Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

"Remove OR"

Just wanted to point out that my recent edits to the page were not original research at all. Past experience has shown that any attempt at discussion will be futile, so I'll not pursue the matter any further. Still, not being labeled would be nice. Thanks. Ladril (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was OR: "In more precise legal terminology, however, the term can refer not strictly to a single sovereign state, but to an association of states and/or territories that have agreed to jointly recognise Elizabeth II as their head of state. This is the situation in the realms of Canada and Australia, in which the Crown represents a different legal entity for each one of the federal subjects (provinces in Canada, states and territories in Australia). Likewise, in the Realm of New Zealand..." Canada and Australia aren't sovereign states? The Realm of New Zelaand is? If it wasn't OR, why was it not sourced? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that "Canada and Australia aren't sovereign states". Rather, the text says that the term "realm" does not always refer to a single sovereign state, but to an association of states and territories that have agreed to have Queen Elizabeth as a common head of state. The Canadian provinces form one such association, the Australian states and territories another, and the New Zealand, CI and Niue yet another one. The source for this is in the source you removed: "The Strange Death of the Realm of New Zealand" by Andrew Townend, who is/was a professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington. Ladril (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The reference you speak of supported only the RNZ-related content. The RNZ, however, isn't itself a state; it therefore isn't a Commonwealth realm, as indicated by its absence from the collection of Commonwealth realms named here. As for Canada and Australia: the wording implies Canada's provinces and Australia's states are fully sovereign, which is highly questionable, especially in the case of the former. Further, neither group "agreed to jointly recognise Elizabeth II as their head of state". But, regardless, the two "association[s] of states and/or territories" are themselves sovereign countries already mentioned in the lead's reference to the 16 "sovereign state[s] that [are members] of the Commonwealth of Nations, [have] Elizabeth II as [their] reigning constitutional monarch, and [have] a royal line of succession in common with the other realms". A second mention of the two countries isn't necessary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"The reference you speak of supported only the RNZ-related content." Sorry, but no. The reference detailed the three cases.

"The RNZ, however, isn't itself a state..." Let's assume this is the case, for the sake of argument. Why is "New Zealand" listed on this page then? Ladril (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lad: Would you please pinpoint the pasage/s (quote and/or pages/s) which support what you added? Qexigator (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There you go, pal: https://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/research/publications/vuwlr/prev-issues/pdf/vol-34-2003/issue-3/townend.pdf Ladril (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

P. 584-585: "In the federal realms of Australia and Canada, the Crown as executive is divisible among the States or Provinces.69 'The Crown' in South Australia is a different legal entity from 'the Crown' in New South Wales, and 'the Crown' in Saskatchewan a different legal entity from 'the Crown' in Nova Scotia. Unlike Australia and Canada, the Realm of New Zealand is not a State. But its basic structure is otherwise essentially the same: an association of States and Territories recognising a single sovereign as Head of State, and in which the Crown as executive is divisible among those States and Territories. There is only one Queen in right of (the Realm of) New Zealand, and in Realm matters she or her Governor-General is advised by the Executive Council." Ladril (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so it mentions that Canada and Australia are federations, each with their own 'divided' crowns. What does that have to do with the subject of Commonwealth realms, which are sovereign states? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Because New Zealand is a sovereign state and it is included among the countries named here as being Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The text above, which comes from the source you removed, discusses the specific character of the realms of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Ladril (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand how that realtes to your question as to why New Zealand is listed in this page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

1. It means that it is erroneous to claim that "Commonwealth Realm" always denotes a sovereign state. In the case of the Realm of New Zealand that is not true. So what it says on the page is erroneous.

2. That the term "realm" in some cases is used to denote associations of territories that jointly recognize the Queen as their head of state. It does not have to refer to a state. This is what the page should say. Ladril (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

1. You still haven't provided any source that affirms the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm.

2. So? This page is about Commonwealth realms, not the word 'realm'. The "associations of territories" are states. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In the same source, p. 581: "The Realm of New Zealand shares its Head of State with fifteen other realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher (Kitts) and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom. Allowance is made for these multiple realms in Her Majesty's current style and titles for use in New Zealand:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

A single person, Queen Elizabeth II, is Queen of all sixteen realms." Still does not convince you that the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm? Ladril (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Unlike Her Majesty's other realms, however, the Realm of New Zealand has no international legal personality and is not itself a State. It has instead been described as a 'concept', a 'symbolic term' that reflects the shared history, values, and Head of State of its constituent parts". Ladril (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that the same source says the Realm of New Zealand isn't a state (which raises the question of how Elizabeth II can be its head of state) and the Realm of New Zealand isn't included as a Commonwealth realm at the royal.gov site, in which all the countries named are sovereign states, and Elizabeth II possesses no title as Queen of the Realm of New Zealand, no, I'm not at all convinced the RoNZ is a Commonwealth realm.

The RoNZ is no different to the UK and its Crown dependencies, except that it has a name. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Realm of New Zealand is not a state, and it doesn't have to be one in order to be a Commonwealth realm. The term "realm" does not have to refer to a state; it can also refer to an association of states that have decided to recognize one individual as their common head of state.

If anyone else feels like explaining this in different words, feel welcome to do so. I feel my communication with Miesianiacal is not very good. Ladril (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

PNG: Queen's title

There is a conflict of sources as shown here[1]. One saying "by the Grace of God", the other not. How do we know which is current and prevails? Qexigator (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me the country's constitution is the more authoritative source. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but how do we know (how do you know) which of the two websites is current information? Is the PNG govt. current: authentic, unamended, and not revoked? Qexigator (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess we don't. Does it help that the same text is shown here? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes,it appears, per this commentator 2011/12/21 [2] , that "by the grace of God" has been intentionally left out of the current constitution. "... the people of Papua New Guinea – who, after all, are the sovereign according to their constitution – can resolve this crisis..." (Now for some rebolding.) Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I would go with the constitution, unless we can find a subsequent style and titles act. But as you point out, Elizabeth II is not queen by the grace of God in Papua New Guinea, so it would seem strange that they would change her title to say she was. TFD (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So far as concerns the conflict mentioned at the top of this section, the point is now settled by restoring the PNG title omitting d.g., as in current version of the Table. Qexigator (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Australian sovereignty

As another aside, I'd like to address a couple of points raised by JWULTRABLIZZARD in the Cook Island section above.

• The Head of State of any monarchy is the 'sovereign', as opposed to a republic, in which the people are 'sovereign', but the Head of State is not.
• Any powers delegated to the Governor-General are only theirs by delegation and by Royal consent, and are not the powers of the Governor-General in their own right, who in any case is only ever the monarch's representative.

I dispute the accuracy of these two statements. The fundamental legal document of the Commonwealth of Australia is the Constitution, found as Section 9 in the Imperial Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. Section 128 outlines the process by which it may be changed, and that is only through referendum. The people are therefore the only group with authority to change the Constitution. Parliament may propose changes and the Governor-General may sign them into law, but without the consent of the people in a special majority, no alteration is possible.

The people are therefore the source of all power in Australia, because the Constitution sets out the various powers of the Queen, the Governor-General, the legislature and the judiciary, To add or remove or alter (say) the power of the Governor-General to appoint ministers requires the consent of the people.

The powers of the Governor-General are not delegated as implied by a narrow reading of s2, except for such incidentals as appointing deputies (s126) where the instrument of delegation is the Letters-Patent. They are explicitly assigned in the Constitution and may not be exercised by the Queen, as was made plain in 1975, when the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister and in response to an appeal, the Queen noted that the executive powers were placed firmly in the hands of the Governor-General.

As to whether the Governor-General is "only ever the Queen's representative", I firmly reject that view. The role of the Governor-General has grown and broadened over the years. He (or more latterly she) has long since ceased to be the representative of Her Majesty's Government. I think Slim was the first Governor-General to describe his role as "representing the Australian people to themselves"as noted by Professor Brian Galligan. And overseas, of course. When the Governor-General travels overseas, he or she represents the people of Australia, rather than the Queen. As an aside to an aside, Galligan says on p245, "A century on, the office of head of state is filled by Australians who are appointed by the Australian Government and represent the Australian people.

And finally, I wonder whether the United Kingdom can be described as a nation where the head of state rather than the people is sovereign. I think the example of Charles I, executed by Parliament, makes the point admirably. --Pete (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The constitution which gives the people these powers is in place because technically the monarch affirmed it. He or she is the (symbolic) fount of all power vested in the state. As for being a head of state, it helps when you're not the representative of a monarch in who's name all laws are signed, treaties are closed and ambassadors are accredited. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed.

I think the example of Charles I, executed by Parliament, makes the point admirably.

-An Act entirely illegal at the time (to quote Charles I 'on what authority?'). More to the point, every Act of Parliament passed by the Commonwealth or Protectorate was retrospectively declared null and void.

Question: who gave Royal Assent to the 1900 Australia Constitution Act?

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Either Victoria or Edward VII I suppose..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Act recieved Royal Assent at or on 1 January 1901 so it would have been Victoria (who died less than a month later).

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Legislative authority, which requires royal assent, is required for each referendum question. TFD (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

JWULTRABLIZZARD, if you could use the same indentation practice as other editors, that would make discussion easier to follow. Yes, Queen Victoria gave Royal Assent to the Constitution - on 9 July 1900 - but at that point the powers granted in the Constitution became law unchangeable except through the referendum mechanism in s128, and the monarch or Parliament (whether Imperial or Commonwealth) ceased to have any sole ability to amend the document. For those arguing that the powers are only delegated - as per s2: A Governor‑General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him - then I ask by what mechanism could these powers be amended or withdrawn by the Queen? If the monarch does not have the power to make changes, then there is no absolute power, and therefore sovereignty must reside elsewhere.

As for whether Parliament or the monarch is sovereign, I refer those interested to our article Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Legislative authority, which requires royal assent, is required for each referendum question. TFD (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

if a referendum is needed to make a change in the Constitution possible, the initiative for the change will still be taken by the government of the day that needs the consent of the people. Even when that consent is given there would still have to be a Royal Assent. Could the proposal when affirmed by a referendum still be withdrawn theoretically? I wouldn't be at all surprised! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

At some point the real world of practicality intrudes over the theoretical. As Charles I discovered. As George III discovered when his proclamations ceased to have any effect over the Thirteen Colonies. Charles I remains deceased, and the USA remains sovereign. In theory, the Governor-General could refuse assent, and in theory so could the Queen if the legislation were reserved for her assent. Looking at s59, she could disallow the legislation completely. That is the theoretical position, but I suggest that in practice the notion that the Queen would act without advice to disallow Australian legislation is so fanciful as to commend itself only to those without a solid grasp of the real world. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Pete, I would indentate my posts, if I knew how!

Thanks for the Letters Patent showing Royal Assent, that is, all other considerations aside, absolutely fascinating.

I would argue the words 'shall be Her Majesty's representative' as well as 'powers and functions of the Queen' show that these powers are powers belonging to the monarch in their own right, that are delegated to the Governor-General via the Constitution.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A good primer on indentation and discussion may be found here.

I don't see "representative of the Queen" as being the sole function of the Governor-General. His (or her) role in government extends well beyond that. For example, he was given many statutory powers by Parliament. Powers which the monarch was unable to exercise because Parliament had not named the monarch as a holder of those powers. Hence the Royal Powers Act 1953. (Some background to that Act may be found here. I do not agree with all that Sir David Smith says, but I do admire his research into some obscure corners of constitutional practice.

If there was an instrument of delegation of the power to appoint ministers found in s62, then it is the Constitution itself, and it may not be withdrawn by the monarch alone. It is not a power belonging or able to be exercised by the monarch. I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how the monarch could exercise, amend or withdraw a power so assigned to the Governor-General. Perhaps a thunderbolt launched from Buckingham Palace to scorch the words from the Constitution? --Pete (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't that apply to every single constitutional monarchy on Earth? In matters like these theoretic and symbolic notions play a role, even if they're not immediately noticeable in the "real world". That's the way it is with matters like this and that particular aspect can't be just disregarded with a reference to the "real world", because of the intrinsic nature of matters like this. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Pete is right. The powers of the Governor-general belong to her by virtue of the Constitution, not by deputation from the Sovereign. Her Majesty cannot override, annul or rescind an act of the Governor-general, even if advised to do so by the Prime Minister (the PM can however advise her to withdraw the GG's commission). This was demonstrated in 1975, when the Queen advised the Speaker of the House of Representatives that she had no power to overturn Sir John Kerr's dismissal of Gough Whitlam. Gazzster (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Australian Constitution gives powers to the Governor-General that are not given to the monarch. That is a big difference to other Commonwealth Realms. The Queen's power to disallow legislation - a veto - has never been used and could only now be used on advice from the Australian Prime Minister. The practical application is that the Governor-General exercises her powers in her own right, without reference to or instruction from the Queen. That's the way it was in 1975 and subsequent developments have only moved the ball further into the Australian court. --Pete (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a diversion into OR. Even if all of this was true, it is irrelevant. Heads of state often are often ceremonial figureheads. TFD (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I assure it is not original research. It is constitutional law. Go to Governor-general of Australia.Gazzster (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Until the Australian Constitution is amended to omit the words 'shall be Her Majesty's representative', then the Governor-General remains the representative of the Australian Monarch, 'practical' considerations are irrelevant: what the theoretical powers of the Queen of Australia are, are not.

Yes, you can say the Governor-General is 'de facto' or 'practically' the Head of State of Australia; and you could equally say this for any of the other Commonwealth Realms) that doesn't mean that de jure, constitutionally, they are.

There is a Queen of Australia, in whose name the credentials of foreign Ambassadors to Australia are accepted, in whose name treaties are conducted by Australia with foreign powers, in whose name war is declared, and in whose name Australian courts are conducted.

As regards the veto; this is equally applicable to the situation we have in the United Kingdom with the monarch's right to withhold Royal Assent: something that has only been done once since the Act of Union. Were the monarch to try to do that today, there would be a constitutional crisis.

A distinction must be drawn between what the monarch theoretically can do, and what, practically, her representative does. For example:

• During the 2013 Tuvaluan Constitutional Crisis, the Prime Minister Willy Telavi sought to continue governing after having lost his parliamentary majority. He deferred allowing Parliament to sit, and his ally Speaker Kamuta Latasi did not allow a motion of no confidence to be tabled when it finally did sit. The Opposition accused the government of acting unconstitutionally, and Governor General Sir Iakoba Italeli intervened, removing the Prime Minister from office so that Parliament could decide who should form the government. Telavi sought in vain to ask the Queen of Tuvalu, Elizabeth II, to remove the Governor General. The Palace merely stated that the Queen had 'not yet made a decision' as regards to whether Itelali's removal by Telavi would be accepted.

• During the 2011-2012 Papua New Guinean Constitutional Crisis, Prime Minister Somare had spent months in a hospital in Singapore, with Sam Abal as acting prime minister in Papua New Guinea. The majority of members of the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea decided in August 2011 to rescind their confidence in Somare in his absence and instead put it behind O'Neill. The Governor-General of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Ogio, then, on 2 August and according to constitutional convention, appointed O'Neil as prime minister. However, upon Somare's return, he challenged the dismissal in the country's supreme court, which ruled in December 2011 that Somare's removal from the role of prime minister in August had been unlawful and ordered and directed that he be reinstated. The Governor-General did not immediately comply, stating he "could not understand the court judgment",and O'Neill refused to relinquish the position and remained supported by most members of parliament.Ogio, following the court order, subsequently recognised Somare as prime minister, to which the majority in parliament responded, on 14 December 2011, by "suspending" Ogio and declaring Jeffrey Nape, as Speaker of the National Parliament, as automatically acting governor-general. However, there was no indication that the Queen revoked Ogio's commission as viceroy. On 19 December, parliament again recognised Ogio as governor-general and O'Neill as prime minister.

• During the 1954 Pakistan Constitutional Coup, the Governor-General of Pakistan, Ghulam Mohammad, dismissed the government of Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin although his government had won the confidence of the House only a fortnight earlier. Prime Minister Nazimuddin attempted to appeal personally to the Queen (between 1952 and 1956 Queen of Pakistan), only for the Palace to tell him the Queen did not 'interfere with the internal affairs of other sovereign nations'-this despite the fact her Majesty was constitutionally the Sovereign and Head of State of Pakistan at this time.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Governor-General rather than the Queen is head of state. I personally do not feel that I have a definitive source and I prefer to recognise that opinion is divided. There are good cases to be made for both views and my feeling is that by possessing all the facts, knowing all the history, and having regard to the full context I and our readers may more readily make up their own minds if they so desire and detect the falsehoods presented by partisan supporters.

At Federation the Governor-General - like all such officers appointed by the British Government - was there to represent that Government. Saying that he represented the Queen was a polite fiction, along the lines of saying that he was the head of the defence force. The real power in Australian government is a person not even mentioned in the Constitution, but I think we all agree that the Prime Minister is and always has been the focus of the government of the nation. Not the source of all power, nor all-powerful in every context - he can be and is replaced by his own party from time to time - but still the head of government. It is another one of those polite fictions to imagine that Cabinet merely "advises" the Governor-General. If the Prime Minister decides he wants something done, and he has he backing of his party and Parliament, it gets done, regardless of whatever private or personal opinions held by the Governor-General.

The role of the Queen in 1901 was quite different than it is now, eighty years on since the Statute of Westminster. The monarch acted on the advice of the British Government. The Ministers elected by the Australian people could not advise the Queen on the exercise of the few powers given to her, one of which was the appointment of the Governor-General. This advice was given by the British Colonial Secretary. (Quoting from the Report of the Republic Advisory Committee, 1993, p29-30)

So, as at 1901, references to 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government'. The symbolism matched the substance, To Australians in 1901, the Queen represented the real political power of the British Empire ruled from London. As Queen-Empress, she symbolised the British Empire of which all Australians were subjects. Australians however had no right to vote in British general elections and therefore no say in choosing those Ministers who would advise the Queen on Australian matters. ... Nowadays, all of the powers vested in the queen under the Commonwealth Constitution are exercised by the Queen on the advice of Her Australian Commonwealth Ministers. So if, in 1901, 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'the British Government', today in 1993, it means 'the Australian Government'.

That's Malcolm Turnbull and George Winterton speaking, amongst other notables on that committee.

After the passage of the Statute of Westminster, the British Government appointed its own local representative: the British High Commissioner. So the role of the Governor-General (and all similar officers within the Commonwealth) changed dramatically without a single word of the Constitution being altered.

The role of the Governor-General goes well beyond representing the Queen. It is worth noting that he or she is in no sense an agent or delegate of the Queen. I quote from the Governor-General's own website:

• In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by The Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.
• The Constitution binds the Crown. The Constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General although vested in The Queen. What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in The Queen by Section 61. And it is exercisable by The Queen’s representative, not her delegate or agent. The language of Sections 2 and 61 had in this respect no contemporary parallel...*
• Possibly the most visible role of the Governor-General, as the office has evolved over the years, is to encourage, articulate and represent those things that unite Australians as a nation.

That last is something that the Queen cannot possibly do. It is a job that only an Australian can perform effectively. As Charles de Gaulle described the role he envisaged for the French presidency before he wrote the modern French constitution, stating the head of state should embody "the spirit of the nation" for the nation itself and the world: "a certain idea about France" (French: une certaine idée de la France). Today, many countries expect their head of state to embody national values in a similar fashion, and Australia certainly expects the Governor-General to be highly visible on distinctly Australian occasions.

As an aside, the Queen has opened neither of the Olympic Games held in Australia, despite it being a requirement that the head of state open the games.

The mode of issuing and accepting diplomatic credentials changed some years back and the Queen's name or authority is no longer invoked. From the Foreign Affairs website:

Letters of credence and recall should be addressed to: "Her Excellency the Honourable Quentin Bryce AC CVO, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia"

As for treaties, courts, oaths and other trappings, may I note that these things change over the years and the traffic has been generally one way. The Queen's role in Australian government has diminished. We are not the Pacific bulwark of the British Empire that we were in 1901 and naturally, attitudes change to reflect this, even if the founding documents do not. There are many valid sections of the Constitution that are spent or obsolete or moribund. The Constitution sets up an Inter-State Commission, for example, devoting some space to salaries and terms of appointment, but there has been no Inter-State Commission for many years.

The instances given above of the Queen's non-involvement in various crises underscores the monarchical disengagement. The Queen did not act in 1975, and she does not act in any of the crises involving nations where she is explicitly head of state.

I maintain an open mind, of course, but it seems to me that those most vigorous in defending the Queen and elevating her role to imperial proportions are raising flags that are no longer universally saluted. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Australian constitution says, "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him." Also, "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known." Essentially this is unchanged since 1901. More executive power has in fact devolved to the PM, but that does not make him or her the head of state. TFD (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Realm of New Zealand

User:Soffredo should be beginning this discussion (WP:BRD), but, regardless, it would be appreciated if he could elucidate in what way the Realm of New Zealand is relevant to this article; after having read the discussion above and here, of course. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Niue and the Cook Islands are part of the Commonwealth realm, but my previous edits were undone when I included them. I tried to explain how the Queen rules over the Realm of New Zealand, which is made up of 3 sovereign states (and their territories, but that's not necessary since we'd have to list the UK's territories). [Soffredo] 19:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is now better met by revision 05:11, 25 September at[3] --Qexigator (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC).....15:59, 25 September[4] --Qexigator (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For Niue and the Cook Islands to be "part of the Commonwealth realm", the Realm of New Zealand would have to be a Commonwealth realm. Do you have even one reliable source to support such a claim as the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm? Did you read through the prior discussions on this subject that I pointed you to? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Good to see that other users are supporting. Miesianacal: you are being way too stubborn. This source here: [5] describes the Realm of New Zealand, comprising New Zealand "and its associated states and dependencies" (page 10), as a Commonwealth Realm. Ladril (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And this other, which describes the Realm of New Zealand as part of the Commonwealth: [6] (it is from a goverment source, BRTW). Ladril (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware of the nature of that dispute. The only pertinent question is: Is the Realm of New Zealand a Commonwealth realm? No sources have been provided to support that it is. There's not even any evidence the Realm of New Zealand is a state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I have always understood (for what that's worth) the term Realm of New Zealand, it's not much more than a description of the constitutional ties between New Zealand and the two countries with which it is in free association. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The "nature of the dispute" is that there is an unsourced claim that a Commonwealth Realm has to be a single state. As we have shown using several sources, that is not true. And as the sources show, the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth Realm. I don't know what's needed to get this message across. Ladril (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Is New Zealand (as apart from the Realm of New Zealand) a Commonwealth Realm in your view? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the nature of the dispute is that there is an unsourced claim that the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. The question of whether or not it's a state (which it has been proven it is not) is actually rather irrelevant. Sources show New Zealand included among the Commonwealth realms; none show the Realm of New Zealand.

Start and RfC, if you want to see which message gets across to the community. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that to say that "New Zealand" is the proper name of one of the sovereign states which are Commonwealth realms, but "Realm of (Name)..." is not a proper name for this or any other Commonwealth realm? Qexigator (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. New Zealand is both a Commonwealth realm and a part of the Realm of New Zealand; the Realm of New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm. (I know; the various uses of 'realm' makes it rather confusing.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically the term Realm of New Zealand came into being by Letters Patent in 1983. It was used therein to describe the area over which the Governor-General exercises authority in the name of the Queen of New Zealand, and therefore the area over which the Queen of New-Zealand is sovereign. It is not the name of a state but merely the name of a constitutional construct in which the relations between New Zealand and its freely associated states and dependencies are described. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a damn fine way of putting it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And that means that you, Miesianacal, are wrong (though you do not perceive it). Yeah, let's cut to the chase. I know you're not going to change your opinion until you see a webpage that, in your opinion, proves that "the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth Realm". You have a right to an opinion. And no, why start an RfC? This page can have erroneous information if that's what people want it to have. Ladril (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't mean I am wrong at all; you merely think I am. You obviously, though, don't think that strongly enough to test it before the community. I trust, then, this will be the end of the matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

re:Gerard von Hebel, 17:25, 1 Nov. above - unaffected by Lad.'s later ad hominem against Mies.: Yes, as made evident in the first numbered part of the said "Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand" in the reprint (SR 1983/225) as at 22 August 2006[7], and the oath of office in 6(b), the same letters patent being the second source cited at Realm of New Zealand. As GvH points out, if read attentively, that leaves no room for doubt. The note (previously inserted by Mies.) in the present version of Commonwealth realm[8] is correct, and if not strictly necessary, it is helpful given the generic use of "realm", and the use of "Realm" as part of a proper name. It states the position more concisely, in a way better suited to this article, than at the links from the Table: Monarchy of New Zealand and New Zealand. Qexigator (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it does not seem like you know what ad hominem fallacy really means. I did not attack the poster Miesianacal. Indeed, he or she may be right that sources are not as clear as we would like about this matter. However, that does not diminish the fact that there is one and only Monarchy of New Zealand, which has changed names in the following order: 1) first, Dominion of New Zealand, 2) secondly, realm of New Zealand, and finally, 3) Realm of New Zealand with a capital "R". During the entire 1907-2013 period, the Cook Islands and Niue have formed integral part of this Monarchy of New Zealand (today called a Realm with capital "R"), which means that they share the Queen as head of state with the other 15 Commonwealth Realms in the exact same manner that New Zealand proper does. The argument of the dominant group on this page that there is a Commonwealth Realm called "New Zealand" which is different from the Realm of New Zealand does not make sense, because the Realm of New Zealand is the legal construct which establishes the power of the Queen as head of state for both New Zealand proper and the entire Realm. If the argument of the people here were true, then it would mean that the claim of NZ, the CI and Niue to have a shared head of state would be completely invalid. In other words, what you're implying is that somehow there are two monarchies of New Zealand. That cannot be: there is one and only one, to which the CI and Niue belong. So these two associated states form part of a Commonwealth Realm that shares its head of state with Canada, Australia, the UK, etc.

We're not going to agree, right? Didn't think so. Ladril (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside to Miesianiacal: here is a book titled: "The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand" [9]. On page 184, it says: "...including the three territories that form part of the Queen's New Zealand Realm: Cook Islands, Tokalau and Niue". Is this, by any chance, sufficient to move things forward? Ladril (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Not agree, Lad.? Given that, as explained above, the existence of New Zealand as a sovereign state and one of the Commonwealth realms was not abrogated by the proclamation of the Queen's "Realm of New Zealand" as comprising "(a) New Zealand; and (b) the self-governing state of the Cook Islands; and (c) the self-governing state of Niue; and (d) Tokelau; and (e) the Ross Dependency"; and that, unlike Australia and Canada, those entities have not been constituted as a federal union forming a single state; and that the Realm of New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm, as that is understood by those states which are members of the Commonwealth: there is no need to disagree, but to get used to the terminology which had been deliberately adopted by those who were responsible for issuing the proclamation, accepted by those who have given effect to it in the course of their official duties, and acknowledged by other governments. And don't you see that the quote you give (from p.184) does not support your contention, and would not override the proclamation? Qexigator (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Qex., your language is a bit complicated to me. Let me see if we can get some things straight. First, what do you mean by "those states that are members of the Commonwealth"? "The Commonwealth Realms" is a group of monarchies characterized by the fact that they share Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State. It is not an international organization with membership criteria. As a result, there are no "members of the Commonwealth" that are relevant to this article. Are we talking about the same thing here? Ladril (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Another bit in response to Miesianiacal: I'm not even sure the very first assertion in the article is sufficiently sourced. Do we have any valid sources that prove that a Commonwealth Realm is by definition a sovereign state? The official website of the British Monarchy refers to a "Realm" as a "country" (not a "state") [10]. Ladril (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Commonwealth is an international organization with member states. Those member states that share the same monarch are referred to as "Commonwealth Realms." Neither the Realm of New Zealand nor NZ's associated states are members, only NZ is. The palace publishes a list of member states of the Commonwealth as well a CRs, which is definitive. Their list of CRs includes NZ, but not the Realm of New Zealand or NZ's associated states. TFD (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the existence of the Commonwealth of Nations. But usage of the term "Commonwealth" to refer to the realms dates from much earlier than the creation of this organization. To me at least, one does not seem to depend on the other (I might be wrong). So, basically, the argument is that the Realm of NZ is not a Commonwealth Realm because other members of the Commonwealth have not understood it to be so? And where is the source that clearly states that the Commonwealth Realm of New Zealand comprises only New Zealand and not the other parts of the Realm of New Zealand? Where is the source that states that a Commonwealth Realm is by definition a sovereign state? I have seen none so far. Are we relying on assumptions or facts for this article? Ladril (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is the Royal Family's website.[11] They coined the term, they define it, and they decide what countries are included. TFD (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I know that page. But if the very first assertion in the article "a Commonwealth Realm is a sovereign state" is not clearly stated in your source, and if there are other sources that make it explicit that the term "Realm" is not equal to "state", then we have material for questioning your case. You can say that my contention that the Realm of NZ is a Commonwealth Realm is insufficiently established; but I can also say that your contention that only NZ proper forms a Commonwealth Realm is insufficiently established as well. Neither the consensual view nor the view of the challengers is sufficiently established, I would say. The result of this, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is that we're left with a confusing, poorly-sourced article. Ladril (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Other editors and I have patiently responded to your questions and we now appear to be wandering from your original issue. NZ is listed as a CR, the Realm of NZ, Niue and CI are not. TFD (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge and thank you for your patience, but you can rest assured that it is not my intention to argue for the sake of it. What I'm pointing out is a real problem: your source says that a Commonwealth Realm is a "country". That's not enough information to make the rather strong claim that "country" means "sovereign state". Since we have other sources that argue against this use of the word "realm", there is even more reason to doubt what is written on the article. This would be nothing but nitpicking if it were not for the fact that it is generating a lot of confusion among editors (you know, those of us who are challenging the wording in the article are Wikipedia editors too). There will be a prolongued debate about this, I assume. Ladril (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The word "country", like many other words in the English language, can mean different things. There is no doubt from the context what the meaning is, nor any doubt that all of the states listed are sovereign. TFD (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, and judging from the attempts at editing from several editors, I doubt we can say that "there is no doubt what the meaning is". There are motives for doubt (WP:LISTEN), and there are no sources that really resolve this doubt beyond question. Since the CI and Niue have always been part of the Dominion of New Zealand (whatever it is called now) implying on the article that NZ is a Commonwealth Realm without them included is a strong and unsourced claim, which in the near future will require much better sources than those currently used in the article. Ladril (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of disruptive editing. I am patiently addressing your concerns and if you do not withdraw your comment I will stop replying. New Zealand is listed by the palace as a CR. The CI and Niue were never part of NZ, they were Non-Self-Governing Territories, and are now associated states. TFD (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not make any accusation against you. Sorry if I seem to be communicating poorly. When I mentioned other editors are attempting to change the page, what I was trying to say is that there are others who have tried to make changes to this page in recent times, and they have been reverted because of disagreements on what the status of the Realm of New Zealand means for this page. In other words, I want to make you aware that there currently is a disagreement among two groups of editors on this issue. It is not "one editor against the rest". I mention this for the record and for procedural reasons. Ladril (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The realms as sovereign states

In connection with the above discussion, regular editors will be aware that, using normally accepted terminology, the Commonwealth of Nations is an intergovernmental organisation, listed under 'Cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious organizations'[12] and the Commonwealth Secretariat has observer status in the United Nations General Assembly. At the Secretariat's website the member countries are listed here[13], and a history is given here[14]. The "Charter of the Commonwealth", sgned by Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth, on Commonwealth Day 2013, is viewable here [15]. --Qexigator (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but I suspect we are going to need more than that in order to develop a coherent article. How the Commonwealth's website defines its members is one thing (and, unfortunately for the defenders of the current version, there is still nothing in that page that states unambiguosly that all Commonwealth Realms are sovereign states). Quite a different thing, however, is how New Zealand defines itself as a Realm in relation to its own head of state. The evidence that we have from external sources (which none of the defenders has cited so far) suggests: 1) that "Realm" does not always mean "a sovereign state", and 2) that there is not a clear definition that the term "Commonwealth Realm" refers to anything different than the realm over which Queen Elizabeth is head of state (the Realm of New Zealand). Not wanting to acknowledge this inconsistency is what is generating a confusion that may be detrimental to the functioning of Wikipedia. So as a starting point, would it be too much to ask that the wording "a Commonwealth Realm is a sovereign state" be replaced with the wording "a Commonwealth Realm is a country?". This is exactly what your sources say. Ladril (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The word "realm" merely means a territory under a sovereign. TFD (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the sovereign claims to rule over the territory of the "Realm of New Zealand": “As the Governor General in and over the Realm of New Zealand..." TDL (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And within that realm are other realms, one of which (NZ) is a CR. TFD (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ladril (talk) that the Cook Islands and Niue form an integral part of the Monarchy of New Zealand, as they have from the beginning. However, that Monarchy pertains to New Zealand and not to what is called the Realm of New Zealand. Remember that the Realm of New Zealand is not a subject of International Law and has no authority to enter into international agreements. It has therefore not ratified the Statute of Westminster and is not subject to that agreement. There has also been no legislation passed to make the RoNZ a Commonwealth Realm. The RoNZ is rather an internal arrangement in which New Zealand (the sovereign state of that name) and its freely associated states have clarified their internal relations. It is decidedly not just a new name for what was previously called New Zealand or Dominion of New Zealand or realm with a little r (strange not to capitalize that) of New Zealand. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@TFD: That's a possibility, but to date I've seen no compelling sources to support that. Unfortunately, the term "New Zealand" is ambiguous and could be short for both the Realm of New Zealand or State of New Zealand, so this doesn't really conclusively resolve the question. TDL (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Gerard, you may well be right. But as long as your position and those of other users on this page is not supported by an satisfactory set of quality sources, you are asking us (me and the other editors who are questioning the current setup) to engage in an act of faith. You and the other editors who are defending the status quo need to be more open to the fact that your justifications are precariously sourced at best. Referencing lists of countries on the British Monarchy's website is not enough to write Wikipedia articles that will provide a clear, substantiated understanding to the general reader. We need reliable third party sources that andwer the following questions: is the Commonwealth Realm of New Zealand different from what was defined in 1983 as the Realm of New Zealand? Is there a definition of the status of the CI and Niue in relation to the Commonwealth? What exactly does the concept of "New Zealand as a Commonwealth Realm" comprise? And most importantly, if it turns out that your argument is correct, how do we edit this and the Realm of New Zealand page to make it absolutely clear to the reader where New Zealand in the Commonwealth ends and the Realm of New Zealand begins? We need more than "this is the way things are, because I say so". We need third party sources which tell us exactly what things are. Ladril (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lad., if it is being proposed that any one or more of the countries listed at the Secretariat's website[16] is not a sovereign state in the terminology normally accepted between governments and under international law, please specify and give a reliable source, or drop it. Spinning words is not enough. For the purposes of the Commonwealth, New Zealand does not "define itself" otherwise than according to the proclamation and the normal terminology and usages of inter-state relations and law mentioned above. So far nothing has been validly presented to the contrary from any source. Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is more helpful since a year (1931) is mentioned. We know what was meant by New Zealand then. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

1931 is the year the Statute of Westminster was enacted. At that time New Zealand was still a Dominion, and the CI and Niue were part of it. It's still not of much help, unfortunately. Ladril (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is that, according to this page, the set of affairs described, still stands.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. But still, I would argue for the need to answer the questions above based on third-party sources written by scholars of international law. Otherwise, the current wording of both this and the Realm of New Zealand page will prove very confusing to the general reader. Ladril (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, what you're basically asking is a source that states the obvious. And as the obvious mostly needs no statement, that might be somewhat hard to get by. Commonwealth Realms are defined by having a certain sovereign. It would be strange for an entity that is not a sovereign state to have such a functionary. Why would a non-sovereign entity need a sovereign? And if it does.... Well, we'll need a source as to how and why. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, GvH. That list is of "member countries of the Commonwealth...with the years in which they joined the Commonwealth... 'Realm' indicates a Commonwealth country which has The Queen as Sovereign". UK is not in the list. Given that the earliest year in the list is 1931, that page seems to be representing that the Commonwealth is taken as beginning in the year when the Statute of Westminster, with its preamble,[17] was passed, and the then dominions, including "the Dominion of New Zealand", were joining with the UK to form what was there called "the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". Whatever may have been the state of affairs then, there is no doubt that those former dominions have become the independent sovereign states which they are today, and each (except SA) is a realm of the same monarch, recognized as such by each other and by other states and governments. Nothing has been shown to the contrary, because, given the information above the point is indisputable, and in fact is not a matter of public dispute, and lacks notability. Qexigator (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Gerard: the way I see it, and considering all the ink that has been spilled regarding the status of those territories that have transitioned from British colonies to independent or self-governing states, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that somebody might have written something attempting to clarify these issues. Time will tell whether it is possible to improve both this and the Realm of New Zealand page with better sources. Ladril (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Funny that the UK isn't mentioned. I hadn't even noticed! Basically the states mentioned as Realms became independent and sovereign at that point, and since some of them are still on that list, that hasn't changed since the year indicated. There is no entry for NZ (in whatever form) from the 1980's when the RoNZ appeared on the stage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The U.K. is listed as a realm on the palace website. And the CI and Niue were not part of the Dominion of NZ and even if they had been they became associated states in 1965. TFD (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and with that addendum the purpose of this subsection seems to be sufficiently wrapped up. Qexigator (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

...extent of "New Zealand", prior to RoNZ

TFD: sorry, but I do not think that is correct. This 1911 census [18] states: "A census of the Cook and other South Sea Islands, which form part of the
Dominion of New Zealand, was also taken at the same time." Where did you find your information that CI and Niue were not part of the Dominion? Ladril (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As for Niue, this source [19] states (p. 243) that in 1901 Niue was formally annexed to the Dominion of New Zealand. Ladril (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Annexation" does not mean incorporation and the fact that the government treated them as part of NZ for some purposes, does not mean they were part of NZ. Compare with Puerto Rico which was annexed by the U.S. in 1898 and is included as part of the U.S. for census purposes. In fact before NZ annexed the CI it had been annexed by the U.K. although it was never part of the U.K. All this is however moot, because the CI ceased to be a dependency (or if you prefer part of NZ) in 1965. TFD (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that the CI and Niue were ever incorporated into NZ. The point is that they were part of the Dominion and afterwards became part of the realm, then of the Realm. The point of this is that the Realm of today is the successor to the Dominion as it existed until the 1940s or 1950s. I still have to see any hard evidence that there is another, smaller realm within the Realm. Ladril (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that says the Realm of NZ rather than NZ is a member of the Commonwealth. TFD (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's why I mentioned above that we need to clarify what "Commonwealth Realm" means in the case of New Zealand. That's not clearly established in any source I've seen. Ladril (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@TFD: And you need a source that says that the state of NZ, rather than the Realm of NZ, is a member of the Commonwealth.

[20] claims that the Cook Islands is part of a "Commonwealth country". That's inconsistent with the position that only the state of NZ is the Commonwealth member. TDL (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the purpose of that list "of visits undertaken by The Queen and Prince Philip to Commonwealth countries since 1952", has anyone claimed that a "Commonwealth country" would be a misdescription of Cook Islands, as at January 1974? It is not support for claiming that Cook Islands is or ever has been one of the Commonwealth realms. Qexigator (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

TDL's point is that the source suggests CI would be defined as part of the same Commonwealth Realm as NZ. Even by 1974, we could not find any evidence that moving into free association status meant that CI left the Commonwealth. Moreover, this is how the CI's Constitution describes the CI flag to this day: "Union Jack - indicates our historical association with and membership of the British Commonwealth." [21]. Ladril (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I do not agree with Ladril's assumption that the RoNZ is the successor to the Dominion of NZ, I do agree that the CI and Niue are or were part of the Dominion or state of New-Zealand at least for external purposes (that is as pertaining to International law) just as the dependent territories of the UK are considered to be territory of the UK where International law is concerned. The misunderstanding here is that the two territories were of course never part of metropolitan New Zealand as described for internal purposes, just as Gibraltar is not included in the UK as such. But that is a different (internal) matter altogether. This is just about the colloquial difference between the Motherland and Not the Motherland. Nothing else. The question whether dependent territories (or arguably freely associated states for that matter) are regarded as being part of the metropolitan motherland or not is an internal matter and is of no interest whatsoever when it comes to defining what is and what isn't part of a sovereign state in International Law. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

While international law recognizes mother countries as being sovereign over colonies, etc., it does not consider them to be part of them. The United Nations for example distinguished between non-self-governing oveseas territories and overseas territories that are part of the mother country. Hong Kong was not part of the EU. The Commonwealth considers dependent territories to be associated with the member states. TFD (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

UN policies should not be confused with International Law. Certainly not in this matter. The UN is not a subject of International Law, just an agency that executes some aspects of it, mandated by the independent states that are members of the UN. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ladril (talk)says: "I still have to see any hard evidence that there is another, smaller realm within the Realm". And from what I've seen in this and other discussions up till now, I take (for now that is) the position that you could say that indeed there isn't. My position (for now) is that there is a sovereign state that may or may not be called the Dominion of New Zealand. That as far as International Law is concerned the territory of that sovereign state consists of the territories mentioned in the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand of 1983 (for now I don't believe in the status of Niue and the CI as full sovereign and independent states for various reasons) and that the Realm of New Zealand is a function of aforementioned sovereign state in which some of its internal affairs are constituted. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well no it did not consist of those territories which were considered separate non-self governing territories under international law. And since the term "Commonwealth Realm" is Commonwealth jargon, they are entitled to use it any way they wish and they have decided to apply the term to NZ. NZ clearly meets the definition of a realm, it is a territory ruled by a monarch. So is Gibraltar. But that is all tangential to what the Commonwealth means by the term CR. TFD (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My point is that for the purpose of establishing if a state is sovereign and what the sovereign territory of that state is, International law does not concern itself with questions of motherland and dependent territory. These are internal matters of the sovereign entity and are decided entirely by them. France for instance at some point decided to make its colony of Algeria an integral part of metropolitan France. Whatever policies or definitions the UN or the EU or any international organization may or may not have towards territories defined as dependent, they do not come into the definition of a certain sovereign state's sovereign territory where the International community is concerned. The point is that these territories were regarded as dependent not by International law, but by New Zealand law. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Has enough now been said so far as concerns discussing improvements to the Commonwealth realm article mentioned at the top of this page? As I understand it, the reasoning of GvH and TFD are both correct, in the result at least (as in a court where judges agree in a result but may be with some differences of reasoning); and if so, the information in the present version of the article is correct as well as consistent with the information in connected articles. There has not been (has there?) any public dispute about this among the parties themselves, namely, the governments of NZ or Cook Islands, or any one or more of the Commonwealth menbers or the government of any other sovereign state. If there has been, the information should be added in the first place to the articles about those parties, and whether it has been resolved or is still in issue between them. If not, the question does not arise for the purposes of the article, or this Talk page. Qexigator (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, obviously it has not. You are free to agree with the opinions put forward by others, but wikipedia is not a blog, and we cann't publish personal WP:OR. Someone needs to produce WP:RS to back up opinions such as "and they have decided to apply the term to NZ". Otherwise, it is purely a guess. TDL (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

TDL, see the palace webite which lists NZ. GvH, U.N. has established a category called "non-self-governing territories" and in fact CI and Nieu are considered "associated states" which is also a term recognized under international law. So while Gibraltar and the Falklands are dependencies of the U.K., the UN would be unlikely to recognize their incorporation into the U.K., let alone Hong Kong when it was a colony. TFD (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the palace website, but the phrase "New Zealand" is ambiguous, it could refer to the sovereign state of NZ OR the Realm of NZ. Given the context of a list of realms, it's entirely possible, if not probably, that it's the latter. If you want to make the claim that it is the former, you need a source to support that. TDL (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The Palace website also lists the year 1931 in which there was arguably no RoNZ as we 'know' it today so, if we take their word for it that cannot be meant there. TFD, "The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government". Whatever the UN established in that context is clearly their own policy and not International Law in the sense that it determines if states are sovereign or what encompasses their territory, let alone how that is arranged internally. The UN cannot determine what the internal makeup of a sovereign state looks like. Neither can other countries. The UN can make policies in which they define stuff but that doesn't make it International law. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Danlaycock that "New Zealand" in this context is ambiguous. It seems to me that it is most likely referring to the Realm of New Zealand - it is, after all, the one that has "realm" in it. If it just refers to New Zealand, then by the criteria set out in the article the Cook Islands and Niue are also Commonwealth Realms (which I don't think is right), since they are sovereign states with the Queen as head of state. Neljack (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What problem?

In view of the concerns expressed let me confirm that my last comment above was not proposing that personal opinion be published in the article, as can be seen by following the reasoning. I don't see "and they have decided to apply the term to NZ" in the article, so what is thought to be the problem? I think we all know that names like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and many others, have certain ambiguities according to context, like the word "realm". Is this a semantic or grammatical problem? In the case of the list at the palace website, ambiguity has been avoided by distinguishing the use being made there of "monarchy" to refer to a kingdom which, as such, is a realm, but is not held by any authoritative and responsible person or body anywhere (including governments) to be a "Commonwealth Realm". There is really no call for inventing a problem, as if there were any dispute about this, where none exists in the real world of public affairs. It doesn't, does it? So this is a private affair of one or two who are posting here (in good faith) with no basis but private opinion. So far as the article is concerned, the position is sufficiently explained for readers in the Table footnote, and links are given to the main articles if any reader needs further information Qexigator (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Protestant vs. Non-Catholic

I have edited the reversion by Hebel. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 while removing the bar on the monarch marrying a Roman Catholic did not change the requirement that the monarch be a Protestant. Hebel argued that only Catholics were excluded, but not those of other non-Christian faiths. This is not true. The Act of Settlement 1701 requires that the monarch "join in communion with the Church of England." This was not changed by the 2013 act. In addition, the British monarch is supreme governor of the Church of England, thus he or she cannot be of another faith, nor even of another Christian denomination. To quote the current Prime Minister, David Cameron, on this issue: "Let me be clear, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that Church." See article: http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/catholics_still_barred_from_throne_despite_law_change_1_1937348. Jm3106jr (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Act does not say the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England before they ascend the throne but must "joyn in Communion" upon ascent. Curiously it does even say that the Anglican church is protestant, and it is contentious whether or not the Anglican members of the "holy catholic" church are protestants. TFD (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And more to the point; George I and George II remained Lutherans after their ascending the throne; and worshipped as Lutherans in Hanover. More to the point; the Queen is a member of the Church of Scotland as regards Scotland-which is a Calvinist/Presbyterian Church rather than an Anglican/Episcopalian one like the Church of England.

In short; all the 1701 Act says as regards religion is that the person cannot be baptised (i.e. be) Roman Catholic or married to a Roman Catholic. They can be any other religion or married to someone of any other religion- be it Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, Ba'haiism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Satanism, Paganism, anything as long as it is not Roman Catholicism-which is exactly why King Michael of Romania, Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia, and King Constantine II of Greece; all Eastern Orthodox, as well as King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, King Harald V of Norway and Andreas, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ; all Lutherans, remain in the line of succession to the British throne, but King Juan Carlos I of Spain, a Roman Catholic, does not, despite the fact that all the people listed are descendents of Electress Sophia of Hanover.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No defintion is provided for "in communion with" and we would need a source to interpret it. It probably just means that one is a Christian who does not call Anglicans heretics. TFD (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that being a Buddhist or A Muslim will be an impediment for a British monarch, but only Catholics and people who have married a Catholic are excluded beforehand and will not even get the chance to "join in communion" with the CoE. The purpose of the legislation however is clearly stated. Uphold the Protestant succession to the Throne. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be an 'impediment' for a British monarch? There is nothing whatsoever in the 1701 Act that excludes either. Granted, the purpose of the Act was undoubtably to ensure protestant succession to the throne (which would at any rate also include Calvinists/Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, etc. etc. in addition to Anglicans), but neither religion is excluded. In the unlikely event that a member of the British Royal family married say, a member of the Bhutanese or Cambodian Royal families (both Buddhist) or Saudi Arabian or Jordanian Royal families (both Sunni muslim), or converted to either religion or raised their children as Buddhists or Muslims, they would not be excluded under the terms of the 1701 Act.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right but it would (given the present constitutional situation) cause some quaint situations. The King or Queen would have to make his accession declaration before Parliament, in which some religious language is included: ", N, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power". The person involved would accede as King or Queen but will get into some difficulties along the way when starting his or her reign. Theoretically an 'Edward VIII' type situation could ensue where upon refusing to make the declaration or proposing changes the government would 'advise' the monarch to step down. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't really see a problem with a Buddhist having to take such an Oath, as Buddhism has never been an 'exclusionary' faith in the same way the Abrahamic religions are. That is, one can follow other faiths and they can still be considered 'Buddhist'. It's quite common in China, for example, for one to be a Buddhist, but also be a Taoist or Confucianist or follow the Chinese Traditional Religion, or to be some combination of the above or even all four, or, as in Japan; for someone to follow Buddhism and Shintoism simultaneously.

As for 'quaint situations'; any more 'quaint' than William III being a Calvinist, or George I and George II being life-long Lutherans?

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least William III and the first two George's could declare with a straight face that they were Protestants. It would look odd for a Bhuddist or Muslim to make such a statement. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A Muslim; perhaps (though there is no legal reason they could not do so of course), not a Buddhist. One could be an Anglican and Buddhist simultaneously: Buddhism has long(like the other dharmic religions, Hinduism and Jainism) not excluded one from joining or practicing any other religion. For this reason, a Buddhist could quite legitimately claim they were being a 'faithful Protsetant' with no qualms. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

To 'join in communion with' would mean they would have to join in the Communion Eucharist service, I would imagine. William III, George I and George II all did so whilst in Britain.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe they did. For a Lutheran less problematic than for (at least some) Calvinists I would gather. William III said about his coronation mass that he regarded it as a silly popish ceremony (een zotte paapse ceremonie). However doesn't communion stand for a level of communion between different churches? I think that nowadays at least Lutheran Churches are regarded as being "in communion" with the CoE. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well there certainly is the Porvoo Communion that exists today between the Church of England and (some) Lutheran churches, but not back then; no.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Porvoo Communion says they are in "full communion", but it recognizes they are in communion rather than creates it, because there is only one holy catholic and apostolic church. We would need a source on how this would be interpreted. Presumably it would be up to the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, who happens to be the sovereign. TFD (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I as the OP of this section and the one who changed 'non-Catholic' to 'Protestant' find the above arguments confusing and oddly ecclesiological. This is an issue of law, not doctrine. It is most certainly not about what constitutes the 'holy catholic church' or whether Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans recognize each others sacraments. There is no question that by law the British monarch must be a Protestant and that the legislation ensures a Protestant succession. It does not matter if Roman Catholics are excluded from the line of succession while Eastern Orthodox and non-Anglican Protestants are not. Whoever accedes to the throne must be a Protestant and take the required oaths and serve as the (admittedly titular) supreme governor of the Church of England, unless Parliament changes the law. To join in communion with the Church of England includes both an assent to its doctrine and worship as well as to a participation in its sacraments and rites. Arguments that the Church of England is somehow not Protestant as proposed by some in its Anglo-Catholic wing are irrelevant, but in any event one need only read the still enforce Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion to dispel this idea. There was never an issue whether a non-Anglican Protestant could become monarch as long as he or she conformed to the Church of England upon accession, as the Scottish James VI did when he became James I of England. It also has no bearing whether William III was Dutch Reformed or the Hanoverians were Lutherans. They conformed to the Church of England and they had no choice in the matter. This was settled by the Glorious Revolution. In Scotland, the custom (but not the law) is that the monarch conforms within its borders to the Church of Scotland as an ordinary lay member. Additionally, no person likely to accede to the British throne can simply marry anyone he or she wishes. It is a state decision that requires government approval as well as the current monarch's personal approval. The British monarchy is a constitutional monarchy governed by the UK Parliament. At present, the UK Parliament has opted to retain the Protestant succession. Jm3106jr (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that says that is what the act means by "join in communion with." TFD (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the evidence from the various Acts of Parliament dating back to the 1534 Act of Supremacy, the Act of Supremacy 1558 and subsequent acts regarding both the succession and royal marriages, along with various declarations by the UK Government up to the present day, make it abundantly clear what it means "to join in communion with" the Church of England for anyone who has any reasonable possibility of becoming the UK monarch. I think your demand for an additional source is a form of hairsplitting. Jm3106jr (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Realm of Cook Islands

Well, no, this isn't really about. More of a distraction from that unending conflict. Sweeping through the article, I noticed the following in in note 3 to that table on Commonwealth relams: Dates indicate the year of enactment of the Statute of Westminster (Canada), adoption by realm (Australia and New Zealand), or grant of independence (all others except the UK); the monarch became head of state of the particular realm on this date as a result of one of these events. Stating that the monarch is head of state of Australia is problematical because views on the question of whether the Queen or the Governor-General is (or possibly both are) head of state are divided, and the differences in opinions carry all the way through the community, the media and the government.This story is a good current example.

I've replaced "head of state" with "sovereign", but Mies has chosen not to accept this, saying that "monarch" and ":sovereign" are equivalent. I wouldn't say precisely that, but I do accept his point. Any ideas?

By the by, Tony Abbott has been firmly in the "Governor-General as head of state" camp since I first met him at the 1998 Constitutional Convention, so I dare say that we'll have material to discuss before too long, now that he is the Prime Minister. --Pete (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Head of State of any monarchy is the 'sovereign', as opposed to a republic, in which the people are 'sovereign', but the Head of State is not. That's what the term 'monarchy' means; 'rule by one' (from the Greek 'monos archos'). Australia is a monarchy. The monarch is the sovereign. Treaties and declarations of war as regards Australia are declared in the name of Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, and the court system is 'Her Majesty the Queen in right of Australia vs John Smith', just like it is the UK, as opposed to a republic like the United States, where the courts are carried out in the name of the people of the United States; 'The People vs John Smith', and all that.

Any powers delegated to the Governor-General are only theirs by delegation and by Royal consent, and are not the powers of the Governor-General in their own right, who in any case is only ever the monarch's representative.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JWULTRABLIZZARD! You express your view in a forthright way, but we must source our material, and we have good sources for both points of view. I refer you to Australian head of state dispute for a look at the positions expressed there. It has been common practice, for example, for the Australian media to refer to the Governor-General as the Australian head of state. We cannot ignore a generation's worth of media reporting because we don't like their turn of phrase. We have to look at reliable sources, and the "Governor-General as head of state" view is no longer the fringe position it used to be.

We don't have any source of such overwhelming authority as to settle the matter definitively. No firm statement in the Constitution, for instance. All sources for one view are either countered by sources for the other view, or are the result of some synthesised reasoning as you have demonstrated above. In recent years, particularly after the debate and referendum on a republic in 1999, the local convention has been to recognise that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state and that Elizabeth II is our sovereign.

A similar approach works well in Wikipedia. Saying that the Queen is the monarch or the sovereign is undeniably true, supported by definitive sources. Labelling her as the head of state is problematic, a matter of giving that view undue weight over the alternative. Our alternatives then become to call the Queen the Australian sovereign, or to find a form of wording that gives both views appropriate weight, an approach which is generally wordy and needs a reference to the main article.

I'm not denying or dismissing your opinion, which is one widely held, though rarely expressed in such a refined and scholarly manner. I'm just asking how we as Wikipedians comply with wikipolicy in our wording. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a dispute in Australia about who is head of state, and therefore the statement should be qualified. In fact more should be written about the term, since it is not written into any constitution and there is doubt whether the Queen can be head of state when the Queen is the state. And governors-general are treated as heads of state by foreign countries.

OTOH it shows the problems that this article presents. It begins with reporting that the palace recognizes independent member states of the Commonwealth that have the Queen as sovereign as CRs and provides a list. Everything else we say is just OR.

TFD (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The matter at hand is coming up with an alternate composition for the note, is it not? I'm fine with keeping it as is. I also think it's clunky to say "the monarch became sovereign"; it's akin to saying "the monarch became monarch". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, that was my first construction, and yes it doesn't sing. I'm thinking that rather than replacing one word, the whole sentence needs to be redrafted. Realistically, we're talking about the date a colony became a realm - we don't need to include the monarch at all. I've deleted everything past the semi-colon, so note 3 now reads: "Dates indicate the year of enactment of the Statute of Westminster (Canada), adoption by realm (Australia and New Zealand), or grant of independence (all others except the UK)." --Pete (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As you'll see from my last edit summary, I disagree with the opinion that "we don't need to include the monarch at all". The significance of the enactment of the Statute of Westminster will not be known to all readers. There may be another way to impart that significance, but, until such a way is found, the explanation of the shift in the monarch's role should remain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about a note to the headings of a table. May I suggest that the body of the text is a better place for fine or complex points? --Pete (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It is and that is as it is now. The note simply explains what is the significance of the dates in the column; it is required because the explanation isn't as simple as "date of independence" or "date realmhood attained" or some such thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The note puts forward a proposition not found in the main text. Are we really requiring our readers to wade through footnotes to discover hidden secrets? If it is important, then why not put it into the body of the text? --Pete (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the proposition in the note not found in the main text? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

the monarch became head of state of the particular realm on this date as a result of one of these events --Pete (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That is in the article body. Can you maybe be more specific as to what you perceive to be wrong with the sentence you quoted? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The statement is false and unsupported. Canada for example was a founding member of the league of nations and recognized as an independent nation by the U.S. in 1926. Yet according to this, it did not acquire a head of state until 1931. TFD (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is false, unsourced, original research, and (despite Mies' obfuscation) not found in the main body of the article text. --Pete (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence says nothing about recognised independence by the US.

Pete/Skyring, can you maybe be more specific as to what you perceive to be wrong with the sentence you quoted? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unsourced. See WP:RS for policy. --Pete (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As a partial summary of the 'Historical development' section, it is not unsourced; I'm sure you can see that the 'Historical development' section has many sources. Thus, can you please be more specific as to what you perceive to be wrong with the sentence you quoted? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely you are not enlisting WP:SYNTH to your banner? If there is a source for the statement, then present it, please. You cannot say that it is everywhere and nowhere. --Pete (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Good grief. If it's a summary of sourced material, it obviously isn't synthesis. Do you think all article leads should be deleted per WP:SYNTH, since they don't normally contain references (as per WP guidelines)? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The point of U.S. recognition of independence is that it is the lastest date at which one could assume that Canada was not a country, since they were among the last countries to recognize Canadian independence. Of course even dependent territories have heads of state. See "Ex parte Quark": "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." (my emphasis)[22] Aren't the dates more likely when the various countries became members of the Commonwealth, and hence CRs? (Note that dependent territories are not eligible for membership.) TFD (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't about the Commonwealth of Nations, though. Countries became Commonwealth realms long after the Commonwealth of Nations accepted countries that aren't Commonwealth realms. The dates mark when the countries attained near total or total sovereignty; when it is recognised that they becoming kingdoms in their own right with their own monarch (though each's monarch is the same person). Canada (ignoring all the other Commonwealth realms, for the time being) may have been recognised as independent by the US in 1926, but Canada's king did not act on Canadian matters only on the advice of the Canadian parliament and cabinet; the king in his British parliament and cabinet still held the authority to legislate for Canada without request or consent of the Canadian government or parlaiment. That ceased to be the case after 1931. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to explain why the sovereign was head of state in 1873 according to the House of Lords, but according to you did not become head of state of Australia until 1931. And you need a source, otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your focus seems misdirected. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mies, when you resort to obfuscation like those comments above, I know you are on the run. I know it, you know it, so why do it? --Pete (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)