing perspectives, and get on with life. But feel free to return to the fray. --Chris Bennett 18:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this tedious? Most certainly. But as per 1): though they could perhaps be edited to pick out only the relevant words, excerpts from Rouleau and Constitutional Committee reports are hardly POV, unless you suggest the judge and committee members are biased. Rather, they are statements from experts on the matter which help illustrate the topic being covered. And as per 3): this has gone beyond any politics of the MLC to become one individual questioning the established operation of the Crown throughout the 16 Realms of the Commonwealth, and putting Canada's very sovereignty into question in an encyclopaedia. I agree with you though, that the jist of Rouleau's ruling is "not to rock the boat." As for your recommendation, I can't see why the article should include 'differing perspectives' on a matter for which no expert on the subject has ever offered a differing perspective. Only one is really out there-- the one Peter Grey and myself have been defending from Andy's personal misinterpretations. If Andy is allowed to insert his personal questioning here, it will only extend to other articles forthwith. --gbambino 18:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

For clarification only. Re (1) Its not the excerpts themselves that are PoV, its your use of them as argument that is PoV. They are entirely relevant and appropriate to the argument, but the section isn't an exposition of the argument, it's only about the existence of the argument. Within the context of the article, they are completely inappropriate, however brief. IMO. Re (3): Nothing in the text of the article questions Canada's sovereignty -- that's an issue that's only been raised in this page. All the article says is that Rouleau has been interpreted as implying that the UK and Canada have a single Crown. That's all. Here, a very brief quote seems appropriate because it is a non-standard view and because that quote indicates why that view exists. I agree with you that its a bogus interpretation, but I see no harm in recognising that it exists. Wiki is full of material that is infinitely more bogus than this. --Chris Bennett 19:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Andy's belief that Canada is subsurvient to the British Crown (as controlled by the UK parliament) is his driving force behind putting the existant status of the 'one Crown operating equally and seperately in each realm' into question. To do so implies there is an argument about Canada's sovereignty from, and equality to, the UK. And that's just the point, the section does imply the existence of an argument about this, when there is none! Who really questions Canada's sovereignty and status alongside the UK and other Realms?

Rouleau's ruling correctly affirms that the UK and Canada (as well as the other Realms) share the Crown, as well as affirming that Canada is a sovereign country with control over the Crown in right of Canada (including the succession). Any bogus interpretation of the ruling which 'supports' a doubt about the Crown will only lead to problems when this 'theory' spreads to other articles pertaining to the Crown, the Monarchy in Canada, etc. --gbambino 01:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Im glad that youre now stating what Andy's issues are, hence demonstrating that you understand them. They are interesting issues --in fact they are the only interesting issues I can think of regarding the whole notion of monarchy (the titles, weddings, and crown jewels dont impress me much). But using language like "bogus interpretation" and "there is [no argument]" doesnt help. You also use the "who really... questions" argument, which to me is just a variant of the "no true Scotsman."

All that said, I can understand how you can find Andy's POV annoying. However, Id encourage you to think of Andy as representing the true readership of Wikipedia - someone with a curiosity and interest in the questions of nuance, who's not at all satisfied with the decrees and singular opinions of certain jurists and "experts." Even the [insert any vague or questionable society] have (or had) "experts" in their own culture, but that says nothing about the real foundations of such cultural details and aspects. So, while the article needs your succinct verbatalism, it also needs to address the naievete of those not familiar or loyal to one particular interpretation. -SV|t 05:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I see "who really questions...?" as a valid question. If nobody questions, then why pretend anyone does? Ok, Andy questions Canada's sovereignty under the Crown, but he is a complete amateur at constitutional theory, blinded by his ideologies, and pushing what amounts to nothing but a personal opinion. As far as I know, even republicans as staunch as Andy acknowledge that Canada is not subservient to the UK through the sharing of the Crown. So it seems as if Andy is not really a representative of the 'republican side', as if there is no debate between the two groups on this matter anyway, and so who indeed really questions other than Andy?

As I see it, this comes down to simply having an encyclopaedia recognize what is factual and what is not, and facts are established by proof. So "who really questions?" could be answered if Andy would show sources who argue the same points as he does (and I don't mean his interpretation of Rouleau, but rather more credible sources). Then Wikipedia should recognize that the debate exists. I too am no constitutional expert, but this is why what I argue is not my personal opinion, but rather the points of others far more knowledgeable on the subject, and I've made many of those sources clear as proof. If a debate exists, Andy needs to prove that there are actually others who pose the same questions about the Crown over the Realms, in Canada, and Canada's sovereignty, as he does. Otherwise, Wikipedia is just lending credibility to the misguided personal opinion of an individual. Wikipedia may want to "address the naiveté of those not familiar or loyal to one particular interpretation", but should it address one person's? --gbambino 17:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

1) the fact is that there are relatively few judicial rulings on the monarchy, particularly on the question of how the Crown(s) of the Commonwealth relate to one another

2) judicial rulings are much more important and valuable than theories put forward by academics and experts, self-styled or otherwise. We have very few legal rulings on the "single crown"/"multiple crown" question and the Statute of Westminter, I might add, speaks on the relationship between Her Majesty's realms, not on the relationship between Her Majesty and herself. Gbambino and Peter Grey by applying Statute of Westminster rulings regarding government to governent relationships to the question of the monarchy are making an interpretation which may be valid, may not be valid, but is unsupported by consistent legal rulings across the Commonwealth.

3) Rouleau's ruling has quite a number of interesting statements regarding the monarchy.

4) There are no interpretations of Rouleau available, no scholarly articles, no opinions. There may well be in the years to come but given the obscurity of this area of constitutional law it's not surprising that a 2003 ruling has yet to yield any published commentary.

5) Everything gbambino and Peter Grey say about Rouleau's ruling are non-professional, lay interpretations. Same with anything I might say. All we can do is cite the words of the ruling itself. For gbambino and Peter Grey to say "what Rouleau *really* means" is x and for me to say "no, what he really means" is y is simply POV.

6) Rouleau merits mention given its relevence to the question of the crown and the Commonwealth realm - it merits one or two quotes - but we are not qualified to interpret it so we should leave any interpretation to the reader and not make it ourselves (particularly not by omitting Rouleau altogether). Andy 22:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Andy, at first you say there are "relatively few judicial rulings on the monarchy" (which may be true), but then say Peter Grey and myself are "unsupported by consistent legal rulings across the Commonwealth." Still, many or few, could you please point to the legal rulings across the Commonwealth which undermine the points Peter and I have made?

There's no contradiction there. There is a paucity of jurisprudence on the topic, many of the theories on the monarchy have not been ajudicated upon so they are not supported by legal rulings. Sorry if I was unclear. Andy 19:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• The relationship between The Queen's realms is the relationship between Her Majesty and herself-- as she is the living constitutional embodiment of each sovereign state and the Statute of Westminster sets up an agreement between them.

That's a theory, not a fact. Andy 19:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• There certainly are no interpretations of Rouleau, scholarly articles and the like. So, it is true that the points all three of us have raised in regard to the ruling constitute original research. This is precisely why I said it was inappropriate to use the ruling as justification for putting the 'multiple-crowns-within-one' situation into question -- a theory to support a theory. Likewise, it alone can't be used as much of a support of that situation, which is why Peter and I provided numerous other sources, not open to interpretation, as verification. If any interpretations of the ruling are to be included in a Wikipedia article (though I'm not sure they should be, as we’ve established that they are 'original research') then it should be in the section "interpretations" on O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003.
• Seeing as what Rouleau's ruling states is a matter of personal interpretation, it does not offer any real support of the actual existence of a "question of the crown and the Commonwealth realm". It therefore does not hold much significance to any article on the Commonwealth Realms, and similarly doesn't hold much significance to any article specifically on the Canadian monarchy.

Then we should quote Rouleau and leave interpretation to the readers rather than pretend there was never a ruling. Andy 19:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

--gbambino 16:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"Then we should quote Rouleau and leave interpretation to the readers rather than pretend there was never a ruling"

Who said anything about pretending there was never a ruling? The ruling has is own dedicated article. It just bears no consequence to the Commonwealth Realms, so it's unnecessary for this article. --gbambino 15:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Powers of the Realms

Another power the realms hold is the formal approval of any marriage within the royal family that may produce an heir to the throne. For example, when Charles, Prince of Wales married Diana, Princess of Wales in 1981 it required the assent of 15 governments (the above 16 minus Antigua & Barbuda, St. Kitts & Nevis, and Belize, which were not yet independent, plus Mauritius and Fiji which were still realms at the time).

How can this be true? Charles and Diana were British citizens, and not subject to the laws of any of the Commonwealth Realms with the exception of the UK. Members of the Royal Family do not have a constitutional position in the Realms, including the UK. The only legislation applying to them is the Royal Marriages Act, requiring them to receive the concent of the monarch before marriage. But this is a UK Act and does not apply in the realms, and the Prime Ministers of the non-UK realms cannot advise the Queen on UK matters. Astrotrain 19:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I also think the statement is too strong, but I can't say anything authoritative because I didn't even know such consent had been sought until I saw this. I don't know for a fact that it was sought. If it was, and was not just a courtesy, I suggested when you last raised this that the RMA might be one justification for it. Since the RMA does affect the succession I can well imagine it being argued that UK approval is not sufficient for the other Realms -- but then similar approval should be sought for all marriages of descendants of George III! The other precedent, of course, is the suggestion of a morganatic marriage for Edward VIII, which certainly was discussed with the Commonwealth Realms. But I doubt that such approval was sought, for example, for the marriage of Elizabeth and Philip. --Chris Bennett 20:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Moderated editing 101

The basic idea is this: the page is protected, to throttle editing until certain issues are hashed out. This can take two forms: the page is mechanically protected, and only two (or small number) trusted sysops can edit the article --doing their best to represent the specific suggestions of disputants --in this case Andy and Gbam. The other way is to bar the disputants from editing the article, while allowing the article to be edited by a larger group of "moderators". Im proposing this now, to start some discussion, but I dont want to wait forever. Sinreg -SV|t 05:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Amended. Adding template. This is obviously going to have to spill over into other articles, or else end with Andy's ban, which I dont see as justified. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

AndyL and Gbambino are not the only parties to have made specific suggestions. They are just the most vocal and disputatious. To summarise my own opinion: intellectually I'm generally with Gbambino, but editorially I tend to side with AndyL. Since AndyL and Gbambino show no signs of coming to terms, I agree moderation is necessary. So long as the sysops take the whole of recent editing history into account and don't give those two parties undue weight, I have no trouble with either approach to moderation, though I prefer the second. --Chris Bennett 16:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

And disputatiousness can be more of a problem than the material itself. Thanks for "dipping your oar" Chris. And please stick around. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Either way is acceptable to me as well, as I am voluntarily not going to edit the article further anyway. But I might prefer the former, as I suspect I know who the "trusted" sysops might be, and I have confidence in their abilities. A larger group of moderators may not understand the nuances of the debate that's been going on for well over a month now, spreading from article, to article. --gbambino 17:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just protected it, so youre can rest a bit. Ultimately my view (inclusionism) is that if material is not complete hogwash then its worthy of place, though where and how exactly to place it can be the problem. Consider this my sanction of Andy's basic thrust for "clarification", though by no means am I agreeable with his language or notion for placing this here. Certainly for massive cross-article debates, having a central Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth might be a good idea. While the page is inviolable, please consider putting energies toward working on the yet unformed template:UK Common. Andy should do the same. Maybe if that can be accomplished agreeably, then you two can start to agree on other things. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. Why can't the section "one crown or several?" simply give a brief, two-sentence explanation of each possible interpretation, and be done with it? (Some people say this, for this reason. Others say that, for that reason.) The wikipedia is full of many many much much more flammable disagreements, and in most of the ones that I've come across even the most contentious editors have been able to reach a modus vivendi with no protection needed. What gives here? Doops | talk 07:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the general m:inclusionism, but placement, wording, and sources are vital, and tend to be readily picked at. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. What started this was gbambino's habit of excising material he disagrees with, even when it came in the form of a direct quotation. If he curbed his censorious tendencies we wouldn't have a need for mediation let alone protection. Andy 11:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, Andy. And here I thought you were beginning to be civil for a change. I've made myself clear, and your your comments are way off the mark. --gbambino 15:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Really. You put the following nonsense on the moderator's talk page: "If Andy gets away with putting the Crown over the Realms, the Crown in Canada, and Canadian sovereignty into question at Commonwealth Realm, then he'll be off like a shot to use the same argument to change all the articles he previously, but so far unsuccessfully, tried to, to reflect this republican POV. This would greatly undermine the integrity of Wikipedia."

I can think of a number of articles which you unsuccessfully edited to fit your POV (trying to change the name of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom comes to mind, but none in the "monarchy" field where I have either pushed a POV or been unsuccessful in putting forward an editing change. You are, rather blatantly, projecting your own behaviour onto me as well as your poor record of success or having you forgotten the following comment you made on Talk:Monarchy in Canada:

Anyhow, seems I've "lost" again. Time to slither off..-gbambino.

If you want to be treated with respect you should start behaving in a manner worthy of respect. Andy 19:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy, knock it off please. Let me be the one to tell people to knock off any ad hominiem - yourself included. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Taking a very close look at the article, I was struck by two things: it was quite repetitive, and a lot of this discussion has come down to "one Crown or several?", and trying to put some subjective emphasis on one aspect or the other. Since both are true without contradicting each other, neither line of reasoning really contributes to the article in any useful way. Peter Grey 12:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well, Peter: are you sysop endowed? Jtdirl will be along shortly, maybe we'll talk some others to come along too. My job ATM is to freeze the disputes, deal with them, organize energy toward improving what we've got, and bring others in to help. As a suggestion, please <!-- comment out --> material instead of cutting it. This way, its still there and can be hidden from view until its ready or otherwise better placed. Redundancy is more a question of editing and rewriting than anything else. Sinreg to all.-SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I take it you're saying that wasn't your intention? Peter Grey 03:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter is not an admin and has been on wikipedia for a very short time. I suggest you recruit people with a longer history of editing, paticularly editing in disputed areas, for this task. Peter is not suitable IMHO. Andy 02:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well thanks for the info, Andy, but Peter can answer any questions himself. Peter might nevertheless try WP:RFA at some point in the NF. -SV|t 15:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC) PS. -please make yourself of help by working on Template:UK Common --it should be comprehensively linked, and organized, and where exactly to treat your concerns will be easier to narrow down. Sinreg, SV|t 15:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What precisely should be the goal of Template:UK Common? Is it supposed to have a UK-specific element to it? Peter Grey 15:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Rouleau

I object to the removal of the Rouleau quote and reference from the article. It is relevent and merits mention. Andy 20:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What would it add? The Crown is both shared and separate - repeating the fact will make it less clear, not more. Please suggest a sentence that you think would provide the appropriate mention. Peter Grey 20:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Any of the quotations in regards to the "British Crown" (such as the one that was there before) put into doubt the contention that there is a Canadian Crown or that it is equal to the British Crown. I'm sorry Peter but you are letting your POV interfere with a fair presentation of the facts. If you want to be a fair editor then you can't filter out information because you think it might be misunderstood. Indeed, I don't think you are capable of being editing fairly or independently of your deeply seated POV. Andy 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, what would it add? It merely repeats, in a confusing way, the equality relationship and the fact that in some contexts the crown can be considered unitary. Rouleau emphasized the symmetric relationship, you're just trying to promote your original research that since the separate monarchy in the UK is subject to the UK parliament, the shared monarchy must be as well, which does not belong in an encyclopedia for the simple reason that it is untrue. Peter Grey 02:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

But on the other hand, it does work if "however" is changed to "and consequently". Peter Grey 03:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I object to your misuse of the term "original research" particularly given that you're interpretation of Rouleau is framed by your own POV and since the mediator has said nothing to support your rather unique, and if I may say it, "original" view of what original research is I think you should just drop it since it's not supported by anyone but gbambino (who got it from you). If the word "however" is original research than so is "and consequently". Can we present the quote without framing it in interpretation? But since you're no longer editing the article, I guess it doesn't really matter, does it?Andy 04:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we present the quote without framing it in interpretation? No, because a quote out of context is confusing, and likely misleading. The goal is to explain. The word "however" is semantically incorrect since it is joining equivalent ideas. Can you explain what you think the quote adds to the article? What idea it conveys that isn't already stated at least once? Peter Grey 05:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The word "however" is semantically incorrect since it is joining equivalent ideas.

That's your POV. That's not an objective fact.

Can you explain what you think the quote adds to the article? What idea it conveys that isn't already stated at least once?

I've said this at least once before. The quote makes clear that Commonwealth Realms, or at least Canada, are under the "British Crown" despite popular mythology that we are not. Andy 05:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What mythology? Canada is a constitutional monarchy, of course it's under the Crown. That's not adding anything new. Peter Grey 12:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The word "however" is semantically incorrect... That's your POV. Not counting the tortured "logic" you used to argue Rouleau really meant "asymmetry" the four times he used the word "symmetry", I don't see there being a lot of room for interpretation. Peter Grey 21:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy: "The word "however" is semantically incorrect since it is joining equivalent ideas." Gbambino?: "That's your POV. That's not an objective fact."

Both are wrong. Andy seeks clarification on the use of a word in a legal clause. Asserting that there may be problems with interpreation is simply a NPOV question. Asserting that there are problems with the interpretation of a word is POV, and needs source. Asserting what exactly those problems are is likewise POV. However asserting that Andy's comments are all POV is incorrect, as they assume that the question also implies a nonstandard interpretation (though that seems to be the trend). Likewise, referring to a criticism regarding language as "not an objective fact" is poorly stated at best —in any semantic debate, both sides are POV --whether the accepted definition is overwhelmingly accepted or not. Do not equate legalist codices with science--they are expressions of idealism, not objective fact. -SV|t 18:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarification, it was Peter who made the first comment, and Andy who made the second. I have not been a part of this discussion. --gbambino 19:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• The easy solution, of course, is to pull the conjunctive expressions out altogether. Peter Grey 01:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm in agreeance with that. --gbambino 00:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Aggreance? Gbambino must be Don King's pseudonym.Homey 01:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I am in agreement with that. Concur, accept, consent. My vocabulary may suffer sometimes, but your lack of maturity is chronic. --gbambino 14:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You've embiggened yourself with your cromulent performance. We can all be in agreeance on that point. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Homey 18:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any movement towards resolution. I hope we're not going to end up with the current text being frozen in place through inaction. The "Rouleau" paragraph, as it currently stands, has the clear implication that the quoted phrase from Rouleau shows that the standard view of the nature of the Crown is wrong. The unqualified "however" reinforces this implication, but taking it out wouldn't solve the problem. Qualifying it, by commenting on the (claimed) significance of Rouleau for the debate, would. IMO the sentence that used to be there -- which said (IIRC) that this ruling has been held to imply a unitary British/Canadian Crown -- did the trick, but if not this sentence something like it is necessary.

The two other alternatives I see are (a) to take Rouleau out altogether or (b) to balance it by noting that other legal inquiries such as the Australian Constitutional Commission take the standard view (but with at most a single brief quote from one of them). I am willing to go with any of these three approaches, but the current text cannot stand. --Chris Bennett 16:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If Rouleau seems to contradict the "standard view" the way to deal with it is not to hide Rouleau. That is the worst option. Given the nature of the article I woudl prefer to add a "single brief quote" from the Australian Commission. Homey 18:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

One Rouleau or Many?

I suggest pull the quote out simply on the grounds it's Canada-specific. Peter Grey 17:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Canada is a Commonwealth Realm so the question of how Canada functions as a Commowealth realm is relevent though it should not be discussed excessively in the article. As has been pointed out, given that almost all the realms are judicially independent we are never going to get a judicial ruling that has jurisdiction throughout the Commowealth - all we have to go by are rulings in individual countries (Canada and Australia) to date. Also, there are precedents for courts looking at foreign courts for parallels if not precedents (for instance the Supreme Court of Canada does consider rulings by the US Supreme Court, the recent ruling by the Massachusetts Superior Court on same sex marriage cited the Ontario Court ruling etc). Homey 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

How Canada functions as a Commowealth realm is the same as all the others. Peter Grey 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Then the ruling and its wording is relevent to all the other Commonwealth Realms. Homey 17:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

But redundant. I recommend editors from the other realms decide the suitability of Canadian content - then there's no possibility of bias. Peter Grey 17:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Chris Bennett has suggested a compromise. He is not Canadian. I'm willing to accept it. Homey 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Good. One down, one to go (or is it two Peter?). Since this discussion is now occurring in two subthreads, I'm going to try to reunify it by creating a new one (see end). This includes the current state of draft replacement text, which I am not sure Peter has seen.

As to the sutability of Canadian content, with my Australian hat on I think its quite reasonable to mention it so long as the reason for mentioning is clear, the discussion is brief, and it is clear that is Canadian content. An Australian court might well consider it as evidence but not as precedent. --Chris Bennett 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Monarchy in Canada cutaway

This same debate is now continuing at Talk:Monarchy in Canada/Rouleau...Again. Andy's assertions that the out of out of context quotes back up his personal theory about the Crown over and in the Realms, and Canada's subservience to the British government, are being challenged as not good faith editing, a NPOV violation, and original research. --gbambino 16:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well since Rouleau is a Canadian ruling which, whatever its meaning, has no force outside Canada, that seems an entirely appropriate place to try to resolve what it means for Canada (or at least to agree on whether that meaning is agreed or not). Depending on the outcome of that discussion, mention of Rouleau may or may not be relevant on this page. We can suspend discussion here and return to the question once its sorted out for the Canadian page.

However, it currently isn't sorted out for the Canadian page, and you guys are showing every sign of duking it out till kingdom come (if you'll forgive the phrase). That leaves this page in the state of apparently prejudging the outcome of the Canadian discussion, a position which should be unacceptable to everyone involved. For that reason I hereby ask the moderator of this page (if there is one) to remove the Rouleau text until the Canadian discussion is sorted out. --Chris Bennett 18:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why you're taking a dispute from another page and bringing it here but, Gbambino, if you actually read the content of the bullet point containing the quotation you'll see that your claims of POV and "original research" are baseless. Homey 17:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the article, your desire to include the quotations is the same. --gbambino 18:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so you have no actual objection to the content, just to what you preceive as my motivation. How irrational. I'm sorry gbambino but we deal with article content only, if the article content is NPOV and not original research then that's the end of the story. You must relate your comments to what is actually written in the article.Homey 18:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The content is this: quotations out of context. Taking quotations out of context causes confusion about their meaning. After failing to blatantly assert your POV, you are now taking the more covert route of leaving these disjointed quotations for others to form their own opinions on, in the hopes they will misinterpret the words "British Crown" the same way you do, and then believe the whole "Canada is subservient to the British government" 'original research' you've been pushing. It's obvious that people cannot form proper opinions about a subject unless given the full and accurate framework that goes with it. Therefore quotations out of context are not acceptable and should be removed. The ruling and interpretations are already dealt with at O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003.

I am posting this at Talk:Monarchy in Canada and will continue discussion there. --gbambino 18:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The quotations are not out of context. They just don't fit your particular interpretation and you have to torture them to try to make them fit. I'm sorry gbambino but you are not a constitutional scholar and it is not for you to decide whether or not Rouleau is wrong or whether or not Rouleau really means what he says. You are not an authority so stop pretending that you are.Homey 18:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually the problem right now -- on this page -- is that the quotation is in the wrong context. While I realise you two are both Canadians (I am not), you are not considering that this is not an article about Canada. The context here is the relationship of the monarchy with all the Commonwealth realms, not just Canada. To make an unqualified quote from Rouleau in that context, whatever it means for Canada, is simply wrong. Even if AndyL's interpretation of it were correct, it couldn't apply to any country except Canada, since no other Commonwealth Realm has made a similar ruling. --Chris Bennett 19:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, Australian rulings apply only to Australia. It would not be difficult to add something to that effect, would it? We're not going to find any contemporary rulings that apply to the entire collection of Commonwealth realms as each realm is judicially independent with the exception of the handful who still use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.Homey 19:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be difficult. In fact your last edit to this page deleted text that addressed this exact point by making it clear that, to the extent that Rouleau has the significance you attribute to it, it only applies to Canada. That deletion left the Rouleau quote endorsing the significance you attribute to it not just for Canada but for the entire Commonwealth. That's why I want the mediator to remove the Rouleau text entirely until you guys have sorted out whether it is even worth talking about it in a Canadian context, let alone a Commonwealth one. --Chris Bennett 21:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The simple fact of it is that Andy is trying to create questions where there are none based on a misinterpretation of this ruling, and that includes within Canada as well as for all the Realms. It's ridiculous and unsupported, hence POV and 'original research'. --gbambino 20:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What sources do you have in regards to what is and what is not a misrepresentation of Rouleau? What sources do you have that support your contention that the quotation is out of context? What context would you suggest? Homey 21:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The belief that the monarch of Canada (or Australia or New Zealand...) is not the "Queen of Canada" but the "Queen of England" is pretty widespread. It's certainly a view that is sufficiently widely held that an encyclopedia should address it, whether or not it is a misconception (and I agree with you that it is). I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Andy's interpretation of Rouleau is shared by others (though I don't know that for a fact). I really don't see the harm in saying that the Rouleau has been construed as endorsing that view -- so long as the text doesn't say that that's what Rouleau actually meant (about which it should say nothing, here). It certainly seems preferable to the alternative, which appears to be a deadlock that leaves an entirely erroneous statement in place. --Chris Bennett 21:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Interpretations of Roulau's ruling (both views) are already included at the article O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003. They, however, are all personal interpretations, and so do not really cause any verified doubts about the equality and independence of the Realms under the Crown. --gbambino 21:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And that's the place for a detailed discussion of what it actually means. The most that should be recognised here is the existence of a point of view, discussed in detail elsewhere, that has impact on the issue under discussion.

What I really want to see is some movement towards resolution of this. I deliberately used the words "point of view" just now. Your repeated argument that Andy should be ignored because his beliefs are idiosyncratic and POV is ad hominem and not at all helpful. You might also consider that even if he's the first to come up with this argument he certainly won't be the last, no matter how misguided it is. We are never going to come to a resolution if you are not prepared even to acknowledge the existence of the viewpoint. --Chris Bennett 21:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I can accept Andy's viewpoint if it's properly acknowledged in the same way that Holocaust deniers and the Flat Earth Society are, because that's basicly what his assertions amount to-- denial of fact in favour of biased theories. --gbambino 21:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Although, even then, those are recognised groups. Andy's ideas are recognised by nobody but himself. Perhaps if others come forward as proponents of the same theory, then it could be acknowledged? --gbambino 22:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about John Trent of the Center of Governance at the University of Ottawa who discusses the Canadian monarchy in very similar terms ("the British Crown in Canada") at http://www.uni.ca/Modernizing_canada.html/ (a 10 second google search). I also can't agree that these theories are in the same class as Holocaust denial or Flat Earth -- that's pejorative language which is quite unnecessary. --Chris Bennett 23:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

But does John Trent mean the "British Crown" as in the shared body, or the British Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK parliament? There's a big difference. Rouleau is speaking of the former, Andy is trying to assert that it is the latter, and that would mean Canada (and the other Realms) is subservient to the UK Parliament, which is patently false. --gbambino 23:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it seems clear enough to me that he means the latter. But if you don't like that, there's the original version of the Rouleau article, written by your mate Peter Grey, which said:

Some have interpreted this to imply that the Constitution of Canada remains subordinate to external legislation despite the 1982 Patriation of the Constitution, while others have found the language of the judgement reinforces the principle of equality between the Commonwealth Realms

And despite the fantastic elaboration of that text which has happened since then in that article, the bottom line right now is unchanged. Which is no more and no less than could reasonably be put here -- and did in fact exist at one point. --Chris Bennett 00:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, from reading John Trent's words I couldn't see anything which clarifies what he means by "British Crown." He could just be calling it the "British Crown" for the same historical purposes as Rouleau. Or not.

Anyway, I don't mind Peter's sentence. It makes clear that the interpretation by "some" (though still really only one, but it's a compromise, right?) is in contradiction to existent law, which it is. This comment properly belongs at O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003.

Good, we're making progress. Now, here is a version of the current page from 19 July:

It is commonly held that these developments created a separate Crown in each of the Commonwealth Realms, united only in the person of the monarch and by the convention, discussed above, that changes to laws affecting succession must be agreed by all the Realms. However, in O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 Justice Rouleau described the relationship between Crown and Commonweath Realms as one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries". This suggests that the monarchy may remain a single entity, at least insofar as the Realms of Canada and the United Kingdom are concerned.

I think this is very close to something you and Andy should both be willing to accept in light of statements you have both made today. Giving weight to the current text, how about the following:

It is commonly held that these developments created a separate Crown in each of the Commonwealth Realms, united only in the person of the monarch and matters directly related to the person of the monarch such as the laws affecting succession. Hence the Crown has become an institution which operates separately in each Commonwealth Realm, with the Queen in right of each realm being a distinct legal person. The institution of the monarchy, the succession, and obviously the Queen herself, are shared equally by all the realms. Thus the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, and in different contexts "Crown" may mean the crown as shared or the crown in each realm considered separately.

The alternate view is that the Crown remains an essentially British institution, and that the Crown in other Commonwealth Realms is subordinate to the British Crown. In O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 Justice Rouleau described the relationship between the Crown and the Commonwealth Realms as one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries". Some have interpreted this ruling as implying that the monarchy remains a single entity, at least insofar as the Realms of Canada and the United Kingdom are concerned.

Can you and Andy live with this or something like it? --Chris Bennett 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot accept that.

OK, but I understand that you still accept the principle: that a suitably crafted paragraph that notes that there are different interpretations of how Rouleau bears on this matter would be acceptable to you. Andy has also said he would accept that. If that is the case then all we are talking about is what wording would satisfy that principle.

So long as I see evidence that we are making progress I'm willing to act as draft editor. But if we drop back in the mud then I will go back to my earlier position and ask the mediator to remove the Rouleau paragraph until you guys sort it out on the Canadian page. This time with a direct appeal to him.

The second paragraph is misleading as a) to state this is the alternate view gives too much credit to Andy's (and perhaps a few other fringe Canadian republicans') theories,

Note that this is stated to be the alternate view of the nature of the monarchy, not an alternate view of Rouleau. In my experience it is a very widespread view, certainly amongst Australian republicans, in the United States, and amongst ESL speakers in non-English-speaking countries. In most cases it is just uninformed, arising because people have absolutely no grounding in Commonwealth constitutional theory (can you imagine!?? oh, the horror!). But it is certainly not a fringe view. Besides, I'm having a hard time imagining a third possible model that has any relationship to reality at all.

b) the Rouleau quotation is still completely out of context, ignoring the many parts of the ruling which blatantly support the shared and symmetrical nature of the Crown and Realms, which is precisely what Andy does to try and support his arguments. It's still using a theory (Andy's manipulative interpretation of Rouleau) to support a theory (the subordination of 15 nations to the UK government). At least Peter's sentence recognises that these 'opinions' are actually contrary to legal reality.

Well I can't say as I see that particular implication in Peter's wording myself. Be that as it may, here is a suggested rewording of draft paragraph 2 that is more closely modelled on his structure by counterbalancing the interpretation of Rouleau, which will hopefully address what you see.

The alternate view is that the Crown remains an essentially British institution, and that the Crown in other Commonwealth Realms is subordinate to the British Crown. Some have seen support for this view, at least for the relationship between the Realms of Canada and the United Kingdom, in the ruling of O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003. In this ruling Justice Rouleau described the relationship between the Crown and the Commonwealth Realms as one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries". Others, to the contrary, have seen this ruling as support for the principle of equality in the shared monarchy.

As I say, if you find some nuance in the above that you can't accept, feel free to suggest alternate wording. Same goes for Andy. But I do ask both of you to remember that my aim here is not to draft text that allows either of you to feel you have won the intellectual argument. It's to arrive at a form of words that recognises that there is a certain view of the monarchy, that describes the claimed significance of Rouleau to that view, and that is correct, informative, fair, neutral and brief. --Chris Bennett 15:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Besides, recognition of interpretations of Rouleau at O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 is one thing, but can an encyclopedia really see someone's personal interpretation of that ruling as justification to recognise another personal interpretation which contradicts constitutional realities that have been known and accepted for more than 70 years? Again, we have established facts, and then we have Andy's opinions. And again, I agree with Peter's statement at Talk:Monarchy in Canada: "contrary interpretations must be justified with statements which cite an unbiased [contemporary] authority." --gbambino 02:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What is contentious in this article is Andy's addition: "A number of theorists contend that the 'Crown' in any of the Commonwealth Realms is the equal of the British Crown, however, in O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 Justice Rouleau described the relationship between Crown and Commonweath Realms as one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries." Firstly, theorists do not "contend" that the Crown in any of the Realms is equal to the "British Crown", they state that each Realm, including the UK, is equal under the Crown by the Statute of Westminster and the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. Secondly, Rouleau affirms this with his references to the "sharing" of the Crown, the "symmetrical" relationship amongst the Realms, and the control Canada holds over the Crown in Right of Canada and the line of succession to it, whereas Andy's "however" implies Rouleau's ruling is a contradiction. So here we have him using his personal interpretation of Rouleau as well as mistakes about constitutional theorists to create confusion by questioning the sovereignty of other nations.

We have established facts, and then we have Andy's opinions. As Peter has said at Talk:Monarchy in Canada: "contrary interpretations must be justified with statements which cite an unbiased authority that is more recent than 1982." (I believe we'd need even more recent for this article as some of the Realm constitutions were patriated later than Canada's.) --gbambino 02:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"I really don't see the harm in saying that the Rouleau has been construed as endorsing that view -- so long as the text doesn't say that that's what Rouleau actually meant"

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Homey 21:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the dispute?

This dispute is very long and protracted, and quite difficult to follow, and also dragged out over different pages. Could the people involved, please state their positions (briefly), and then others can consider this?

• It seems to be can any new legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom have force of law in another sovereign state, other than in the case of a state which voluntarily and explicitly chooses to adopt it into its own law, and, if so, would this contradict the assertion of the 1926 Imperial Conference that the Commonwealth realms are in a relationship of equals. (Of course, I could be missing something.) Peter Grey 21:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed draft text

This new subsection is meant to focus on the narrow question of drafting text that is acceptable to all, which was happening but getting buried. Here is my latest draft proposal, which attempted to address Gbambino's objections to the previous draft.

It is commonly held that these developments created a separate Crown in each of the Commonwealth Realms, united only in the person of the monarch and matters directly related to the person of the monarch such as the laws affecting succession. Hence the Crown has become an institution which operates separately in each Commonwealth Realm, with the Queen in right of each realm being a distinct legal person. The institution of the monarchy, the succession, and obviously the Queen herself, are shared equally by all the realms. Thus the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, and in different contexts "Crown" may mean the crown as shared or the crown in each realm considered separately.

The alternate view is that the Crown remains an essentially British institution, and that the Crown in other Commonwealth Realms is subordinate to the British Crown. Some have seen support for this view, at least for the relationship between the Realms of Canada and the United Kingdom, in the ruling of O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003. In this ruling Justice Rouleau described the relationship between the Crown and the Commonwealth Realms as one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries". Others, to the contrary, have seen this ruling as support for the principle of equality in the shared monarchy.

I think it is only para 2 that is now still subject to draft. AndyL has agreed to the above version. Peter has suggested removing the quote altogether, though from a different version of the text. I think it has some value as indicating to the naive reader what it is about this ruling that is felt to support to the view expressed without forcing them to do further research. However, since there is ample exposition of text in the linked article, I also think Peter's suggestion is not unreasonable. --Chris Bennett 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The alternate view? - is there any evidence that this is a legitimate view? Meaning, aside from republicans attempting to sow disinformation, or people who are merely misinformed? The Crown can be viewed as shared or separate, but not exclusively British (in the sense of UK-specific), and it is not possible to talk of one Crown subordinate to another. Peter Grey 19:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Herewith a copy of my response to Gbambino when he made a similar comment. I made it to make sure we are all on the same wavelength before we discuss whether the phrase really needs adjusment. Legitimacy is not the concern here, only existence. Republicans do not believe they are sowing disinformation, and an encyclopedia is meant to inform the misinformed, not to preach to the converted. It helps to relate to pre-existing preconceptions where you can.

Note that this is stated to be the alternate view of the nature of the monarchy, not an alternate view of Rouleau. In my experience it is a very widespread view, certainly amongst Australian republicans, in the United States, and amongst ESL speakers in non-English-speaking countries. In most cases it is just uninformed, arising because people have absolutely no grounding in Commonwealth constitutional theory (can you imagine!?? oh, the horror!). But it is certainly not a fringe view. Besides, I'm having a hard time imagining a third possible model that has any relationship to reality at all.

--Chris Bennett 20:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter, I think Chris is saying we should acknowledge that there is a common misconception about the Monarchy/Crown being a purely British institution, which is probably true. However, though common, it is still a misconception and thus not a ligitimate view. Any comment on it should make this clear. But misinterpretations of Rouleau should not be used as support for a misinterpretation of the Crown, so I agree with Peter that the Rouleau quote adds nothing at all.

If Rouleau quotes absolutely must be included, then I propose the following:

It is held that these developments created the current situation where the Crown operates separately and equally in each of the Commonwealth Realms. Hence the Queen in right of each realm is a distinct legal person, with the Queen of Canada seperate from the Queen of New Zealand or the Queen of the United Kingdom. But because the Realms are united through the institution of the Monarchy matters directly related to the person of the Monarch, such as the laws affecting succession, are commonly and symmetrically shared. As Ontario Justice Rouleau said in O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003:

"As a result of the Statute of Westminster it was recognized that any alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain and, if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to he maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth. This arrangement can be compared to a treaty among the Commonwealth countries to share the monarchy under the existing rules and not to change the rules without the agreement of all signatories."

As well, Councillor Julian Leeser (Woollahra Council, NSW) stated in an article on the High Court of Australia case Sue v Hill:

""the (High) Court confirmed that the Queen of Australia does not act as a foreign Queen. One of the main arguments that was raised by Heather Hill was that the Queen of Australia is the same person as the Queen of the United Kingdom (and Northern Ireland). Therefore swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia was the same as swearing allegiance to the Queen of the UK. This argument was rejected by the Court on the basis that whilst physically it is the same person, Elizabeth II, they are "independent and distinct" legal personalities. This notion is known as the divisibility of the Crown which Justice Gaudron found to be "implicit in the Constitution."

Thus the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, and in different contexts "Crown" may mean the crown as shared or the crown in each realm considered separately.

However, because the Balfour Declaration, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, the Statute of Westminster 1931, and the patriation of each of the Realms' constitutions, remain little known outside of legal circles, a common misconception prevails that the Crown remains an essentially British institution. --gbambino 20:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Lets try to keep it BRIEF!!! (And, as a Sydneysider, I can tell you with absolute authority that the views of a Woollahra councilman on this matter don't carry a hell of lot of weight!)

Yes, you are right that I think it is reasonable for the article to address that common conception.

Gbambino, I thought that we had reached common agrement that the issue is controversial enough that we should be aiming to give readers pointers that allow them to decide for themselves whether or not it is a misconception -- lead them to water but don't force them to drink it. However, the proposal you are making here effectively takes you back to square one -- insisting on the correctness of your views. Is that really what you want to do? If so, you know what my position is.

--Chris Bennett 20:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think we need quotes at all. Andy/Homey states Rouleau quotes should be included for illustration, so I included one, and to not make it Canada-centric, included an Australian one as well (I have others not from a NSW councillor, BTW).

As for dubbing the "common view" a misconception, that's because it is. The Crown in Canada is not subordinate to the UK Crown, and the Canadian government is not subject to laws passed by the UK Parliament. This is the same for all other Realms. That is by constitutional law, so any other view really and truly is a misconception.

So, without the quotations, this will suffice for me:

It is held that these developments created the current situation where the Crown operates separately and equally in each of the Commonwealth Realms. Hence the Queen in right of each realm is a distinct legal person, with the Queen of Canada separate from the Queen of New Zealand or the Queen of the United Kingdom. But because the Realms are united through the institution of the Monarchy matters directly related to the person of the Monarch, such as the laws affecting succession, are commonly and symmetrically shared. Thus the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, and in different contexts "Crown" may mean the crown as shared or the crown in each realm considered separately.

However, because the Balfour Declaration, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, the Statute of Westminster 1931, and the patriation of each of the Realms' constitutions, remain little known outside of legal circles, a common misconception prevails that the Crown remains an essentially British institution.

As it has been agreed at Monarchy in Canada that Rouleau supports the reality that Canada and the other Realms are not subordinate to the UK Parliament, and that the Crown is shared equally amongst the Realms, the claim that he somehow contradicts it is nullified here. It has also been agreed that "the Monarchy is thus no longer an exclusively British institution, although it may often be called British for historical reasons --gbambino 21:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)