Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Separate tables 2

Building on the perceptive allusion to Rattigan, from a watcher from Oz (and not forgetting the earlier allusion to Runyon's Gs & Ds), here is another offering to let the point be settled, at least until future legislation or judicial ruling has determined otherwise. Given that there are at present the following options for presenting the information which the article now contains:

• 1_The second table, as now,
• 2_The second table with an explanatory headnote,
• 3_A third table for Ireland and India as proposed above,

--in my view, as a reader looking for the information presented encyclopedically, there is little to choose between them. My personal preference is in the reverse order: 3, 2, 1, but any of them would be acceptable. May I ask others to put aside for a moment any intellectual sword, shield or other weapons and armour they have been using in the attempt to win over others in this discussion, and simply consider which of those three options they would regard, from their own standpoint, as unacceptable, and which as preferable? I am aware that by saying "there is little to choose between them" there is a major risk that this proposal will be dismissed without further consideration. Qexigator (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am inclining to the view that of the 4 options, only 4 below is correct, and that none of 1, 2 or 3 is, from that standpoint, acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

--Explanatory afterthought (as the sun passes the meridian here in little old England/ Little Old England): The argumentation which this page records seethes with latent ambiguities and equivocations, as did the discussion about an initial cap for Realm in 2007. Example: If asked "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the 1, 2, or 3 Party" (referring to the above options) the answer of a person wishing to avoid any trap-like latent ambiguity or euqivocation lurking in the mind of the inquisitor, could be: "I am not now, and never have been, a member of any of those Parties, nor am I, nor have been, a person of the P/party 1, 2 or 3 kind, type or genre." But I daresay such an answer would not suffice against being taken to Room 101. Qexigator (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

One could simply say: 'I am not a Conservative (meaning a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, in Canada), but am certainly a conservative'. Thus, the difference between "big and small 'l' liberalism" for example, is a very real one. I could be a conservative and a Liberal, but never a conservative and a liberal. I cannot speak for other countries of course, but this distinction is common knowledge and is taught in Politics 101 at Canadian universities, and is expected basic knowledge. But since you insist on threatening me with your thought police and Room 101 interrogations:

Evidently I'm a one, but am Two simply because it's centrist, is the compromise solution, and should be workable to both sides without resulting in civil war, as either a resulting One or Three government would. I have far too thoroughly bought into your analogy... trackratte (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As usual, Track., you have taken time to make an answer both courteous and reasonable. (I hope we will all be spared 101). Yes to your remarks about caps and uncaps, they do matter: but they can be difficult to handle in a context such as this article. Some would still prefer Realm (and I scarcely dare mention the case of D/d...). As I have been looking at the Archive and this page, it seems that what is taught in schools and universities may have some differences of (erm...) emphasis in various Commonwealth countries, and sometimes results in nationals/citizens rubbing up the wrong way, on top of any usual differences of political leanings. Maybe we are heading for option 2? But now there are anomalies such as Ross Dependency which may need a total re-think. Qexigator (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just discussing the issue of how we might resolve what defines a country with TFD at the bottom of the "Can we please stop this" section if you'd care to weigh in. I imagine it could pertain to the Ross Dependency and others. For a Two-ist solution though, I don't have any problem noting in the article that they are not known as realms, and if necessary, perhaps noting that their inclusion is debatable if we cannot come to a firmer consensus. trackratte (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Track., perhaps we could be thinking of a section for exceptions and anomalies? The following remarks are de bene esse, from a non-combatant, and not to be taken as engaging in argumentation (there are parts of the pool where I would feel too far out of my depth). 1_"His/Her Majesty’s dominions" seems to have been used as a term of art, and I know of nothing (this may be blissfully uninformed ignorance) that would support a conjecture that it would have been extended to a republic of which the King/Queen was not in some way "dominus". 2_ "country" is not a term of art, unless made so in a specific context such as a piece of legislation or a treaty, in which case, of course, it must be understood and applied per that legislation or treaty, even if it departs from ordinary plain English usage. So also, "nation" takes its specific meaning from the specific context. If it is desired to determine when a nation becomes a country, is that a question about culture within the field of anthropological studies, or is it to determine personal or property rights and duties according to law? If the latter, and the written and customary law has been absent or uncertain, there may be dicta in the judgments delivered in a court after hearing argument in contested proceedings or upon reference which can be taken as guidance. Some questions may be dormant or conjectural for many years until a point is heard and finally determined in a court of law. That may be so in respect of a number questions being aired here. Qexigator (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Option 2. That's all. I think I've explained often enough why that's my preference. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I would exclude any countries that were never considered Commonwealth realms, i.e., countries that were not realms when the term was coined in 1952. It is synthesis, and therefore contrary to policy. As I pointed out above, Commonwealth realm has a different meaning from Dominion. TFD (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Would that be a fourth option?

Option 4

• 4_to exclude Ireland and India from the second table, but have a headnote explaining why (i.e., were not realms in 1952 when Realms was first used, in the accession proclamations of UK and of Australia per Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II).

--As a reminder in that connection, the following checklist of dominions is based on Archive, 19:16, 21 August 2007[1]

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a Unitary Kingdom

Federal: Dominion of Canada (post-1867)- Commonwealth of Australia (post-1901) - Dominion of India (1947-1950) - Dominion of Pakistan (1947-1956)

Unitary: Dominion of New Zealand (post-1907) - Union of South Africa (1910-1961) - Irish Free State/Ireland (1921-1949) - Dominion of Fiji (1970-1987) - Dominion of Newfoundland (1907-1949) (annexed to the Dominion of Canada in 1949).

--Per the proclamations of 1952 of "Elizabeth the Second":

UK accession proclamation: "...Queen of this Realm and of all Her other Realms and Territories..."

Australia: "...Queen of this realm and of all her other Realms and Territories... Supreme Liege Lady in and over the Commonwealth of Australia..."

Canada: "... of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, ... Supreme Liege Lady in and over Canada..."

South Africa: "...of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, ... Sovereign in and over the Union of South Africa..." Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fifth column

The point of terminology, that the use of "Commonwealth realms" stems from 1952/3 after Ireland and India had ceased to be dominions/realms, seems to have been conclusively settled by the Queen's proclamation given at her Court at Buckingham Palace, 28 May 1953, cited at the end of the first table, column 5, which was binding on all governors and governments of Commonwealth realms at the time. Editor's may wish to remind themselves of its very words (bolding added):

We have thought fit, and We do hereby appoint and declare, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, that so far as conveniently may be, on all occasions and in all instruments wherein Our style and titles are used in relation to all or any one or more of the following, that is to say, the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Our Government in the United Kingdom is responsible, Our style and titles shall henceforth be accepted, taken and used as the same are set forth in manner and form following, that is to say, the same shall be expressed in the English tongue by these words "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". And in the Latin tongue by these words "Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor".

Noting that it applies to UK and the territories for whose foreign relations the UK was responsible, a source for any later variation in respect of any of the realms would need another citation. Qexigator (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The only problem I have with using Style and Title as source for these types of cases is that these are beyond the purvue of legislation. The Style and Titles Acts are only legislatures consenting to what has already been effected, as royal title and style falls under the personal prerogative of the sovereign. Secondly, these style and title changes reflect what had already become reality, and did not create a new one. So these changes cannot in any way be construed as 'creating' or 'legislating' a new title for any of these countries, but only a change with how the monarchy styles and titles itself in accordance with the present realities of the times. trackratte (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if there is a problem it is not quite as you describe. Given that:

--1_The proclamations were binding upon HMQ's governors and governments in each of the dominions/realms/territories to which they applied, and would be known to all governors, governments and high commisioners throughout the Commonwealth. In particular, binding upon any such government for the purposes of legislation and royal assent.

--2_The proclamations would have been drawn and made by competent advisers and office-holders according to the relevant law and practice.

3_--"omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter essa acta donec probetur in contrarium".[2]

what problem? Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Qex, nice depth. You do not cease to suprise. But:

I never said that a proclamation of style and title was not binding upon the governments, as far as the style and title goes, nor that such a proclamation would be illegal. What I am saying is that style and title has no bearing on the title or constitutional order of a country in the same way that 'defender of the faith' does not make Canada an Anglican or a strictly theistic country. Also in the past when Canada used the UK style and title, this did not mean that Canada was an Anglican country, which it wasn't.

In addition, we are not in court, so you cannot necessarily shift the burden of proof to me based on a presumption of law, which is irrelevant to my statements regardless. Cheers! trackratte (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned above that I have decided not to engage in argumentation, but please read my last comment more carefully, and if you actually wish to state a problem in the form of what you propose to add to, omit from, or tweak in the article, please do, bearing in mind that the proclamations are highly relevant for the reasons given. This is not a matter for editorial whim. Have you considered to and from what point the narrative antecedent to the topic of this article can be traced in order to understand what the legislation from 1861 to 2013 has been about? In particular, have you fully considered all aspects of the Report on the Affairs of British North America (Durham Report) and the "Act of Union 1840", and later events in the reign of Queen Victoria, in north America and the United Kingdom and in the other colonies or territories overseas owing allegiance to her, and in the Foreign Affairs affecting her kingdom and empire for which the government was responsible to her and to the Westminster.parliament? These were the facts and circumstances influencing the statesmen and politicians engaged in governing and legislating at the time. The reasons and basis, intent, purpose and results, of the SoW must be looked for in the 19c. or earlier, in respect of each of the dominions/realms affected. "The Commonwealth of the 1930s was a study in contradiction, a mixture of the national and the imperial, and confusing to outsiders." (per online Canadian Encyclopedia quoted above, 11:35, 28 June 2013 in section "Were Ireland/India realms?" Qexigator (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this is all going much to far down the rabit hole, and is grounds for a doctoral thesis and not an encyclopedia entry.

What is clear though, is that there are three modern and officially sourced criteria for classification as a Commonwealth realm, of which all are easily answerable and applicable: Was the Irish Free State part of the Commonwealth? Yes. Was it a country? Yes. Did it have the King as monarch? Yes. --> Classified as a Commonwealth realm.

Example 2: Canada (1902): Was it part of the Commonwealth? No (no such thing as the Commonwealth in 1902, only the British Empire). Was it a country? No (not recognised as such on the intl stage and subordinate territory within the British Empire). Did it have the King as monarch? Yes (although not shared with rest of Commonwealth as it didn't exist). --> Not classified as a Commonwealth realm. trackratte (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing table and Option 4

If Dominion denotes a status ("autonomous Communities" per Balfour Declaration 1926) (and in at least the cases of Canada and New Zealand (n), is or has been used as part of a proper name), that is sufficiently explained in the article Dominion. It is linked in the lead and little of its content need be repeated or expanded here. Given that it has no table listing Dominions, but if one were constructed, then, according to its account of the Irish Free State/ Ireland and of India, those two would be eligible for inclusion; and, if so, then it would be more than obvious that there was no sufficient reason to repeat that by including them in the second table of the ""Commonwealth realm" article; let it be acknowledged that neither is the absence of such a table there sufficient reason to include those two in the second table here. This is good reason to let them be removed from the second table as previously proposed by at least one other editor. (n)There is a view that dominion status was replaced by realm status in the Queen's Accession Proclamation: per Dominion gives way to "Realm".[3] Qexigator (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC) + Qexigator (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The table which has now been constructed at Dominion,[4] represents six, namely, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, Ceylon, as having become a Commonwealth Realm in 1953. The lead has this: "Those that became sovereign constitutional monarchies within the Commonwealth of Nations and maintained as their own the same royal house and royal succession from before independence became known after 1953 as Commonwealth realms." Qexigator (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

SoW "created the first Commonwealth realms" for tweaking

At present a few words in the lead about the Statute of Westminster are out of line with that Act itself. The words are: "The Statute of Westminster created the first Commonwealth realms in 1931..." There is nothing in the Act which so states in terms. On the contrary, the Act is explicitly, in both preamble and s. 1, about certain named countries there referred to as Dominions, and the Act does not purport to "create" any Dominion. A minor tweak will align the sentence with Act, such as

• They became Commonwealth realms as a result of the Statute of Westminster, passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1931, which granted The Statute of Westminster created the first Commonwealth realms in 1931 by granting full, or nearly full, legislative independence to several colonies which had already become autonomous Dominions in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. Each later Commonwealth realm was created by a direct grant of independence.

The context of the lead sufficiently shows that the term "Commonwealth realm" came into use later. Qexigator (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

--Let the sun's zenith now circle the globe. Qexigator (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is original research. No sources says this. All we can say is that the term came into use in 1952. In fact it is questionable whether the 1931 act created anything, but merely recognized a reality. I suggest we remove it. TFD (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You may be right but please clarify: 1_There are 2 its and not clear what either refers to. "It is original research", "suggest we remove it." 2_What is the basis for "we can say that the term (sc. Commonwealth realm/s) came into use in 1952"? 3_Is your comment relevant also to the reason in "Missing table and Option 4" above for removing Ireland and India from second table? Qexigator (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I was relying on the sourced statement in the article, " the term realm was formally introduced with Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952 and acquired legal status with the adoption of the modern royal styles and titles by the individual countries.[1]" in fact all the source does is name the realms, without explaining what it means. Obviously if the concept had come into being in 1952, it would be anachronistic to apply it to an earlier date. TFD (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If reworked, it should be as:

The Statute of Westminster 1931 expanded the number of countries already designated as Dominions and changed the definition of such by granting all full or nearly full legislative independence as members of the Commownealth of Nations while they shared with the United Kingdom one person as the respective sovereign of each. By the early 1950s, a country in that group, including the United Kingdom, but absent Ireland and India, which had at that time become republics, came to be known as a Commonwealth realm. Each later Commonwealth realm was created by a direct grant of independence.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Much clearer. Although I would move it to the first sentance of the paragraph and put "Except for the United Kingdom itself and Papua New Guinea" somewhere else below as it can logically be mentioned anywhere in the lead, but "The Statute of Westminster..." is critical to the article and how it will be understood. trackratte (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide sources. TFD (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not for the lead I don't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In my view, other words than the draft proposed by Mies. are needed to align the lead with the Act, as explained below. Is there anything in the words as proposed above for tweaking that is not in accordance with the Act? (Please note that this tweak does not purport to address the point raised by TFD, as I understand it.)

• After looking again at the Statute of Westminster 1931[5], I have not found that it shows in its own words that it then and there 1_expanded the number of countries already designated as Dominions, or 2_ changed the definition of such by granting all full or nearly full legislative independence as members of the Commownealth of Nations while they shared with the United Kingdom one person as the respective sovereign of each. The long title was "An Act to give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences held in the years 1926 and 1930". The preamble named the participating governments as those "in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland"; it mentioned "the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations", "a common allegiance to the Crown" and "the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth"; it acknowledged that it was "in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion"; and it stated that it was "necessary for the ratifying, confirming and establishing of certain of the said declarations and resolutions of the said Conferences that a law be made and enacted in due form by authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom". Section 1 provided that in the Act the expression “Dominion” meant "any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland". Section 3 importantly declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion had full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation. Sections 7-10 had certain savings applying to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland.

• Looking at the article Statute of Westminster 1931 it encapsulates the SoW without adding or taking from it. Per the lead, bolding added: "the act established legislative equality for the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire with the United Kingdom, thereby marking the effective legislative independence of these countries, either immediately or upon ratification. The Statute of Westminster's relevance today is that it sets the basis for the continuing relationship between the Commonwealth realms and the Crown. " Per the section headed "Application": "After the statute was passed, the British government could no longer make ordinary laws for the Dominions, other than with the request and consent of the government of that Dominion." "The statute applied to Canada, the Irish Free State, and the Union of South Africa without the need for any acts of ratification; the governments of those countries gave their consent to the application of the law to their respective jurisdiction. Section 10 required the parliaments of the other three Dominions—Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland—to adopt the statute before it would apply to them as part of their domestic laws. Since 1931, over a dozen new Commonwealth realms have been created, all of which now hold the same powers as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand over matters of change to the monarchy. Ireland and South Africa are now republics and Newfoundland is part of Canada." If that article does not mention that SoW "expanded the number of countries already designated as Dominions", or that it "changed the definition of such" the reasonable inference is that SoW did not.

Qexigator (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You need a secondary source that explains the relevance to the topic. My understanding is that the Act merely legislated what had already become obvious by the time of the Balfour Declaration - that the Dominions were independent nations. Nor did the Act complete the process of independence. The nationality and titles acts still had to be amended and full formal independence was only obtained in the 1980s when the UK ceded the power to amend the constitutions. Ironically, they ceded their right to amend the constitutions of countries such as Barbados when they obtained independence, i.e., earlier. However, I wonder about the relevance of that detail in this article which makes it a fork. TFD (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD: Given that "full formal independence was only obtained in the 1980s", is your point here that SoW is not relevant to the article topic "Commonwealth realm"? -and if so, that it should be removed from the article? And are you saying this article is a fork? Qexigator (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Amended version of Mies.'s: Under the Statute of Westminster 1931 the number of countries designated as Dominions increased as a result of being granted legislative independence as members of the Commownealth of Nations while having with the United Kingdom one person as the respective sovereign of each. By the early 1950s, a country in that group, including the United Kingdom, but not Ireland and India, which had by that time become republics, came to be known as a Commonwealth realm. The later Commonwealth realms had each been created by a direct grant of independence. Qexigator (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I actually now can't quite tell how many Dominions there were pre-1931. A result of the Imperial Conference of 1907 was to regard all self-governing colonies of the Empire as Dominions, but whether or not that applied to the Union of South Africa (after 1910) and the Irish Free State (after 1922), I can't say. So, best to avoid the "increased the number of countries designated as Dominions" part. Also, there's the fact of India, Pakistan, and Ceylon becoming Dominions post-1931. Given that:

The Statute of Westminster 1931 granted the then Dominions—named therein as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland—full or nearly full legislative independence as equal members of the British Commownealth of Nations sharing with the United Kingdom one person as the respective sovereign of each. Thereafter, India and Pakistan in 1947 and Ceylon in 1948 became Dominions. By the early 1950s, in order to reflect the equality between the countries in that group, each, including the United Kingdom, but absent Ireland and India, which had at that time become republics, came to be known as a realm. The term was formally introduced with Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952 and acquired legal status with the adoption of the modern royal styles and titles by the individual countries, though the phrase Commonwealth realm is only an informal description, not an official term. Each later Commonwealth realm was created by a direct grant of independence.

This combines the last two paragraphs of the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost wholly concur with that, but would you please pinpoint (quote) which bit/s of SoW you rely on for: "'granted the then Dominions...full or nearly full legislative independence...". The word itself is absent from the preamble[6] and the linked article. On a minor point, the way "absent" is used in your draft does not seem comfortable outside courts and legal journals. Could we use "not with" instead? Qexigator (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My tweaks, additions in bold, reductions striked:

The Statute of Westminster 1931 recognised the then Dominions—named therein as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland—as having full or nearly full legislative independence as equal members of the British Commownealth of Nations sharing with the United Kingdom one person as the respective sovereign of each. Thereafter, India and Pakistan in 1947, and Ceylon in 1948, were similarly recognised. By the early 1950s, in order to reflect the equality between the countries in that group, each, including the United Kingdom (but absent Ireland and India as they had by that time become republics) came to be known as a "Commonwealth realm". The term was formally introduced with Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952, and acquired legal status with the adoption of the modern royal styles and titles by the individual countries, though the phrase "Commonwealth realm" is only an informal description, not an official term. Each later Commonwealth realm was created by a direct grant of independence.

Added Commonwealth to realm, as 'realm' was common outside a Commonwalth context (under its normal meaning in the language), just not the term 'Commonwealth realm'. I find the "and acquired legal status with the adoption..." confusing and contradictory, as on one hand it states that the term was 'formally introduced', and then achieved 'legal status' where on the other we state at the same time that the term 'is only an informal description, not an official term'. If the term is "formal" and has "legal status", it can't then be "informal" and "not official" at the same time. Whereas the Royal Style and Titles Act (Canada) does not have any legal effect on the title of the country itself (as a realm) - "The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation" - it did bring the pre-existing term (descriptive English) into Common usage. trackratte (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In the context of sovereign states, diplomatic usage and international law "recognise" is a term of art, and best avoided here. The words of SoW are "declared and enacted" - that is not mere verbiage. Your comment on Commonwealth realm understood, but in the context it would be better to leave it at "realm". Qexigator (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I realise that "recognise" has specific meanings within law, but I undertand the goal of Wikipedia as using easy to understand and plain English and not to write a legal text. If you google "statute of westminster recognised" (with quotes) you'll see that published books, government sources, and other non-official sites use these exact words to describe the action of the SoW (although there are a lot of Wikipedia hits). And I do think that Commonwealth realm is clearer than just realm, as realm alone suggests to the reader that the use of that word was non-existent before then, where it was used within the informal context of realms in the British Empire before then, and more generally within the wider English language. Although don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing, just points for clarity. trackratte (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If deciding to respond to a comment, please address the point of the comment. We are not attempting to write a legal text but to improve a text which has admittedly not been representing the facts as well as the SoW article. Please remember that choice and arrangement of words suited to the specific context is a main purpose of encyclopedic editing, and requires a degree of discernment, particularly when looking for information in other sources written for other purposes. In the present context, particularly, attention to the language of the relevant documents which are the source of public law is a major part of an editor's work. Undoubtedly, the Preamble and the records of the conferences to which it refers, including the Balfour declaration, and the consequential legislation in the named dominions, and the proclamations pursuant to the legislation, are more weighty here than the sort of words an editor might have written. While I understand the reasons for the changes you have proposed, I am not persuaded that the alterations you have proposed would be an improvement to Mies.'s draft. For instance, adding "Commonwealth" to realms alters the sense. Nor do I find texts such as the following as sufficient for using "recognised" as it stands in your version (and I await Mies. to find other wording for his draft, if he thinks fit):

• the British Parliament were ready to give legal recognition to this process and the decisions arrived at in the Balfour Report.[7]
• Britain's SoW was the legal recognition of the evolved independence of the Dominions[8]
• Professor Twomey began with an outline of the Statute of Westminster, which in 1931 formally recognised that the Dominions of the Empire possessed full responsible government[9] --Qexigator (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The legislative independence granted by the Statute of Westminster is covered in the body of this article, part of which is drawn from the SoW itself:

"No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion... It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation... 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."

The Dominions did not have these powers and freedoms prior to the SoW. So, saying the SoW "recognised" the then Dominions as having full or nearly full legislative independence is wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It says in the Balfour declaration of 1926 that the dominions were "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...and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." That btw was an acknowledgement of reality, and was sufficient for the U.S. to recognize Canada as an independent nation. AFAIK the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, act had never been used in any dominion. The 1931 law by the way did not come into effect in any of the dominions until it had been approved by their parliaments - the 1865 act continued in effect in the Australian states until 1986. Also AFAIK Westminster had never legislated for any dominion except upon their request. TFD (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Balfour Declaration had no legal effect.

The SoW did come into effect in the Dominions named within it that had given their consent for it to do so. It still granted the other Dominions the same legislative independence since, as a law of the UK, it barred the UK from legislating for any Dominion, unless that Dominion requested and consented to the law doing so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Mies., could we consider amending the opening words of your version to read:

The Statute of Westminster 1931 provided for the then Dominions—named therein as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland— to have full or nearly full legislative independence as equal members of the British Commownealth of Nations...

My reasoning is as follows. It is apparent that the meticulous wording of the Preamble was to allow for the differences between the participants about the extent to which law-making autonomy had already been conceded de facto by those conventions which had been growing up. If (noting TFD's comment) Canada wanted all that had been conceded to IFS, what actually was that, as at 1931? Or could it be claimed that Canada already had at least as much? But Australia did not fully identify with the Canadian position, while New Zealand and S.Africa had positions of their own. And the steersman, Arthur Balfour, had been living with these questions as a world statesman for years, and at the same time had the subtle mind, not of a trained lawyer, but of a recognised philosopher well used to acting in a leading capacity in the legislative processes of Parliament, as well as in connection with treaty-making. The word "grant", which can have specific legal significance, is missing, however agreeable that word may seem to plain English paraphrasers. The positions of the participants were not entirely clearcut at the time, and in similar doubt-filled cases it had long been the practice in legislation to use the expression "declare and enact", that is to settle the matter confirmatively and dispositively, either and both ways. But the bits of the Act you have quoted show that at least in some degree something had been done to enlarge de jure the legislative independence of each and every dominion, and that was generally accepted at the time and afterwards. Room still remained for later disputes, about the patriation of the federal constitutions for instance, which continues to provide academics with seminar material. Qexigator (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but conventions are not the same as statute law; mere practice is not the same as a rule. Regardless, I see no problem with "provided for", as you suggest. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In constitutional law, practice can be binding. For example, the GG of Canada retains the power of disallowance and reservation of provincial legislation but no longer exercises it and may no longer have that power. TFD (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're speaking of conventions. They are much older than a decade or so. Regardless, this is OT. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Omit SoW from lead, and tweak first section

In view of above discussion, this supersedes above proposal to tweak the lead:- Given that mention of SoW in the lead: 1_is problematic rather than helpful for readers, and for editors when attempting to reconcile what it actually said with what some may wish it had said, and 2_is needed neither for identifying those polities which are today known as "Commonwealth realms" (per "Her Majesty’s dominions", "Commonwealth realms" above), nor for describing them, it is proposed

• omit from lead "The Statute of Westminster created the first Commonwealth realms in 1931 by granting full, or nearly full, legislative independence to several colonies which had already become autonomous Dominions in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. Each later Commonwealth realm was created by a direct grant of independence." and add to See also Statute of Westminster.
• tweak opening sentence under section heading "Current Commonwealth realms" as follows:

The number of Commonwealth realms rose from those named as Dominions in established under the Statute of Westminster in 1931...

Qexigator (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarise the article. The role of the Statute of Westminster on the emergence of the Commonwealth realms cannot therefore be ignored in the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, something about SoW should be in lead, given the quantity in the article. Qexigator (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, we need sources. Even though one may argue that sources are not required for the lead, that only applies where the lead summarizes sourced material. New realms are created btw whenever the Crown obtains new territory, not when they are granted independence. Realms become "Commonwealth realms" when they become members of the Commonwealth. TFD (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"New realms..." - Interesting proposition, TFD, and notable for this article, but can it be substatntiated? can you link to a source? Qexigator (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When the "Olive Blossom" arrived at Holetown, some of the crew came ashore and inscribed on several trees that Barbados was claimed by "James, king of England, and of this island."[10] Quark shows that the monarch is Queen of SSGI, New Brunswick and all her other territories.[11] TFD (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No doubt a lawyer with a suitable client and suitably instructed could argue Quark was distinguishable! Qexigator (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited is a useful source because it is the most recent House of Lords case and summarizes past rulings that determined that the Queen was Queen of various territories, independent countries and states and provinces. One of the cases mentioned, R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Ex p Indian Association of Alberta (1982), was very important because an adverse decision would have prevented patriation of the Canadian constitution. Who would be more competent to comment on the law than the Lords of Appeal, which was the highest court in the UK?

Incidentally, when lawyers research the relevant law in preparation of a case, they typically find the most recent case. If this case has not received greater coverage in the media, it is partly because the comments made about the Crown had long been settled in law, which they explain. Had the other side won, no doubt we it would have been "distinguishable". TFD (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand the point here. In Quark, HL[12] I see only one mention of "realm", on p.7/8, which does not appear to disallow the use in other contexts of "Commonwealth realm/s" as referring only to sovereign countries. "Commonwealth realm" is used in the article in the normal way, as in UK HC, 22 Jan 2013: "It is a very short Bill... tightly drafted to give effect to the agreement by Commonwealth realm Heads of Government..." (Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time))[13], - "In making their decisions on the Bill, Members can be reassured that the changes under discussion will have the support of other Commonwealth realms, and that they will strengthen and not endanger the bonds that Queen Elizabeth II has so painstakingly built with the nations of the Commonwealth."[14]

Qexigator (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The relevance of Quark and the cases that preceded it is that the monarch becomes queen of any territory when it comes under her jurisdiction. Hence it is wrong to say that a realm is created only upon independence. Of course they are not "Commonwealth realms" if by that we mean realms that are members of the Commonwealth. But Canada and the other dominions were members of the Commonwealth before the Statute of Westminister. It would also be incorrect to say that Commonwealth realms are created, just as it would be incorrect to say that UN member states are created when they are admitted to the UN. Or to say that one is created a member of the Monarchist League when one is admitted. TFD (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Please see further amendment to proposed paragraph for lead. Qexigator (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, "created Commonwealth realms" was fine. A Commonwealth realm is a specific thing for which we have sourced definitions. Countries that after the early 1950s gained independence while remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations and sharing the person of the sovereign with the other Commonwealth realms became Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 - any other date is wrong. TFD (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Current version

The current version most favoured for the lead, to replace the last two paragraphs, is:

The Statute of Westminster 1931 provided for the then Dominions—named therein as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland—to have full or nearly full legislative independence as equal members of the British Commownealth of Nations sharing with the United Kingdom one person as the respective sovereign of each. Thereafter, India and Pakistan in 1947 and Ceylon in 1948 became Dominions. By the early 1950s, in order to reflect the equality between the countries in that group, each, including the United Kingdom, but not with without Ireland and India, which had at that time become republics, came to be known as a realm. The term realm was formally used introduced with Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952 and was adopted acquired legal status with the adoption of for the modern royal styles and titles under the legislation enacted by the individual countries, though the phrase Commonwealth realm is only an informal description, not an official term. Each later Commonwealth realm was created by a direct grant of independence. The sovereign status of other Commonwealth realms was later granted directly.

Qexigator (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)+ Qexigator (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems mostly fine by me. I'd just change "but not with Ireland and India, which had at that time become republics" to "but without Ireland and India, which had by that time become republics". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You say, "The term was formally introduced with Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952 and acquired legal status with the adoption of the modern royal styles and titles by the individual countries." You need a source that says this created a status. How do you know that by "Her other Realms" it meant "Commonwealth Realms?" TFD (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

His proposal doesn't say the adoption of the modern royal styles and titles gave realm a status. It says it gave the word a legal status, since the Royal Style and Title Acts were laws. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

They do not use the term "Commonwealth Realm" or define it. How do you know is meant by the term "Realm" in the acts? TFD (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't say what the term means. If you'd like to add something about how it meant the "separate kingdoms" of which Her Majesty is queen,[15] I suppose it could be worked in. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No you need a source that specifically mentions "commonwealth realm", otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We have a source already that specifically mentions "Commonwealth realm". You really must look at the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The third sentence could be altered by omitting "acquired legal status", as above. Qexigator (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, "acquired legal status" is fine. The Royal Style and Title Acts are laws. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

They do not say "Commonwealth Realm". Furthermore it is OR to say that something acquired legal status on a certain date because it is mentioned in an act. The Canadian criminal code for example says that murder is illegal, but it was illegal before the code was enacted. And legislation is not the only source of law in common law countries. Also orders in council can give legal status. TFD (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposal does not say Commonwealth realm was in the Royal Style and Titles Acts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Mies.: I suggest that if that point can be validly made the better place for it would be in the body of the article. Qexigator (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to say. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be better not let the lead be clogged with "acquired legal status with the adoption of", Qexigator (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I guess "under the legislation enacted" already imparts that the word meaning a separate kingdom over which the Queen reigned gained legal status. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that is what the term "realm" means in the act? You need a secondary source, otherwise it is original research. How do you know that no prior legislation existed? Incidentally, if realms means what you say it does, then the title makes no sense, since the UK is referred to as a realm distinct from its territories, yet those territories are part of the Commonwealth Realm of the UK. TFD (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's sourced in the article. There was more than just the British title. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Mies.: Please consider DORA below. Could there be a conflict with that Act, if the way Commonwealth realm is now being used is not distinguishable in ordinary plain English? Qexigator (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision per above version now done, but without prejudice to Reliable sources/Noticeboard (Powell) or other outstanding points, and, of course, open to further improvement in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

DORA

R/realm - D/dominion? An editor (06:46, 29 June, at the end of the section "Separate tables") has alluded indirectly to the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, long title "An Act to confer on His Majesty in Council power to make Regulations during the present War for the Defence of the Realm", under which a series of regulations were issued and gazetted.[16] Given that the act extended to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Ireland, it is apparent that the constituent parts of the kingdom (namely England and the Principality of Wales, Scotland, Ireland) were not then being called realms, nor were they among HM's Dominions. They were part of the one kingdom united under the then king, George V. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

--Conjecture (de bene esse): If, in any of the present day Commonwealth realms which had been named as Dominions in SoW, an act authorising the making of similar regulations were passed, and if the expression "the Realm" were used in the act or regulations, it would be taken to mean that realm, not the realm of the United Kingdom or any other realm. Qexigator (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The term "realm" may have more than one meaning. DORA does not appear to have extended to dependent territories, which are parts of the Commonwealth Realm of the UK. TFD (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD: "dependent territories are parts of the Commonwealth Realm of the UK" is a shaky proposition if there is no source which unequivocally supports it, expressly and not by inference. Would it be same in all respects as " "dependent territories are parts of the Commonwealth realm of the UK"? Qexigator (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You quote Powell quoting the Home Secretary in 1927 saying the “Dominions of the Crown” were one realm. What act of parliament severed the colonies from the realm? And if they are not part of the realm or separate realms, what are they? They are considered to be part of the Commonwealth, although not members. TFD (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So we have to reckon with "realm" meaning UK without the Dominions per DORA, and then Realm and Dominion being interchangeable per 1927 govt bill speech: the word “Realm” is constituted an alternative expression for the “Dominions of the Crown"? Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Realm means a territory subject to a sovereign. So realm could mean the UK or the UK and all territories subject to the Crown or even sub-national units. It depends on context. "Dominions of the Crown" appears to refer to all territories subject to the Crown, including the UK and colonies, rather than a reference to what came to be known as the dominions. TFD (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As with words generally in living and dead languages, especially where the use of such words is itself part of the story (as in the article), meanings and uses change, sometimes at a particular point identifiable by some particular event, but normally less perceptibly, as any etymological dictionary shows. It can be easier to object than to construct: words such as "object" and "construct" have a wide variety of meanings, changing from time to time, but the art of speaking and writing is to make sufficiently clear what is being communicated. Qexigator (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Powell on the Royal Titles Bill

Given that in the "Post-war evolution" section there is this:

"Previously, the term realm in its singular form was understood to refer to the entire British Empire, rather than a "separate kingdom" under a shared crown", which is suppoorted by citing Enoch Powell's Speech on the Royal Titles Bill (3 March 1953). "Speech on the Royal Titles Bill",

and noting that the speech included this:

The term ‘Realms’, which is to appear in the new title, is an emphatic statement that Her Majesty is the Queen of a number of separate kingdoms. Hitherto, that has not been this country’s acceptance of the term. For example, in introducing the corresponding Royal and Parliamentary Titles Bill in 1927, the then Home Secretary said: ‘... the word “Realm” is constituted an alternative expression for the “Dominions of the Crown” ’ (Official Report, 9th March, 1927, Vol. 203, Col. 1265).

would it be acceptable to add to the citation the following note? --

In the speech Powell remarked that the term ‘Realms’, which was to appear in the new title, was a statement that the Queen was queen of a number of separate kingdoms; and that this was making a change from the previous use of the term, such as in the words which had been used when the corresponding Royal and Parliamentary Titles Bill had been introduced in 1927, when the Home Secretary said: ‘... the word “Realm” is constituted an alternative expression for the “Dominions of the Crown” (Official Report, 9th March, 1927, Vol. 203, Col. 1265).

Qexigator (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A speech by a politician is usually not reliable unless you can show that it has been corroborated in legal textbooks. Enoch Powell was not speaking on behalf of the government but in opposition to his own part. He had no legal qualifications and was extremely controversial. The other problem is that he does not use the term "Commonwealth Realm" nor say what countries would be considered realms. TFD (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessary; people can read the source, if they wish. But, Powell's words do parallel those of Prime Minister St. Laurent of Canada, who said the new title for Canada (in the same format as was agreed to by all the realms) "emphasise[d] the fact that the Queen is Queen of Canada, regardless of her sovereignty over other Commonwealth countries". In each realm, the "other realms" in it's royal title referred to the other realms of the Commonwealth. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Those two replies settle the question raised above, as far as I am concerned. Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We are supposed to use reliable, secondary sources, not unreliable primary sources and we are also supposed to use sources that clearly relate to the subject. I have raised this issue at WP:RSN#Enoch Powell. TFD (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Usage of the term

While there is nothing inherently wrong with the sources used to demonstrate usage of the term Commownealth realm, the lead is not the place for either detail or sources.

I'm wondering if a section on the use of the term could be added, or usage of the term added to an existing section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no sources. TFD (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent successive edits have affirnatively added citation for current usage, and leave it open for further additions. Qexigator (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Difference between 'Dominion' as a status and 'dominion' as part of the formal name of a dominion or Commonwealth realm

A comment was made above about the distinction between 'Dominion' as a status (capital D) and 'dominion' as simply a part of the name of the Dominion (or Commonwealth Realm) -which for the purposes of this post, I shall use a lowercase 'd'.

Not only did some of the Dominions not use the term 'dominion' as part of their formal name-Australia was a 'Commonwealth', South Africa a 'Union' Ireland a 'Free State' until 1937, and Ceylon and Pakistan during their tenure as Dominions did not have a qualifying adjective describing them-they were just 'Pakistan' and 'Ceylon' (though Pakistan was sometimes semi-officially referred to as the 'Dominion of Pakistan and likewise Ceylon was semi-officially described as the 'Island of Ceylon' or the 'Island of Ceylon and Dependencies'. In fact, out of all the Dominions, only Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and India used the term 'Dominion' as part of their full name.

Furthermore, even though nearly every Commonwealth Realm that achieved independence post-1953 just used the name of the country without any other words describing them (although Nigeria 1960-1963 was a 'Federation', Malta 1964-1974 was a 'State', the Bahamas is a 'Commonwealth', St. Kitts and Nevis is also a 'Federation', and Papua New Guinea is an 'Independent State'. Australia continues to be called a 'Commonwealth'.), some of the Commonwealth Realms officially used the word 'dominion' as part of their official name: Canada and New Zealand used the term post-1953, and the Fijian government insisted on using the name 'Dominion of Fiji' as the official name of the country, despite opposition within the Fijian parliament and Britain. The term was only used occasionally, though it was the formal name of the country.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider putting a synopsis or summary of that information on Dominion, or would you consider that Commonwealth realm would be a better place? Qexigator (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

...and checking back, I see that the edit summary of 20:28, 2 April 2008 was: "Former Commonwealth realms: added in the word dominions as not all ever became realms" and the text read: The former Commonwealth Dominions/realms, the periods in which they were Dominions/realms, and the reason(s) why they ceased to be Dominions/realms, are as follows:[17] The heading "Former Commonwealth realms/Dominions" remained until changed back, 03:35, 25 January 2009[18] Qexigator (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Balfour declaration uses a capital "D" to refer to the Dominions. It seems there is no distinction between using upper and lower case, except that when used as part of a name it must be capitalized. Compare with Kingdom, State or Province. TFD (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but allowing for the possibility that a particular publisher's house style (including HMSO or Hansard) may depart from what would otherwise be normal. Qexigator (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Monarchies in Europe

Editors may wish to note that an update mentioning Commonwealth realms has been made to "Succession laws" section of Monarchies in Europe.[19] --Qexigator (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Number of realms

Per a recent edit: The number of Commonwealth realms rose from the original Dominions established under the Statute of Westminster in 1931 up to 18 between 1983 and 1987. Does that imply that the first number included UK as a Dominion, just as UK is normally now included in the number of Commonwealth realms? It seemed simpler to say: The number of Commonwealth realms rose from those established under the Statute of Westminster in 1931... But that now seems to have its own ambiguity. Instead, will this be acceptable? -

• To the number of the original Dominions established under the Statute of Westminster in 1931, others were added so that there were up to 18 Commonwealth realms between 1983 and 1987. Qexigator (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is misleading to say that the dominions were established under the 1931 Statute, even if one believes that the statute recognized or conferred dominion status. Unclear too whether NZ was a dominion as defined by the editor in 1931. TFD (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is, again, a problem arising from terminology; the independent countries in the Commonwealth under one monarch were pre-about-1950 called the United Kingdom and the Dominions and after about 1950 called Commonwealth realms. I must get lunch now and do other things, so I can't offer a suggested solution to this particular matter just yet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD: agreed. Mies: noted - me too... Qexigator (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I might suggest something like:

The number of independent countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that shared one person as king rose from the original number established under the Statute of Westminster in 1931 up to 18 between 1983 and 1987.

It's lengthy, but it avoids the terminology shift from "UK & the Dominions" to "Commonwealth realms" issue. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also be wary of "established". How about -

The number of independent countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that shared the same person as monarch rose from the number at the time of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 up to 18 between 1983 and 1987?

Qexigator (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the SoW essentially created what we now call the Commonwealth realms. But, leaving out "established" causes no real problem, as I see it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked accordingly. Qexigator (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Section: Relationship of the realm

There is a 24 word sentence in this section with 12 references. That is one reference for every two words. Which might[20][21] be just[22][23] about sufficient[24][25] or may[26][27] be slightly[28][29] a bit[30][31] much for [32][33] a sentence[34][35] that doesn't[36][37] say a[38][39] whole stack[40][41] of stuff[42][43]. ~ R.T.G 14:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[44][45]

It does look as though some clean up/ trimming is overdue here, agreed - subject to consensus with others. Qexigator (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Plural title

Hello, this article should be moved to Commonwealth realms in the plural sense. An administrator is required to make this move as the target page already exists. This move will conform to WP:PLURAL#Exceptions, groups and classes, in the spirit of country subdivisions. ~ R.T.G 02:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that policy applies to a set of sovereign states. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that the article is linked in many connected articles by the name "Commonwealth realm", and various points of its content, especially terminology, have been discussed at considerable length over many years, what useful purpose is claimed for now reversing the redirect with "Commonwealth realms"? Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors) or is among the exceptions... Note that the plural is found in the name Commonwealth of Nations mentioned in the first sentence, and, in principle, there could be no more than one "Commonwealth realm" among them. The article is not about realms in general, subcategoty "Commonwealth", it is about those sovereign monarchies each one of which has a constitutional monarch (singular) and is known as a "Commonwealth realm". Qexigator (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a guideline which does not seem to be relevant here. Following the examples there, we would call the article "Commonwealth Realms of the Commonwealth", which sounds redundant. TFD (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite so, and no more than a cursory look at the article would show that the proposal is a non-starter. Qexigator (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines say that a subject which is a *set* of objects, a collection of realms for instance, should be titled in the plural. As for the implications... LOL? Implications? Why should this not be relevant here? What on earth could I see on the article even passingly relevant to plurals or anything? Has nothing to do with the subject at all. It's a grammatical correction and I'd have just made it, but, if a page already exists, i.e. Commonwealth realms, an administrator is required to perform a move. As to debating wether there can actually be one or more commonwealth realm(s), I don't think that line of reasoning can apply if the article totally contradicts it, I mean, the article says, A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within... what it does not say is... the sovereign state... I repeat, nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of this article. It's about wether there is one Commonwealth realm or more. The article says there are dozens of them and it's not about wether they are important or active or anything. Is there more than one of them? ~ R.T.G 20:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The topic is a set of objects in a group. The guidelines are explicit about it. In fact, in definition, the thing that a commonwealth realm is, represents a situation change from the singular, empirical realm, to the multiple set of realms. The Commonwealth of Nations is certainly not plural, or multiple, or is it a Commonwealth realm. It is the meeting place of plurals and multiples which just so happen to be the commonwealth realms. It's a grammatical error and has absolutely no bearing on politics or facts of the subject or anything else. Unless it can be shown that a commonwealth realm is a singular thing, which it is obviously not, the article should be at the plural, with a similar sort of bearing on the content of the article as putting a before b when making an alphabetical list. ~ R.T.G 21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to a guideline not a policy. "[G]uidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." In the examples given in the guideline, the singular would be confusing, because it would appear the article is about the entire country, rather than a subnational unit: "State of Austria, State of Nigeria, State of Mexico, Province of Sweden." Also, Commonwealth Realms are not subnational units. TFD (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposer is invited to compare examples such as: Community - Government - Self-governing colony - Realm - Republic - Republics - Autonomous republic - Monarchy - Absolute monarchy - Constitutional monarchy - Commonwealth republic - Commonwealth realm - School - Medical school - Law school - Art school - Grammar school - Public school - Public school (United Kingdom). Qexigator (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Deuces, this article is not about an entire country, but if it was, each realm would be a subnational unit. This is the comparison you have made which says to me, yes move it follows. Qexigator, Commonwealth realms is a set category. What does the British monarchy say? Let's take a look. I could debate all those links with you. School, community, government, monarchy, and republic for instance, plural title is not even debatable because they are not essentially about specific individuals. Monarchy and republic are *state*s of government. Government is an activity. Community and school are groupings independent of individuality, I mean, community and school (and probably monarchy) are prehistorical with respect to human evolution. Commonwealth realms are not aspects of a philosophy, they are members of a set category. A group of objects. None of those links are a group of objects, however many groups of objects their phrase can refer to. Commonwealth realms are always a group of objects, so long as there is more than one. Note:This move has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject except for the fact that it is a set category. The singular you pair have focused on is called Commonwealth of Nations, and this topic is a subset of that topic. NOTE: This article claims in the first sentence that membership requires the British monarch to be monarch of the particular country, but the British monarchy claims this is not the case. ~ R.T.G 02:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No idea what you are trying to say. Various countries have states or provinces but only the Commonwealth has Commonwealth Realms. And contrary to what you suggest, in order to be a Commonwealth Realm a realm must be a member of the Commonwealth and have the Queen as monarch. That is the definition in fact. TFD (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the proposition is based on a novel taxonomical principle which would be incompatible with the known facts of current practice and usage, and of historical antecedents. Qexigator (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay smart arses, please describe the reasoning as to why this title, Category:Commonwealth realms, is different, and why it claims to point to an article called "Commonwealth realms", and, while I refresh my grasp of English, let's just randomly dump a list of similar looking stuff in the hope it will drown anyone who disagrees with my point, which is... er... Don't worry, you can just pretend to discuss them and I'll probably say, Um, whatcha talkin bout, big words? Axis powers, Wu (Ten Kingdoms), Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, United States of America, Gunpowder Empires, Naga kings, Provinces of Ireland, Lands of Denmark, Regions of Lithuania, Provinces of Sweden, Lands of Sweden, Polish historical regions, Low Countries, Late Middle Ages, Council of Ministers of Jersey. "Following the examples there, we would call the article "Commonwealth Realms of the Commonwealth", which sounds..." like you have difficulty understanding what guidelines is. ~ R.T.G 13:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There may be a point in there about categories which should be looked at. Otherwise, little attention has been given to the cogent points of objection above, but instead a sad decline from a level of discussion deserving further response. Perhaps it would be best to leave it there, to be sent in due course to the Archives (..".word originally developed from the Greek ἀρχεῖον (arkheion), which refers to the home or dwelling of the Archon, in which important official state documents were filed and interpreted under the authority of the Archon. The adjective formed from archive is archival") - with thanks to the contributor who took time to raise the proposal for discussion. Qexigator (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the article uses the singular, while the category uses he plural may be evidence that one of them is wrong, but does not elucidate us as to which one is correct. In your examples, use of the singular would mean something entirely different, as I already explained. The Land of Denmark for example could refer to all of Denmark. Also, Denmark is divided into lands, while the Commonwealth is not divided into Commonwealth Realms. Instead it is divided into Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. Note that we also use the singular for other descriptions of states: republic, kingdom, dictatorship, theocracy, democracy, etc. TFD (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Deuces, realms, in this circumstance, are a division of membership on the commonwealth. It is a division of degree or status. Each realm is a land in its own right. Certainly, Google hits for "Commonwealth realm" seems to turn out 30-odd thousand hits more than "Commonwealth realms", with turns out 3 or 400 thousand, ten times more. A realm is not a form of government. A realm can be governed, but a horse can be saddled too, it will still be more like a donkey than a strap or a bit. It's just a spelling mistake ~ R.T.G 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how either is wrong. There is such a thing as a Commonwealth realm, there is more than one Commonwealth realm, and when referring to more than one or all of them together the usual syntax is applied, in this case adding an 's' at the end of the noun: Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

RTG, the term is "Commonwealth Realm", not realm. A realm is a form of government, it means a country that has a monarch. Commonwealth Realms share the same monarch and are members of the Commonwealth. There are members of the Commonwealth that have a different monarch and there are parts of the Commonwealth that are realms but are not members of the Commonwealth. I do not see how it is a division of the Commonwealth, there is no distinction in membership between Commonwealth Realms, realms that are not Commonwealth Realm realms, and republics. TFD (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

High Commissioner

I find an editor's recent edit removing High Commissioner per my edit[46] high-handed, unexplained and unacceptable. The appointment of HCs is a distiinguishing feature of Commonwealth countries stemming from the practice of Dominions, which is continued for those which had them, and has now been followed for CR's generally. The short paragraph is appropriate here, as expanded in the See also "High Commissioner (Commonwealth)". Sufficient reason for removing it has not been given, and there is no reason for not putting it back. There really is no consensus issue on this one. There is no need to operate as if there were, instead of improving this and other articles in more positively constructive ways.Qexigator (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly didn't deserve it's own section. I'm sure you'll see some info has been worked back into the article. Since High Commissioner (Commonwealth) is linked in that new paragraph, its duplication in "See also" is unneeded. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In my view, your gloss on the HC arrangements tends to needless verbosity here and is not an improvement on the simpler edit you removed (which is certainly open to tweaking, as always); but it is a peculiarly distinguishing feature.characteristic of the emergence of the Commonwealth of today from the Imperial system of 19-20c. history, by a series of improvisations carried on, refined and extended, and ought to stand out in some way, such as the sub-heading you removed. If you think it necessary to add information or reword what is elsewhere, let that be put there not here. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've already made it evident I disagree with giving high commissioners their own section in this article; they are not a distinguishing feature of the Commonwealth realms, since 38 other countries exchange high commissioners as well. It is thus a subject far more connected to Commonwealth of Nations (though, from a cursory glance, seems strangely absent from that article). I added what's relevant to this page--high commissioners are used because it's redundant for Her Jamaican Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to send an ambassador to Her Tuvaluan Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Noted, but I am not persuaded that your remarks are sufficient to displace mine above, or my initial edit. It is indeed a feature which distinguishes realms which are members of the Commonwealth from other realms, and the extension of HCs to those which are republics results from the earlier days of the Dominions. It is important to let the development over the years, involving some difficult negotiations through successive crises under the Crown and the Head of the Commonwealth, be not squeezed out by lack of perspective. As I read the text of Commonwealth of Nations and High Commissioner (Commonwealth), these give a better account for the reader than a gobbet-like summary such as you have inserted. (Please do not read this as a threat to edit war.) Qexigator (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

But, they are not a feature that distinguish Commonwealth realms from other realms; even if one only takes "realm" to mean a monarchical state (you aren't clear what you mean by "other realms"), there are such realms in the Commonwealth of Nations that also exchange high commissioners with other Commonwealth countries.

I'm not even sure what you were trying to impart in the paragraph you added; it mentioned high commissioners as being the result of "Dominion status", but what "Dominion status" meant changed over the decades between 1867 and 1926. Further, high commissioners were used, in the context of the British Empire/Commonwealth, for other types of geopolitical entities than Dominions. If we narrow it down to just high commissioners and Dominions, specifically, Canada first sent a high commissioner to London in 1880, long before it became a legislatively independent monarchy sharing with the other members of the Commonwealth the same person as king. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, all I can say is: noted but not persuaded that any of that suffices to remove my initial edit. I can only assume that you do not understand its purport, and nothing further I can say will budge you. I have no doubt you are certain about this in your own mind. I happily concede that your edit is not all bad, and others may prefer it. As I have said in an earlier discussion on another point, I do not propose to engage in argumentation. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Crowned head

Following the discussions and edits here, I have made a consequential edit at St Edward's Crown, in an attempt to clarify the position of the Queen as crowned head of state in the name and right of each one of the realms. Please further tweak if considered necessary. Qexigator (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Realmdom and monarch's title

The section "Current Commonwealth realms" presents the information in a nice looking table, but I have not found, in the article itself or the links, from the table or elsewhere, sites which give a source for each one of the Queen's titles as listed in the fifth column. These titles may be one of the consequences of realmdom, but are not in themselves instrumental in conferring realmdom. The links at Royal Style and Titles Act seem to support some but not all of them. The title of the Queen in each realm is not essential to the article, and could be better left to the articles linked in columns 1 and 2 realm by realm. This point may have been made before, and satisfactorily answered. If so, please say. Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That CRs may or may not chose a title for the monarch does not make them CRs. However, since a major attribute of CRs is that the same person is monarch, I think it is important to say what her title is in each one. TFD (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Then would not a general statement to the effect that normally the Queen is known in each of the CRs as Queen of that one? The grandiloquence of "name style and title" is not required. It is distracting padding here. Qexigator (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As you'll note, the titles aren't identical in every realm. Elizabeth's current titles are all covered at List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Current. I'm fine with them staying in the table here. But, if there's some consensus to remove them, I wouldn't object, so long as a link were provided in the appropriate place to the aforementioned section of the titles and honours article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there they are and all that's needed here would be "See also". That would be my preference, to keep focussed on the topic. Qexigator (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No; if the column in the table is to go, then words about the titles should be worked into the article; "The Crown in the Commonwealth realms" seems like the most apt. "See also" is for associated topics that aren't so directly related to the subject of the article as to warrant a place in its text. Further, putting a link to List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Current in the "See also" section now is rather redundant, just directing readers to a list nearly identical to the one here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Those remarks, and edit [47], noted, for further consideration, in connection with this article, of: List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Current - High Commissioner (Commonwealth) - Commonwealth unification movement - Line of succession to the British throne - Dominion of New Zealand - Realm of New Zealand. --Qexigator (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There now seems to be some disruptive editing going on, so am inclined to defer further edits until that has settled down. Qexigator (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say above there, at 10:28, 20 July.

I see that the issue of the titles is at a standstill. Is an RfC in order, or are you content to leave the table as is? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but my point at the top of this section was about presentation. Some editors may not be entirely clear about the meaning, purpose, origin or purport if titles, but why RfC? Qexigator (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, because you are for removing the column, only one other editor has given an opinion and is in favour of retaining it, and I'm indifferent. An RfC might bring in more opinions to shift the current stalemate one way or another. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason for pursuing this in a contentious fashion. I am aware of the responses to date, and the reluctance to remove the column so far expressed. My concern is not with point scoring. Qexigator (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that I am not intending unilaterally to remove the column, but there is a need to look afresh at such things, as the article and related ones change over time, due to new found sources making information available or stimulus of events such as Perth Agreement enactments and public discussion. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to retain col.5 but highlight the words of the titles which vary?. That would certainly add value, without SYN and OR. Qexigator (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what value that would add. I think people can see the differences themselves. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not equally easy for everyone, partly due to making the comparison and picking out the differences in a compressed list anyhow, and partly due to differences of vision when reading a screen, and you may know that professional proof-readers of printed copy can much more easily spot differences than others. It might make no difference for you, but would it impair the column if it would make it easier for at least some readers? I think not. If the information is being presented table-wise, let it be done in a way that makes the point about differences clearly visible- or leave it out, as not that important. Qexigator (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think noting the differences between one set of words and another is relatively easy for most people who can read. The bolding you've added seems only to add confusion: If I were a reader who hadn't looked at this discussion first, I'd ask: why are those words bolded?

I would leave the table as is until you can find a consensus to remove it. I'm starting to lean towards favouring that proposal, given it's a duplication of List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Current, if some kind of prose is worked into the article explaining that the one monarch holds different titles and perhaps mentioning the differences (UK in Canada's and Grenada's, Defender of the Faith in the UK's and Canada's only, etc.) That would be far more clear than what's there now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It can be safely assumed that if a reader can read the table s/he can see the reason for bolding at the top of that column, plain as day. That sort of indication is common practice, as a key to notation/script in this kind of presentation. Leave the table as is with the bolding (not italic because that is for the French). Simple enough. If you feel the article as a whole could be improved by suppressing the column and writing text as you propose, why not try it? Avoiding gloss or verbosity, of course. Qexigator (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Historic photo

I came across this file at commons. Only three people are identified though. How hard would it be to find the names of the others?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This contains enough information to name the members. I'm not sure if WP:SYNTH issues apply. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think synth would apply just to identify people in an image. The source of the image and the name list are RS. We are just joining the dots. I have another one similar where we are trying to track a river canyon. The 1911 image is File:Moose Canyon (HS85-10-24782).jpg. I found it near Jasper on EBay in 1950. Then I went Moose River on Google. I walked around Google by dragging the little orange guy to the highway. I took a screen shot and compared the mountain. If the shoe fits we should be able to wear it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Commonwealth realm → Commonwealth Realms – It's more conventional ~ R.T.G 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The proposal is without good reason, and, instead of addressing himself to reasoned objections before initiating this Request, the proposer has adopted a churlishly lofty manner: "Okay smart arses" (13:13, 21 July 2013). Qexigator (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: First, using the singular in the title does not preclude covering a multitude in the article; Star covers stars. Secondly, the lower case "r" on "realm" was the consensus reached after a lengthy and tetchy debate a long time ago (so long ago that lower case "realm" must now appear in more than a hundred places around Wikipedia); a new discussion seeking a new consensus to capitalise the "r" would have to be undertaken and completed before the change was made. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Singular nouns should be used unless there is a good reason to use plurals. TFD (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, it seems to me that there is already an article on the Commonwealth Realms collectively: Commonwealth of Nations. This article is on the individual states of which that commonwealth is comprised, and therefore the singular title is more appropriate.--Xiaphias (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per TFD's reason. --Article editor (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irish Free State

Before jumping back into the discussion, I'd be interested in knowing where we are on this. I intend to reinsert the "Former Dominions" table and list Irish Free State and India as members. We can source this. --Pete (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't threaten to edit war. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mies. It was a question in good faith. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. --Pete (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"I intend to reinsert the "Former Dominions" table and list Irish Free State and India as members" is not a question. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. My implicit question was the previous sentence, where I was seeking community input. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The "implicit question" is a red herring. The statement "I intend to reinsert the 'Former Dominions' table and list Irish Free State and India as members" is an expressed intent to revert what has been reverted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source before re-inserting it. TFD (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely Canada, Australia etc. are also former dominions, if you're trying to say that the term "dominion" means something different to "realm". If a third table is to be created (which I don't believe is either necessary or helpful to the reader) then they belong in it too, since they are no longer called dominions. ðarkuncoll 17:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Taking Ireland and India from table 2

The introduction of a third table to accomodate Ireland and India as "Former Dominions" would not improve the article, and there is good reason to let them be removed from the second table. My reasons are above at "Missing table and Option 4"[48] and at the top of Separate tables[49] --Qexigator (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of creating a table on the 'Dominion' page that lists the Dominions-Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Union of South Africa, Irish Free State, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, which should remove the need for a third table on this page-perhaps a link on here is needed to it-Nd yes, I am aware it needs neatening up and some of the flags are wrong, but there you go. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The table here should stay as is, since this article is about the countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that share one person as their respective sovereign and parallel lines of royal succession. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Newfoundland

Although...what I don't understand is; if Ireland and India are included in the table, why Newfoundland is omitted? Yes, I'm aware after 1931 it was ruled from London as it was unable to govern its own affairs, but it remained de jure a Dominion. Secondly-why isn't 1953 given as the year the Commonwealth Realms that were formerly Dominions became Realms?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Newfoundland never adopted the Statute of Westminster. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Newfoundland is mentioned in the lead as one of the dominions named as such in SoW, then once in the sub-section "Dominions emerge", and again in "Between the wars": "...Newfoundland never ratified the bill and reverted to direct British rule in 1934." But I see no mention of its eventual accretion to the Canadian Confederation. Would it be simplest to let this be mentioned in a footnote to Canada in the table for "Current Commonwealth realms"? Qexigator (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sentence now added in "Post-war evolution". See also Dominions. --Qexigator (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The sentence added under table 2[50] was a less clear version of what is already more clearly stated in the article:

• lead: The Statute of Westminster 1931 provided for the then Dominions—named therein as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland —to have full or nearly full legislative independence...
• "Dominions emerge": ...the term Dominion was extended to apply to Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, ...
• "Between the wars": ... Newfoundland never ratified the bill and reverted to direct British rule in 1934.
• "Post-war evolution": Shortly before the London Declaration, Newfoundland, which had remained a Dominion in name only, had become a province of Canada. Qexigator (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding all discussions, a realm is a community or territory over which a sovereign rules, thus to be a former Commonwealth Realm, a region must no longer be part of any territory that is a Realm. Also, all Dominions were Realms, so I have no idea why you want to created a separate section for these. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to read the dominion and realm articles and then read outside Wiki too. There is no doubt that a realm has a different meaning to a dominion. Beyond that, what is being ignored is that Ireland and India never made it to being realms. They were only ever dominions. Australia and the like stuck the course and got to be realms. That's why sticking Ireland and India is so plainly inaccurate. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Relationship between the Commonwealth Realms and the Commonwealth of Nations

I'm confused as to how exactly the Commonwealth Realms (group of countries) are within, or a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. As far as I can tell they are unrelated except historically. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

All the Commonwealth Realms are members of the Commonwealth. The term "realm" distinguishes them from member states that are republics. Dependent states within the Commonwealth, such as Bermuda, are realms but not members of the Commonwealth, hence they are not CRs. It is conceivable that the British monarch could become sovereign of a foreign state, such as Denmark, which may decide not to belong to the Commonwealth and hence would not be a CR. Other than that, there is little one can say about them. It is really a definition rather than a topic. TFD (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks, Rob (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Rob, I think you are getting a bum steer. You first need to understand what is a "realm". A British Overseas Territory like Bermuda is not a realm. It has no distinct relationship with any monarch; its only relationship with a monarch derives from a realm - the United Kingdom of which a place like Bermuda is an Overseas Territory. One simple way to test if somewhere is a realm is to ask if the territory in question has a separate title for the Monarch. Bermuda doesn't. Where QE2 visits Bermuda in an official capacity, that capacity is "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her Other Realms and Territories". Just as if she was visiting Cornwall. If she visits Canada, the position is very different.

Also, note that according to Wikipedia where the compound term "Commonwealth realm" was invented (no one can provide a source that pre-dates Wikipedia), Ireland was once a "Commonwealth realm". I of course say that is nonsense for many reasons set out above (including that independent Ireland never had a separate title for the Monarch). But if we go along with the majority view here, it was a "Commonwealth realm" but it was not a UN member during that period. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

See "Ex parte Quark", House of Lords, 2005. The Queen is Queen of each and every territory over which she is Queen.[51] That case explains that she was Queen of the unpopulated South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and did not exercise sovereignty there as Queen of the UK. Note that in all countries the title is essentially the same, the difference is that in each country the name of the country is listed first, except in Canada and Grenada, where the UK is listed first, then the name of the country.

The term "Commonwealth Realm" btw exists and is defined on the official website of the British Royal family.[52] However there is nothing in any source I have seen that says more than what is found on that page.

TFD (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-Commonwealth Realms

The Crown Dependencies are Non-Commonwealth Realms. Currently these are listed at Crown Dependencies. Could a new article be created listing both the Crown Dependencies and the Commonwealth Realms under a title such as 'Realms of the Crown'? Regards, Rob (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it would be just synthesis. In any case there are many other Non-Commonwealth realms - Denmark, Sweden and Saudi Arabia for example. And there are also realms within the Commonwealth that are not Commonwealth Realms, such as Bermuda and Quebec. TFD (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@Rob, The Crown Dependencies are not realms. Nevermind "Commonwealth realms".

@TFD, Neither Bermuda or Quebec are realms. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey certainly are not relevant to this article. They are separate from the UK, but are subject to the sovereignty of it, just like a protectorate, vassal state of tributary state is. Indeed, the tribute rendered to the British monarch by the Lord of Mann was two falcons at each coronation-tribute last rendered at the Coronation of George IV, at which point, oddly, the British Monarch had been revested with the Lordship of Mann, giving the odd result that the British monarch as Lord of Mann was paying tribute to...himself as King of the United Kingdom. Anyway, they have no separate international existence (as neither did, say; Brunei prior to 1984), but they do not possess sovereignty of their own.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Bermuda, Quebec and the Crown Depencencies are "realms", they are just not "Commonwealth Realms". because they are part of other realms that are Commonwealth Realms. That is the whole problem with this article anyway. It should just say what a Commonwealth Realm is, instead of coat-racking into Dominions, the Statute of Westminster etc. TFD (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD: where is the offending "coat-racking"? Is it starting as from para. 2? Would your point be met by letting that, or a modified version, sit later in the article, and letting the second para. be concisely based on " Crown Dependencies are "realms" but not "Commonwealth Realms", and letting that be expanded in the body? Qexigator (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

All we have for sources is that a Commonwealth Realm is a realm that is a member of the Commonwealth, and a list of sixteen nations. It is not even clear when the term was coined or the extent of the realm of the UK - does it include territories and/or Crown dependencies? We then include information about countries that might have met the current definition of Commonwealth Realm although we have no sources that they were. Canada for example is a Commonwealth Realm today, but we cannot say when it became one. TFD (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The Crown Dependencies are Independent Sovereign Territories so I don't see how they are not Realms of Queen Elizabeth II. Dependent Territories on the other hand are ruled by a Realm, and thus its monarchy and therefore are not Realms independently, but rather part of a Realm I think. I'm not sure about Provinces/States. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "realm" just means a territory ruled by a sovereign, such as the Queen of Bermuda or the Queen of Quebec. There is no reason why a realm cannot be part of another realm - both the Holy Roman Empire and its states have been referred to as realms. The Crown dependencies are not considered independent. While the Foreign Affairs Committee in Westminster decided this year that only sovereign states could be direct members of the Commonwealth, that could change in which case most of the article describing Commonwealth Realms would be inaccurate. TFD (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD - "...could change in which case most of the article ... would be inaccurate..". Well, anything is liable to change, making its article inaccurate, such as the Line of succession to the Bitish Crown (due to change when the legislative process has been completed in the unpredictable future), but how does that help to write and edit this article? In particular, what parts of the article do you consider need to be rectified to meet your comment above that it should say what a Commonwealth Realm is, instead of "coat-racking" into Dominions, the Statute of Westminster etc. Qexigator (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

All we know about the concept of "CR" is the definition (a realm of the Queen that is a member of the Commonwealth) and a list of current CRs. Everything else is OR. There are no sources that say when any country became or ceased to be a CR, or anything about them beyond the simple definition. It is as if we had an article about bald senators then started making comparisons between them. TFD (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Up to a point - realm is being used to denote sovereign, which a territory such as a province of federal Canada is not; there are sources for when certain countries ceased to be realms of the CoN, or ceased to be members of CoN, and certain sources show some of the countries admittedly within the Commonwealth becoming sovereign realms from a certain event or not later than a certain time. When, if at all, a given country which was acknowledged as one of the Dominions ceased to be that and became CR may be problematic. Qexigator (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the definition of "realm" or "Commonwealth Realm" that says it must be sovereign, and no source that says that. It just happens that only sovereign countries are eligible for membership in the Commonwealth. So starting with the definition and list of CRs we determine what they have in common, and how their constitutions developed and that is all original research, which is against policy. TFD (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What definition? - where? Qexigator (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to several dictionary definitions of a realm. The definition of Commonwealth Realm is on the Royal Family website[53][54] TFD (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What's so unclear about the definition given in that first link to the royal.gov website? It tells us what a Commonwealth realm is and then lists all the countries that are Commonwealth realms.

Where's the OR in the article, exactly? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Noted (coyly) that the diclink offered by TFD is unashamedly to the well-known TFD. It is interesting enough in its own way (etymology and a small sample of applications, with a link to a fairly extensive, but nonetheless eclectic, list of synonyms) but I see nothing there which is to the point being discussed here. I may have missed something? Qexigator (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out: the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man, and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, are certainly independent in the sense that they are not part of the United Kingdom (and indeed, Acts of the UK parliament only apply to the Dependencies if explicitly mentioned), but they are not sovereign in the sense that they do not have control over their own foreign policy, they cannot conclude treaties with foreign powers, declare war on a foreign power, etc. In short, they are subject to the sovereignty of, but not part of the United Kingdom.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@MIESIANIACAL, the OR in the article is when we begin to say things about the group of CRs that is not mentioned on the website or any other reliable source. We say for example that since all CRs are independent nations, that is part of the definition. @Qexigator, the question was were only CRs "realms", and of course they are not. But that does not mean we should create the suggested new article. TFD (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

All the countries listed in the royal.gov source are independent countries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And if Canada left, they would all be islands. So what? Would it make it part of the definition? TFD (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No. The absence of Jersey, Niue, and other non-independent island jurisdictions that have Elizabeth II as monarch from the list of Commonwealth realms demonstrates that having the geographic form of an island is not a characteristic of a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, it would demonstrate that having Elizabeth II as monarch was not a characteristic either. TFD (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The source says otherwise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, the source says a Commonwealth realm is a member of the Commonwealth which shares the sovereign. It then names them, and even mentions her titles in each CR. But neither this source nor any other says anything else whatsoever about this class of nations. Therefore any observations we make about the Statute of Westminster, former CRs, etc. is pure OR. TFD (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

By your standard, every article on Wikipedia is OR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If there be a problem it is no more (and no less) than a lack of cited sources saying that certain of the countries now known or referred to as Commonwealth realms were Dominions per SoW. Parts of the article which should be reconsidered from that point of view would be (or include)

• in The Crown in the Commonwealth realms:

- "The evolution of the Commonwealth realms has led to the scenario wherein...". This need say only "In the Commonwealth realms..." (...the Crown has both a separate and a shared character; it is a singular institution with one sovereign). All or most of the second paragraph of the lead could be moved here.

- "To guarantee the continuity of this arrangement after the first realms were established in 1931..." That could be omitted, and rest of the sentence be rewritten to read "The preamble of the Statute of Westminster declared as a convention that any alteration to the line of succession to the throne of the United Kingdom or in any of the countries named and having Dominion status under that act must be voluntarily approved by the parliaments of all them."

• In Historical development, any of the content of the parts headedDominions emerge and Between the wars which is not in Dominions should be moved there, with some slight consequential rewriting of the part for Post-war evolution. Qexigator (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources used in this article describing the evoltuion you speak of. TFD's problem seems to be that these sources either don't or don't consistently use the term "Commonwealth realms" in reference specifically to the group of countries in the Commonwealth sharing one person as sovereign (though some do call individual countries a Commonwealth realm); so, saying they are Commonwealth realms either because they appear in the list of Commonwealth realms found at the royal.gov website (and in other sources) or because they once, but after 1952, possessed the very same characteristics we know define a Commonwealth realm somehow constitutes original research. That is a real stretch of the policy, which may be why he's the only person to ever make the claim. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy of "no original research" is quite clear. "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

If you want to write about the historical background of CRs then you need a source that does that. If you want to say that CR is the new term for "Dominion", or that some change in status turned Dominions into CRs, or to provide a date when one term or status replaced the other, then you need a source.

And your comments about when the Crown became divided is OR unsupported by sources and in fact contrary to what the House of Lords decided. The Crown of each and every territory that has any sort of administration is separate from the Crown of the UK.

TFD (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The point TFD is making about CRs and Dominions appears to me to be correct, and not so far rebutted, but the effect of the HL decision about "divisibilty" is a different matter. Qexigator (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There are sources discussing the historical background of the Commonwealth realms, both individually and as a group. Perhaps you should read more than just the two provided by the UK Royal Household.

Your opinions about the nature of the divided crown are based only on a misrepresentation of a single source. Plenty of others used as cites in a number of articles say something other than what you do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not such sources exist, they are not used for this article. Sorry, but I have not misrepresented the source on the Crown - you may read it here. It is not just a "single source" - it is a 2005 House of Lords decision which explains the historical understanding of the divisibility of the Crown, which is the issue it decided. It quotes Denning's decision that was upheld by the Lords, "it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question." In case you were unaware, the House of Lords at the time was the ultimate court of the UK at the time, equivalent to the Canadian Supreme Court. Even if the Lords were wrong, their judgment is binding in the UK. TFD (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

They are used for this article.

I didn't say the lords were wrong. I said there are many sources saying something other than what you do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the mentions of the Statute of Westminster for example are referenced to sources that discuss CRs. They can be removed. And much of the article is unsourced. Your statement that there are sources with a different interpretation from the Lords is misleading. They describe the evolution of the understanding of the divisibility of the Crown, but there is no evidence that anyone holds any other view today. TFD (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A statement like "none of the mentions of the Statute of Westminster are referenced to sources that discuss the Commonwealth realms" shows you aren't reading the sources. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Take for example the half paragraph beginning, "These new developments were explicitly codified in 1931", which is sourced to Baker's 1929 The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law. Other than the problem of using a 1929 book as a source for events that occurred after 1931, the book does not use the term CR which you say was only used after the 1950s. TFD (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That source is for the continued use of the Judicial Committee of the UK Privy Council. Regardless, you demonstrate again that your argument is entirely semantic; "this source does not use the words 'Commonwealth realm', therefore to use it in this article is to engage in original research". That's sophistic and has nothing to do with WP:OR, which is against the use of sources "to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Note the focus solely on position, not vocabulary or terminology. No sources here have been used "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The OR is that you are assuming that the sources are talking about CRs without any evidence that they were. You need sources, not just your imagination, that explain what relevance the Statute has to CRs. TFD (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources are there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Again your 1929 source does not mention CRs. This is basically your opinion of how CRs developed and their attributes with no sources that anyone else has published the same opinion. Obviously you can assemble facts that do not mention CRs and develop a theory. But that is OR. TFD (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're back to semantics. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The point at issue looks to me more than can be passed over as semantics in a dismissive sense. Admittedly certain institutions and practices have survived from the earlier dominions period to the present, such as the monarchy and high commissioners (the latter also in use among the republics of the CoN). But given that "Commonwealth realm" was not being used at the time of SoW nor did it then come into general use before it emerged in the 1950's, to use it of countries before the 1950's is anachronistic and akin to jobbing backwards. To that extent it tends to mislead or confuse the less well-informed, as if one were to speak of members of the League of Nations in the 1930's as if they were members of the United Nations. Irrespective of what may be constructed by inference from sources, there is little reason to include in the article much more about the transitional period before the 1950's than a reference over to the Dominions article. Qexigator (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments don't actually relate to TFD's OR accusations. But, could you point out where in the article the term "Commonwealth realm" is used "of countries before the 1950's [sic]"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the article on Dominions, the passages which, in my view, are out of place here are mainly (as mentioned above) in the parts Dominions emerge, Between the wars and the beginning of Post-war evolution. Whether you agree or not, I see TFD's remarks in this connection. The better presentation would be to redistribute this information by transfer to the Dominion article, so far as it is absent there, and let this article be concerned with the period from the 1950's. If there is any source which is being relied on for using "Commonwealth realm" as applying to any country before that period, (such as Bogdanor) it should be clearly stated and not constructed by inference. To my recollection, it had little or no currency at that time, even if later writers (such as Bogdanor) may choose to use it. Can you be less vague about claiming sources support what appears to be your contention? Qexigator (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think that has to do with original research, then you too misunderstand WP:OR.

Removing those subsections of the history section would not be an improvement for the article. The Statute of Westminster established what today defines the Commonwealth realms--independent countries sharing one person as monarch of each--and there's a history behind how that arrangement came to be. And the pre-1950s history of the group called the Commonwealth realms includes a country that was never a Dominion. To cut all that out would be akin to chopping the first 10 sections of History of Canada out because use of the word "Canada" to describe a group of British colonies in North America didn't begin until 1867. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess questions of distributing information over a set of interrelated articles is generally about editorial skill and judgment, and a feel for historical perspective in relation to current affairs, about which opinions can differ among well-informed readers and editors, without undue pov. Often in the case of topics with a notable history the historical is in one (or more) article and the present day in another. Succession to the British throne and Line of succession is but one example. Perhaps sooner or later an event will happen which will result in such a revisal. For the time being, my view is that explaining the process of the ending of the British Imperial system of government in the period from the 1850's to the 1950's is not all that helpful when describing the present day CoN and the group of it which are the CRs. Meantime, attention is being turned to speculation about the future of Scotland, which may be a sign that this lemon has been squeezed dry. Qexigator (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The point of a history section isn't to describe present day anything. It describes how the present day anything came to be. Of course, history as a whole being as complex as it is, there's going to be repetition among the histories of specific things; returning to my example of History of Canada, material there is duplicated at New France, just as some material here is repeated at President of India. It's unavoidable.

Now, some historical material can be more directly related to one subject than others; so, perhaps the pre-1931 history here is unnecessarily detailed. But, giving it a cursory glance now, I see much that explains how there came to be a group of independent countries within the Commonwealth sharing one person as sovereign of each: Borden's and Smut's insistance in 1919 that the Domininons be considered "autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth" and the series of changes that prompted--Dominions signing the Treaty of Versailles, engaging in treaties without Imperial approval--followed by court rulings that found a divisibility of the Crown within Australia and Canada, the King-Byng Affair, etc., all of which demonstrates increasing sovereignty, thus explaining how the "independent" part of "independent countries within the Commonwealth sharing one person as monarch of each" came about for almost all of the first countries that became independent countries within the Commonwealth sharing one person as monarch. And, of course, there's the Balfour Declaration, which led to key changes in the royal title and style and eventually the Statute of Westminster, which legally recognised that certain countries were thereafter legislatively independent, though sharing a common allegiance to the Crown. Perhaps it could be pared down, to give basically the same background without excess detail. Perhaps some information is missing. But, exploring whether that is true or not and what to do about it is an exercise altogether different to both mass deletion and eliminating material falsely labeled as original research. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources about the CRs explains how they came to be, none of the sources about how they came to be mention that they came to be CRs. Most CRs became CRs when Westminster said they would not longer legislate for them. TFD (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mies: I happen to be one of (maybe a small) minority who find all that interesting and informative, and at the same time agree it could be pared down in this article; but I shrink from undertaking the task, so must remain a bystander on this one. I believe I may not be alone among those accustomed to reading scholarly and encyclopedic works who find the invocations of "OR" which are made from time to time in Talk pages and edit summaries somewhat peculiar, but it is sometimes a useful reminder to edit with due attention to the needs of readers. Anyhow, I believe TFD's last comment is not wholly unfounded or unreasonable, and the article needs some improvement in that respect if possible. Perhaps no more than a tweak or two? Qexigator (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer you didn't shrink from the task completely. I can make my own pass at trimming the history section, especially pre-1930s. But, at least some suggestions from others, you included, would be helpful. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mies: You have been living with these articles longer than me, and if you make a start at trimming let me then see what I might suggest for tweaks. Qexigator (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Scotland

"Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party (which favours Scottish independence) stated an independent Scotland would be a Commonwealth realm." This text is sourced to a speech by Salmond, where he says, "we would still share a monarchy with the rest of the UK just as we did for a century before the Parliamentary Union of 1707, and just as 16 other Commonwealth countries do now."[55]

We do not know if an independent Kingdom of Scotland would be considered a CR, just that personal union would continue. Salmond does not even say that Scotland would be a member of the Commonwealth. He seems to imply that the crowns would be de-merged and Scotland would return to the status quo ante. I doubt Scotland would feel any obligation to have similar styles and titles legislation, succession laws or numbering of kings and queens. It could be listed on the Royal website as a "monarchy" like Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland and Tongo, "a Commonwealth country which has its own monarch as Head of State." Unlike the realms, Scotland might be a kingdom, not a territory granted independence that retained the Queen.

TFD (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"We would still fire a salute at Edinburgh Castle to mark occasions like that, because we would still share a monarchy with the rest of the UK just as we did for a century before the Parliamentary Union of 1707, and just as 16 other Commonwealth countries do now." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes and its a bra bricht moonlicht nicht de nicht, but that has nothing to do with the article either. TFD (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It obviously relates to the article subject. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that Scotland will be treated as a realm rather than a kingdom? James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1607 and the crowns were merged in 1707. Scotland could decide that as a successor state of the UK, that Elizabeth II continued to be Queen of Scotland, which would be a CR. Or they could decide that the Kingdom of Scotland had been restored, with Elizabeth I, Queen of Scots, as the legitimate heir of James VI. Since they would be Scottish nationalists, they might repeal the Act of Succession, and revert to Scots law, and likely have a very different title and style. , both in violation of agreement mentioned in the preamble to the statute of Westminster. However, that is the problem when we go beyond sources and enter into the OR zone. So why not stick with sources. TFD (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms are kingdoms. No claim is made either that an independent Scotland will be a Commonwealth realm or that it will be a kingdom with a different monarch to the Commonwealth realms or even that it will be a kingdom or be in the Commonwealth at all. Only Salmond's vision of an independent Scotland being a Commonwealth realm is expressed in the same manner as are Miller's plans that Jamaica will not be a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Salmon - I have taken to the NOR noticeboard. And your statement that Commonwealth Realms are kingdoms is OR, not supported by sources. TFD (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Salmon never uses the term "Commonwealth Realm" and you have never provided any source that the realms are kingdoms. I have searched for sources that say they are but can find none. TFD (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

More pedantic semantics. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedia policy could be seen as pedantic, since it demands sourcing for facts and opinions. But if you disagree with it, then you should change it rather than offend other editors who are merely following it. TFD (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your bizarre interpretations of policy don't count. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The two editors who have commented at NORN agree with my interpretation of policy. TFD (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If you say so. Seems to me they're gently shifting their position. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)