Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Capitalisation

What is the appropriate capitalization of this phrase? Can we make the title and the first sentence consistant? -- Zoe

It seems to me that it should be "Commonwealth realm" for the same reason I'd expect an article about European kingdoms to have a lower case "k". Ben Arnold 12:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ireland's leaving

Surely Ireland left in 1949 - from recollection the 1937 constitution or related law retained the monarchy as an organ for external relations and they remained in the Commonwealth (and relations with the UK went through the Dominions Office, not the Foreign Office). I won't change it without checking here though. Timrollpickering 12:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any chance to consolidate Commonwealth Realm with the Commonwealth?

Any chance of listing the 'Realms' at the bottom of "The Commonwealth of Nations" simply to be able to consolidate some templates??? CaribDigita 16:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Powers of the Realms

I disagree with the statement "Another power the realms hold is the formal approval of any marriage within the royal family that may produce an heir to the throne". The Royal Family are British citizens, therefore they are only subject to British law. Thus if say New Zealand passes a law forbidding marriage, or the government is against the marriage, there is no legal barrier to marriage in the UK. Astrotrain 20:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

The obvious problem with this particular scenario is that it would change the succession in right of New Zealand. But I agree that the sentence seems a little strong, and I also doubt that any marriage that passes muster in the UK actually does require Commonwealth consent. The only argument I can imagine is that the Royal Marriages Act now requires permission of each of His Majesty's Governments rather than just the UK government. In fact I suspect it was done as a courtesy, for the avoidance of doubt rather than any other reason. --Chris Bennett 02:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

One Crown or several?

I've moved most of what was in this section to the "interpretation" section of O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003. Personal opinions about Rouleau's ruling do not belong in this article as they have no effect on the standing theories on the Crown over the Commonwealth Realms, and are relevant only to the ruling itself. --gbambino 21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that I did attempt to state "see talk" when making the edit, however, that comment did not show up in the history. My apologies for any confusion. --gbambino 22:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have again removed the section as the statement "Some hold that this theory was contradicted, in Canada at least, by a 2003 Ontario Superior Court ruling by Justice Paul S. Rouleau" is original research. Without this unfounded contradiction of the established relationship of the Crown over an in it's Realms, the entire section is pointless. --gbambino 19:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Given that you saw fit to move the section to another article you cannot now claim it's original research, particularly when it comes with citations from a court ruling. Are you going to argue that Peter's O'Donohue v Queen article be deleted as well? AndyL19:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten the passage so that it simply states the facts without any interpretation.AndyL19:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Andy, While Rouleau's ruling may make references to the Crown over the Commonwealth Realms, as well as the Crown within Canada, it does not put into question the established status of the Crown. No matter how you want to word it, the retention of "One Crown or Many?" is your own lone attempt to upset the status quo. Until you have provided ample secondary sources (though, one would be nice at least) to back up your claim that the ruling really raises any questions amongst constitutional scholars, then its still nothing more than original research.

As for it's inclusion on O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003-- I certainly can "claim" it's still original research. But for the time being I think the disease-like spread of your personal theory on this matter needs to be reigned in, and O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003 is the best place to narrow it down to as it is really only relevant to that ruling. --gbambino 19:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Citation from an original source is not original research. Let's leave it to the mediator.

BTW, you've reverted three times now. Once more and you'll break the 3 revert rule and be banned for 24 hours. AndyL20:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop playing your silly game of hiding behind a direct quote as your defence for its manipulation. What constitutes original research here is your theory on the implication of the ruling not the quotations from the ruling itself!

For the assitance of the mediator, from original research:

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Original research is research that produces primary sources or secondary sources. Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.

Original research that produces primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

==What is excluded from articles==

A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:

• it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
• it introduces original ideas; or
• it defines new terms; or
• it provides new definitions of old terms; or
• it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article; or
• it introduces neologisms.

All of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. For example:

• the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
• the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

All the highlighted points apply to the numerous times you have tried to push your interpretation of Rouleau's ruling onto Wikipedia articles. That said, I will leave it to the mediator. --gbambino 20:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you should read what you've posted. The "idea" that there is a single crown and not multiple crowns does not originate with me. St. Laurent said it himself in 1953 and it's been said many times since. See The Commonwealth website for instance and as I keep saying, Rouleau himself speaks of "Union under the British Crown." It's not original research to say that Rouleau said that, it's simply taking a direct quote. The article does not interpret the quote, it simply presents it. That the quote contradicts your personal theory of the monarchy (or rather that of the MLC) does not make it "original research", it just means that your personal theory is just that, a theory not a fact. AndyL 20:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, stop trying to be purposefully complex in an attempt to guard your fallacies. There is no debate about there being one Crown-- and there never has been. What you are trying to do is use conveniently extracted quotations from Rouleau's ruling to support your theory that the ruling itself brings into question the established situation of the Crown operating over and within each of it's Realms. What you are also trying to do is use conveniently extracted quotations from Rouleau's ruling to validate your theory that the Crown in Right of Canada is a British institution. You do this when no lawyer, judge, or constitutional expert has ever done the same. You do this in the face of words from lawyers, constitutional experts, and even from Justice Rouleau himself, which negate your theory. That, without a doubt, constitutes 'original research,' as explained above. --gbambino 21:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Rouleau's statements speak for themselves. They contradict the POV propaganda you get from the MLC and so you divine ways to rationalise or excuse what he says away. Somehow, in your mind, when he says "British Crown" he doesn't really mean it. Anyway, gbambino, you're just a mouthpiece for the MLC - you should try to open your mind a bit and read what's really there instead of what you want to see or what the MLC wants you to think. I know that the MLC wants to distance the crown from the notion of British empire and colonialism in order to make it seem more Canadian and more attractive to modern Canadians but it's not our job to only include facts that fit the MLCs propaganda goals and exclude those that contradict them. Much of what you've been doing is excising inconvenient facts and paragraphs that contradict the MLCs party line and before you blame me for insterting them in the first place, much of what you've censored has been written by others. Basically, you've been operating like a vandal by removing things you don't like and a propagandist by copying MLC material and pasting it in almost without alteration. Despite all your attempts to deflect things on to me your own behaviour remains clear. AndyL00:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously Rouleau's statements do not speak for themselves; you choose to ignore much of them and read implications into the rest to back up your personal theories. As I've stated earlier, you should stop inferring that what Peter Grey and I provide you with is "MLC propaganda," it makes you appear trite and ignorant as any person reading through the reams of debate that have gone on here can see that it is not. And, again, your attempts to defame me in an effort to divert attention away from yourself is a tad pathetic and leads one to wonder precisely what it is you have to hide from. --gbambino 01:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"you choose to ignore much of them and read implications into the rest to back up your personal theories."

Read what the article actually says. Which sentence of the article constitutes original research? Give me a specific example below.AndyL01:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The non-existent debate behind "One Crown or Several?" is what constitutes 'original research'. You have taken a primary source (Rouleau's ruling) and applied to it your theory that it creates some sort of debate about the current relationship of the Crown in and over its Realms.

What's more, in an attempt to validate your theory you pull out of context those quotations from your primary source which aid you, and conveniently ignore those which contradict you. For example, why do you never include Rouleau's statement: "[34] The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16. This Canadian statute effected changes to the rules of succession in Canada to assure consistency with the changes in the rules then in place in Great Britain. The changes were necessary in light of the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936. Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster. Arguably, without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada"?

It is most likely because right there in Rouleau's ruling is the affirmation of the existent relationship of the Crown in and over its Realms: though Canada, the UK, and every other Realm, equally share the same one Crown ("commitment to symmetry and union", "Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster"), the institution operates as a separate legal entity within each nation. They stem from the same body -- one Crown, one Queen -- but the Crown in Right of Canada is different and separate to the Crown in Right of the U.K. ("the rules of succession in Canada" vs. "the rules then in place in Great Britain", "without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada").

You've misinterpreted all along that "the MLC argues" there is no one Crown, only separate ones. You've also misinterpreted that the one Crown you realise exists is purely British. And to back all that up you've pulled bits and pieces of Rouleau's ruling out of context. You've never been able to see what's correct actually exists somewhere in the middle -- one Crown equally over all Realms, operating distinctly within each. But, if the Crown is over all Realms, all Realms are equal (as laid out in the Statute of Westminster), and Britain is a Realm itself, then the Crown cannot be purely British. Only as the Crown in Right of Great Britain can it be British, and therefore the Crown in Right of Canada is Canadian -- as Rouleau points out.

It's been said time and time again that this is a complex matter, but that's no excuse for your personal interpretation of things to be included on Wikipedia articles. And, as it stands, unless you provide secondary sources to back up your claim that Rouleau's ruling actually creates any debate on the situation of the Crown in and over its Realms, then it remains 'original research', and thus the entire "One Crown or Several?" section is invalid. --gbambino 17:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, read what the article actually says. Which sentence of the article constitutes original research? Give me a specific example below. Your charge of original research is baseless if you cannot find any actual content in the article that fits that description. AndyL17:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop with your inane arguments. The entire section "One Crown or Several?" is 'original research'. --gbambino 18:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Rise of Republicanism"

The sub-title "Rise of Republicanism" was based on nothing but POV and read like a republican call to arms. There have been republican sentiments in every Commonwealth Realm since they were first colonised, and though there continue to be those with republican leanings in the Realms, including the UK, there is nothing to prove there is a Commonwealth-wide rise in these feelings.

What's more, much of what was stated in the section exists almost verbatim in articles relating to republicanism within individual realms (ie. Republicanism in Australia, Canadian Republicanism and Monarchy in Canada/Debate on the monarchy -- these links have been included in the "Controversy" section. All other information was shifted down to the "Controversy" section, and some was moved to the more relevant Republicanism in Australia. Very little, if anything at all, was removed. --gbambino 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Line by line

Ok, let's go through it line by line:

It is usually held that the Statute of Westminster, 1931 has resulted in what was formerly a single Crown of the United Kingdom uniting all the dominions giving way to a situation where the one Crown transcended Britain itself to become an institution which operated seperately but equally in each Commonwealth Realm, so that the Crown in Right of Australia or the Crown in Right of Canada is equal to the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom. (See the article Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 for a more thorough exploration of this concept.)

A statement of fact and not original research. If you disagree, explain how it is original research.

In 2003, an application by Tony O'Donohue to have struck down sections of the Act of Settlement that bar Roman Catholics from the Throne on the basis that they are in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was dismissed.

Again, a statement of fact.

In his decision, Justice Rouleau quoted former Prime Minister of Canada Louis St. Laurent who said:

"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office, .it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard February 3, 1953, page 1566.

Again, a statement of fact.

Rouleau also desribed the relationship between Crown and Commonwelath Realm's as being one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries". For more information see O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003

Again, a statement of fact.

Do you dispute that any of the above is factually correct? If so, what?AndyL21:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

None of the above is factually incorrect. However, whether or not your original source is correct has nothing to do with your trying to push 'original research' on this article and others. As stated on the page original research:

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Have any debates over the matter of "one Crown or many?" been published in a reputable publication? Or is the existance of a debate purely your own "untested theory", "new interpretation", etc.?

Original research is research that produces primary sources or secondary sources. Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.

You have provided only what amounts to a heavily edited ruling of a trial.

Original research that produces primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

You have only produced a primary source: a heavily edited ruling of a trial. You have provided no secondary sources.

==What is excluded from articles==

A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:

• it introduces a theory or method of solution; or

You have introduced the theory that there is a debate on the status of the Crown in and over its Realms.

• it introduces original ideas; or

Ditto

• it defines new terms; or
• it provides new definitions of old terms; or

You are trying to redefine the existing status of the Crown in and over its Realms by bringing it into doubt.

• it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article; or

Your argument that there is debate on the existing status of the Crown in and over its Realms is original, and purports to refute the existing status.

• it introduces neologisms.

All of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. For example:

• the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
• the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

Any debate on the status of the Crown in and over its Realms is not "a permanent feature of the public landscape", has not "become newsworthy", nor is has it been "accepted for publication in a peer-recieved journal."

To ask the question "One Crown or Several?" states that there is debate surrounding the accepted status of the Crown in and over its Realms. To state there is such a debate is unsubstantiated, 'original research'. Therefore the question "One Crown or Several?" is your question, and yours alone, and thus does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. --gbambino 23:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what we mean by original research, you've certainly failed to show there is any in the article. Anyway, if you're only problem is with the section title then suggest a new one. AndyL14:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Mediation on Crown section

From User talk:Stevertigo

"Your comments within that paragraph in Commonwealth Realm#One Crown or Several?, the one which attempts to explain the relationship of the Crown over and in the Commonwealth Realms, are also directed at me. Though AndyL originally wrote that particular paragraph to contest its contents with his "Rouleau theories", it was I who last edited it in an attempt to clarify.

"That said, some of your comments are certainly valid, but the matter of the Crown over and in the Realms is complicated and difficult to put into words which are understandable to those not educated on the subject. Personally, I don't think any effort needs to be put into a re-write, as the section "One Crown or Several?" should be removed all-together. If you want to better understand the subject matter, what has been written in the second paragraph of Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 might give you a better explanation of the facts. --gbambino 22:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I dont believe it is truly as complicated as you say. You assert that Andy L has a "republican bias," when all I see is an attempt to explain the controversy in Canada regarding the continued connection of Canada to the U.K. monarch. Its that simple. Explain that there have been recent attempts to interpret Canadian law according to a more distant relationship with the UK, and that Loyalists, (decendants of Loyalists run out of the U.S., as I understand) dont necessarily like that idea. This is a debate which needs to be represented, and the problem that you two both have in attempting to explain this debate is that youre too close to it, and you both assert different details to have superior value in characterising it.

You might say that the republican /independence movement is just a "fringe movement", and "not newsworthy", but this is not what NPOV policy says. NPOV policy is to represent all sides in a debate, and to represent the debate in proportion to its popular support and to its outside interest. Its interesting to hear (from an outside perspective) all the familiar political ins and outs as applied in a different country -- particularly with regard to rulership, soveriegnty, etc. Now, I criticised that paragraph for its writing, not its content. I could take a crack at rewriting it myself, if you both agree, but Id prefer if you both stepped back a bit, and looked at the basics, and explain those first, before citing particular Acts, etc. Given proper context, all the details are easy to understand. If the agenda is to obfuscate, all the details become obstacles to understanding. Sinreg, -SV|t 03:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was complex is the relationship of the Crown over and in the Realms; it can sometimes be difficult to explain clearly.

Also, I'm not contesting that there are conflicting opinions on Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy-- they do exist and should be acknowledged. However, what AndyL is putting in doubt here is the above mentioned relationship of the Crown over and in the Realms. The accepted and standing view is that there is one Crown equally over all 16 Realms, but which operates as a distinct legal entity within each country. What AndyL is doing is putting that accepted and standing view into question, using a misinterpretation of Ontario Justice Rouleau's ruling as reason to do so. What constitutes 'original research' here is that AndyL is the only person to have interpreted Rouleau's ruling in that manner, and he is thus far the only person to question the status of the Crown over and in the Realms. I've said this before elsewhere: if AndyL could actually provide evidence of a debate on this matter (ie. if there actually were constitutional experts, or theorists, or judges who've questioned the status of the Crown), then a section somewhere on Wikipedia would be warranted. As it stands now, he's provided a primary source, but no secondary sources to support his claim that there is any questioning besides his own opinion.

Perhaps other republican minded people chose to interpret Rouleau's ruling as AndyL does, I don't know, that hasn't been proven either. But, if AndyL really wants to make his personal interpretation of Rouleau's ruling known, then it should be where it is now: in the section "Interpretation" on O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003. Seeing as not one constitutional expert or scholar currently questions the existent status of the Crown over and in its Realms as outlined by constitutional experts, judges, constitutional committees, the government, etc., in Canada as well as the other Realms, for the last 74 years, then nothing which casts it into doubt should be placed in Wikipedia articles. --gbambino 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

But, by your own admission, every line in question is factual. There is no "interpretation" in it so there's no original research. What you are afraid of, I suspect, is how readers may intepret Rouleau's ruling but it's not our role to tell people what to think or not think or suppress relevent information because we think people might not "understand" it the way you do. And, as I said elsewhere, your contention that your particular view of constitutional arrangements involving the crown are a "proven fact" is contested by Rouleau's arguments. Your views on constitutional law and those of the MLC are just theories, untested in the courts and indeed, in the one case they have been tested, Rouleau, your interpretation is contradicted.

What is at the base of this is you are adamant that your particular theory is a fact when, actually, it is a contestable theory. AndyL18:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of providing only "contestable theory" remember that a) it is not my theory, b) I provided numerous secondary, unbiased sources to prove that, and b) you have provided none to back up yours. Even if you want to discard Richard Toporoski's words on the matter because he's a constitutional expert who happens to be a member of the MLC, you still have to face up to the Statute of Westminster, the Balfour Reports, the Canadian department of Justice, Australian court rulings, Australian constitutional committee reports (which, yes, are relevant as they are in a similar position under the Crown as well), and so on. In fact, contrary to your claim that I am contested by Rouleau's arguments, I have actually also cited for you much of Rouleau's ruling which supports the standing view of the Crown!

If you now simply want to leave it up to readers to interpret Rouleau's ruling from provided factual quotations, then leave quotations and interpretations at "Interpretations" on O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003, where they belong . The question "one crown or several?" is a personal one, and thus doesn't belong in any Wikipedia articles, and the remaining information in the section is covered already at Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, Statute of Westminster 1931, and O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003. --gbambino 19:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be quite useful if you tried your hand at rewriting the section in question. It would also be helpful if you dealt with Gbambino's misunderstanding of the concept of original research since he's not going to accept anything I say on the matter. AndyL 04:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"Before you accuse me of providing only "contestable theory" remember that a) it is not my theory, b) I provided numerous secondary, unbiased sources to prove that" Fine then it's someone else's theory, it's still a theory, not a fact. "and b) you have provided none to back up yours" No, I've provided a primary source which you misidentify as "original research". AndyL22:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've said this before, gbambino, but the notion of multiple crowns is contradicted by none other than Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent who said:

"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office .. it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard. February 3, 1953, page 1566.

"It is not a separate office". Quite clear. AndyL22:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like some communication is happening. What remains is to find an appropriate place for the debate, as it exists or does not , in Canada. Is it a major debate? Gbambino would have me (a non-Canadian) to think that its rather minor, while Andy might have me (a non-Candadian) think it major. If the controversy exists, does it deserve a separate article? Does it then deserve more detail in specific article subsections which relate back to the original? I'm all ears. -SV|t 00:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not a major debate. However, the contention that there are "multiple Crowns" and, the corollary, that therefore there can be and is a "Canadian monarchy" is an important part of monarchist ideology and it merits a mention. Since this is the article that seems to deal with the constitutional nature of the Commonwealth realms and as the question of one monarchy or several relates only to Commonwealth realms this would seem to be the article to put it in. Alternatively, it could go in the British monarchy article. AndyL00:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it might make more sense to move the section to British monarchy.AndyL00:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, no. I would not think it neutral to refer to aspects particular to Canada as being in an exclusive British context, but perhaps thats because I fail to directly equate Canada as a British outpost, and not an independent country. This is all news to me, nor have I previously had much interest in monarchy in general or "The Monarchy" in particular, (which Im curious if it redirects properly to "monarchy" or not.) The important thing is that youre both very communicative (good first sign) and informative about the issues, and are mindful to my suggestions for how to deal with them. From my point of view, the specifics dont really matter, its how they are represented as discrete elements and ordered in a way which best gives the proper impressions regarding the issue. Now, what I hear you saying is that the opposition is equal in ideological terms, while you nevertheless agree that in practical terms, theres little argument over interterpretation. Hence, how to represent the debate, even if its only ideological, but nevertheless newsworthy (due to specific cases of protest). Sinreg & Goodnight. -SV|t 01:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not a small debate, it is a non-existent debate. That one Crown operates separately in each Realm is the established, recognised and accepted view of the Crown in and over the Realms, and one which exists regardless of one's republican or monarchical leanings. I provide the following sources which comply with this:

• The Balfour Declaration 1926: "[The United Kingdom and the Dominions] are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations".

Note, equal, united, the Crown.

• Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927: "...a second, and more important function [of the Act], was to modify the King's title, proclaiming that George V was not king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions but rather of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions. The change in the wording of the King's title is subtle, but has the effect of creating a list of nations of which he is king rather than grouping those nations all together as if under one government. In so doing, this replaced the concept of a single Imperial British Crown over the Empire with one Crown operating separately but equally in each Realm. In this way, by means of the act, each of the Empire's Dominions became a separate kingdom. The Act was thus an important step in the evolution of the Dominions towards full independence."

The beginning of the evolution of the Crown from an Imperial one to one shared by multiple separate kingdoms.

• The Statute of Westminster: "And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol to the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom..."

Note, the Commonwealth Realms are now united under "the Crown", not "the British Crown" -- a subtle, but important reflection of the result of the earlier Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act. As well, note that any Realm must have the assent of all the others to alter the line of succession, meaning the Statute recognizes that each Realm now has their own line of succession which they may alter unilaterally, but should not to maintain the unity of the Crown.

• The Statute of Westminster: "4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof."

This means any alteration to the line of succession in the UK, done by an act of the UK parliament, would have no effect in any of the Realms, illustrating that Britain only has control over the line of succession for the Crown in Right of the UK, and none over the succession for the Crowns of the other Realms.

• Canadian Title of Elizabeth II, 1953: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

By separating the two titles, it illustrates that Elizabeth II's role as Queen of the U.K. is indeed separate and distinct from her role as Queen of Canada. So, if the Queen of Canada is recognized in her own Canadian title as being distinctly Queen of Canada, then that in itself shows that the Crown, like the Sovereign, is both British and Canadian.

• St. Laurent: "Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom... It is not a separate office... it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign..."

Not a separate office, but that one office operates as "Queen of Canada" separately to its operation as "Queen of the United Kingdom." St. Laurent, who was key in the composition of the Balfour Reports and the Statute of Westminster, is acknowledging this when purposefully distinguishing Her Majesty as Queen of Canada separately from her as Queen of the United Kingdom, but then stating correctly that the two exist in one body/office.

• Rouleau: "[33] 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. While Canada as a sovereign nation is free to withdraw from the arrangement and no longer be united through common allegiance to the Crown, it cannot unilaterally change the rules of succession for all Commonwealth countries. 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."

Rouleau is acknowledging that Britain only has control over the line of succession for the Crown in Right of the UK ("alterations in the line of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain"), as Canada has a line of succession for the Crown in Right of Canada now separate and distinct from Britain's ("Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession..."). But, none-the-less, both lines must be the same as they are for the same Crown ("if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to be maintained", "share the monarchy", "would break symmetry and breach the principal of union under the British Crown...").

• Rouleau: "[34] The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16. This Canadian statute effected changes to the rules of succession in Canada to assure consistency with the changes in the rules then in place in Great Britain. The changes were necessary in light of the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936. Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster. Arguably, without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada."

Again he's acknowledging that Canada has it's own line of succession separate from Britain's ("the rules of succession in Canada" separate from "the rules then in place in Britain", "Edward VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada"). But, because Canada's king and the UK's king are the same person, and the two countries have agreed through the Statute of Westminster to keep it that way, Britain needed Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act so that UK Parliament could proceed with Edward VIII's abdication. And right there he flat out refers to "the Crown of Canada"!

• Rouleau: "[36] The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, 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."

Clearly Rouleau recognises the King or Queen of Canada is separate from the King or Queen of the United Kingdom, with separate lines of succession governing the selection of each (always keeping in mind that the Statute of Westminster stipulates that the two must be the same person to maintain the unity of the Crown, as he refers to when he says: "[38] To [unilaterally alter the rules of succession] would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure").

• 1988 Constitutional Commission report (Australia): "2.138 The disappearance of the British Empire has therefore meant that the Queen is now sovereign of a number of separate countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, amongst others. As the Queen of Australia she holds an entirely distinct and different position from that which she holds as Queen of the United Kingdom or Canada. The separation of these 'Crowns' is underlined by the comments of Gibbs CJ in "Pochi v Macphee" that 'The Allegience which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia' .

"2.151 As discussed earlier,112 the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in 1900 referred to the sovereignty of the entire empire of that country. There was in law and in fact no distinct Monarch of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. There was just the one and indivisible sovereign of all parts of the Queen's dominions. When the Queen, as distinct from the Governor-General or a Governor, acted in relation to either the United Kingdom or overseas possessions of the Crown she acted on the advice of ministers of the United Kingdom. The Crown, therefore, was one Imperial Crown. That is no longer the case. The sovereignty of each of the countries that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen is separate and distinct from that of any other country. Whether in domestic or foreign affairs the 'Crown of the United Kingdom' may pursue quite different policies from that of the Crown of Australia. The Queen's advisers are different in each case. The reference to the United Kingdom is therefore a source of confusion and does not reflect the position of the Crown in Australia today."

Australia exists under the same Crown as Canada and the UK, and also adhere to the Statute of Westminster to ensure their sovereign remains the same as Canada's and Britain's. Thus, the words that describe the Crown of Australia and the Queen of Australia are just as applicable to Canada. It is even said "the sovereignty of each of the countries that regognise Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen [that includes Canada!] is separate and distinct from that of any other country." However, the Queen of Australia, the Queen of Canada, and the Queen of the UK are obviously the same one person, sovereign of one Crown.

• Councillor Julian Leeser (Australia): "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."

Again, an Australian example which is just as applicable to Canada, where we see a woman's argument very similar to AndyL's own being thrown out because it did not recognise constitutional realities.

• Toporoski: "I am perfectly prepared to concede, even happily affirm, that the British Crown no longer exists in Canada, but that is because legal reality indicates to me that in one sense, the British Crown no longer exists in Britain: the Crown transcends Britain just as much as it does Canada. One can therefore speak of 'the British Crown' or 'the Canadian Crown' or indeed the 'Barbadian' or 'Tuvaluan' Crown, but what one will mean by the term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of that particular jurisdiction. Dr Smith suggests that this concept of 'divisibility', however long it took for it to be articulated or accepted, explains how Canadians and Australians were able to make federal systems work."

AndyL discounts Toporoski because he is an MLC member, however the man is still a constitutional expert and his words here clearly reflect everything that has been outlined above-- the 'British Crown', the 'Canadian Crown', is the Crown "expressing itself in the context of that particular jurisdiction."

• Honourable Eugene A. Forsey: "Canada is a democracy, a constitutional monarchy. Our head of state is the Queen of Canada, who is also Queen of Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and a host of other countries scattered around the world from the Bahamas and Grenada to Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu. Every act of government is done in the name of the Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people."

Forsey acknowledges the separation between the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom, recognising one sovereign acting separately in each Realm.

This has all been spelled out to AnyL previously, however, he has always chosen to ignore it in favour of his own personal interpretation of things. This means his attempts to put all of the above in doubt is unfortunately nothing but his own simplistic and misguided interpretation of the facts, as he has so far provided no secondary sources to back himself up. It seems to me that until he can provide proof of others (ie. other constitutional experts, lawyers, judges, parliamentarians, scholars, etc.) who actually question the stainding view, then this "debate" about the Crown exists only with him, and therefore does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia articles. --gbambino 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So you agree that the multiple crown theory proposed by some scholars and propounded by the MLC is questionable? After all, the Statute of Westminster, as you point out, speaks of "the Crown" not "the Crowns" (which, after all, is the whole question we're debating). By the way, given the lack of a source in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles article you cite, it seems obvious that that article has a lot of orignal research in it. AndyL01:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the original research you cite from the Royal and Parliamentary Titles article. User:AndyL02:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, gbambino, you are contradicting Peter Grey who has asserted that a) there is a single, shared crown and b) it is not illogical to call it the British Crown. See Talk:Monarchy in Canada. Do you concede the point now or do we need to continue any further? AndyL03:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You clearly have a learning disability if you can't see that I'm agreeing with Peter Grey, the MLC and every constitutional scholar, judge, and historian out there. As long as you keep up your absurd attempts to put forward your own conjecture as fact, this will continue on and on and on... --gbambino 14:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"You clearly have a learning disability"

No personal attacks, please.

"if you can't see that I'm agreeing with Peter Grey, the MLC and every constitutional scholar, judge, and historian out there."

The MLC and some constitutional scholars say there are "multiple crowns". Some of the evidence you've pointed to (Statute of Westminster) and Peter Grey's statements elsewhere suggest a "single crown". The section in question is on whether there is one crown or several. Either you're practicing doublethink or you've lost yourself in your own argument. AndyL15:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

One Crown acts as several. The fact that evidence points to both the unified single Crown and the multiple Realm crowns might just establish that Peter Grey and myself are correct. --gbambino 17:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Two essential points

I think this is where people are getting hung up:

• Some arguments from republicans in Canada are legitimate points of view to which they are entitled: opposed to monarchy in the abstract, opposed to an absentee monarch, opposed to this particular dynasty, etc. In contrast, the notion that the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty is outright disinformation and is not encyclopedic. To my knowledge this theory has never been proposed in good faith, but is merely a tactic used for its inflammatory value.
• 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. Peter Grey 03:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks, Peter. The plot thickens. -SV|t 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible contradictions or ambiguties in law

"the notion that the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty is outright disinformation and is not encyclopedic."

The notion was the basis of the O'Donohue suit (contradiction betweeen the Charter of Rights and the Act of Settlement). Whether or not there is a contradiction is a matter of opinion but you cannot exclude the argument just because you don't like it, Peter. It's perfectly encylopedic to mention it in the Monarchy in Canada article as an argument brought up by republicans since it is and since we can document that the argument has been made. As for whether Canada's sovereignty is lessened by having what is arguablly a Briton as head of state and not being able to, under the current constitution, change the rules to the succession without the consent of 15 other countries, again that's a perfectly valid point of view and you cannot exclude it just because you don't like it or find it offensive. AndyL11:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The argument was made unsuccessfully: O'Donohue's petition was dismissed because it was "not justiciable and there is no serious issue to be tried". It is a fringe point of view that is in contradiction to fact and that exists only as a propaganda tool. Peter Grey 13:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Rouleau did not rule that the Charter of Rights does not contradict the Act of Settlement. He ruled that as the Charter and the succession rules were equal parts of the constitution the former could not be used to strike down the latter.

In any case, it's a documented argument and thus not "original research" and merits mention as part of the debate. As for being a "fringe point of view" I suspect most Canadians would agree that the bar on Catholics is abhorrent and inconsistent with Canadian values of equality as expressed in the Charter of Rights (certainly the 40% of the Canadian population that is Catholic would hold that view). The only people I would think who would adamantly oppose changing the succession rules would be the remnants of the Orange Order which would better fit your "fringe point of view" label. Indeed, reading the MLC discussion board, I know that many Canadian monarchists would like to see the succession rules changed, they just want it done by the "realms" working in concert rather than through a unilateral judicial ruling in a Canadian court. AndyL14:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So it's not "original research" but you "suspect most Canadians would agree...". Once again you've taken facts and then made the leap to political speculation. You're trying to use litigation to give an artificial credibility to a political opinion. Probably a lot of people would favour changing the succession law on grounds of secularism. But that's very different from saying the Constution is flawed and amendments are imperative. Peter Grey 14:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You're parsing together two statements from different parts of my post to create a meaning I did not actually express and are thus acting in bad faith. It's not original research because the argument is not my invention but comes directly from O'Donohue's brief. I'm starting to think you either don't know what original research means or that you're throwing the term around indiscriminately, and disigenuously in an attempt to silence arguments you don't like. AndyL14:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What's bad faith is pretending you changed the subject each and every time you're proven wrong. The 'argument' is not valid - it was rejected by a court of law. Peter Grey 14:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That is not grounds for an argument not to be referred to in wikipedia. Again, we are not dealing with statements of fact but simply references to their being a debate. AndyL14:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The legal argument or the political argument? You can't use one to back up the other. Peter Grey 15:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter, is it "original research" to cite O'Donohue's argument or isn't it? Your only grounds for not citing it now seem to be that a judge ruled against it. Well, wikipedia is not a legal document, it's an encyclopedia, and it's perfectly encyclopedic to refer to arguments that have been made in court regardless of the outcome of the court case. Your "you can't refer to it if it's been dismissed by a judge" rule is not wikipedia policy. AndyL15:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe the original research was your very creative theory about the Royal Title. The O'Donohue petition is merely out of date. You've simply gone and changed the subject again. The question (the one I'm discussing anyway) is "the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty". This is incorrect as a fact of law. Peter Grey 15:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"I believe the original research was your very creative theory about the Royal Title" So you disagree with gbambino's contention that reference to the O'Donohue case is original research. Good.

"The question (the one I'm discussing anyway) is "the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty".

Unless it is your contention that republicans including O'Donohue accept the court's ruling and no longer argue this then it's a perfectly valid thing to reference. Arguments don't just go away after a court ruling. If they did then Dred Scott would have put an end to the movement against slavery and Roe v. Wade would have ended the debate on abortion in the US. AndyL15:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"I believe the original research was your very creative theory about the Royal Title" Your belief is wrong. See this reference from the National Archives of Australia and the use of the word "precedence". Hence, my theory is neither creative or original, the Australians changed their Royal Style Titles Act for the same reason in 1973. AndyL15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Legal argument or political argument? Pick one. (You do understand the difference?) Peter Grey 16:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The reference says that the Australian part of the title is given precedence in Australia. It's a sentimental statement, not changing a legal relationship. Unless you're telling us it turned Canada into a colony of Australia. (Do you think no-one ever checks your sources?) Peter Grey 16:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be surprising, given that he earlier argued himself into stating that Parliamentary Supremacy made Canada a colony of New Zealand. But, of course, I digress... --gbambino 17:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying it's wrong for you to imply that I invented objections to the Royal Style and Titles Act or that no one views putting Britain before Canada (or Australia) as giving that country precedence. But that has nothing to do with *this* article, does it? Andy 16:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

that has nothing to do with *this* article That's been the point all along. Now stop wasting everyone's time. Peter Grey 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)