Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

The "Realm of New Zealand" is not an offical name

AVD - how about the Realm of New Zealand? Let me guess, that term is wrong because you say it is? --Lholden 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah - that one did slip my mind. --gbambino 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html

New Zealand CIA Factbook Entry

long form name: none

short form name: New Zealand


Sorry, LHolden and gbambino, you are both wrong.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook also claims that the Governor General is Canada's head of state, so I wouldn't count on it as a definitive source. That said, a) Lewis will know better than I what the official name of New Zealand is, and b) this isn't really the place for this discussion. --gbambino 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No "Lewis" does not know better. Additionally, you and "Lewis" entered into this topic. You opened "Pandora's Box", so don't bitch about what comes out eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Realm of New Zealand is the official name for the territory in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. New Zealand is only one nation in the Realm. New Zealand its self does not have a long name Brian | (Talk) 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No. It is the Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependencies.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

we've just had this debate on the Dominion of New Zealand talkpage. New Zealand no longer is a Dominion. (see talk page) Brian | (Talk) 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Realm of New Zealand is the territory in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. The Realm comprises New Zealand, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency, and the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue. The legal basis for the name "Realm of New Zealand" comes from:

  • The Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General 1983 uses the term "Realm of New Zealand";
  • The 11 February 1952 Accession Proclamation of Queen Elizabeth II proclaims Her Majesty as sovereign of "...this realm";
  • The Royal Titles Act 1953 proclaimed Her Majesty as "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Her Other "Realms and Territories"; and
  • With the passage of the Royal Titles Act 1974 Queen Elizabeth II's royal title in New Zealand has been “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.”
  • In any New Zealand passports issued post 1978 (after the Citizenship Act 1977) the phrase "The Governor-General in the "Realm of New Zealand" has been used.
  • Section 5(2) Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 refers to “realm”
  • The Interpretation Act says "New Zealand" or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the "Realm of New Zealand"; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency.”

This is just summary of proof that we have dropped dominion, and Realm is the offical name used, and that "New Zealand" as a whole does not have a full name, New Zealand is only one nation in the Realm. Brian | (Talk) 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at your above statement,
"have dropped dominion, and Realm is the offical name used"
What this really means is that the successive Governments of New Zealand have chosen to not use the long form name of the Dominion of New Zealand. To re-emphasize we are only talkng about USAGE, and not what the long form name actual is (i.e., it is in fact Dominion of New Zealand).
Bluntly put, the long form name of the Dominion of New Zealand was adopted on Sept. 9, 1907, and offically came into force on Sept. 26, 1907, via a Royal Proclamation. The only way to undo that is via another Act of Parliament (and then perhaps to announce it via a second Royal Proclamation). Barring that, you folkes could write a Royal Letters Patent declaring New Zealand being called the People's Republic of In-bread Sheep-Shaggers, and it still would be called in LAW by the long form name of the Dominion of New Zealand.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand was never repealed

Proclamation Declaring that the Colony of New Zealand shall be called and known by the title of the Dominion of New Zealand. London, September 9, 1907.

(Source: The London Gazette, Numb. 28058., p.6149, Tuesday, September 10, 1907)

By the KING.

A PROCLAMATION

Declaring that the Colony of New Zealand shall be called and known by the title of the Dominion of New Zealand.

EDWARD R.& I.

Whereas We have on the Petition of the Members of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of Our Colony of New Zealand determined that the title of Dominion of New Zealand shall be substituted for that of the Colony of New Zealand as the designation of the said Colony, We have therefore by and with the advice of Our Privy Council thought fit to issue this Our Royal Proclamation and We do ordain, declare and command that on and after the twenty-sixth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and seven, the said Colony of New Zealand and the territory belonging thereto shall be called and known by the title of the Dominion of New Zealand. And We hereby give Our Commands to all Public Departments accordingly.

Given at Our Court at Buckingham Place, this ninth day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, and in the seventh year of Our Regin.

GOD save the KING.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Names of countries

The United Nations periodically publishes a "terminology bulletin" containing "country names" as well as official lists of treaties and the Member States who have signed them. The listing of country names includes the "long form" and "short form" name for each country. Sometimes, the two are identical.

According to this official source, the long form name of Canada is simply "Canada", and the long form name of New Zealand is simply "New Zealand." No other words of any kind. I thought this might be of interest to the readership here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


No. The long form name of both Canada and New Zealand is listed as none. The word none is ambigious. The short form names are of course Canada and New Zealand, respectively.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Both entries of which proves nothing.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess nothing will convince you, but these are the official names that the government of each country wants used for the most formal official purposes. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will observe again that the official names of various countries have nothing to do with this article, so there is no point to any of us discussing it here, whatever our views on the matter. JPD (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I only mentioned the use of "Realm of New Zealand" in New Zealand. This is not simply a question of usage, as Brian sets out above, it is also the legal reality. AVD will no doubt disagree and make some offensive remarks about New Zealand, but that does not change the reality that by Royal Proclamation of 1952, New Zealand's long-form name is either simply New Zealand or the Realm of New Zealand. Either way, as JPD states above, it doesn't change anything about this article really, aside from refuting AVD's assertion that no country uses the term 'realm' in its long-form name. --Lholden 07:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


LHolden your above statement,
"by Royal Proclamation of 1952, New Zealand's long-form name is either simply New Zealand or the Realm of New Zealand."
does not follow. The Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 does NOT explictly abolish the term Dominion (or Dominion Status). The word Realm was inserted to take the place of the term British Dominion's across the Seas. The word Realm is a non-specific generic term, denoting any country that has a Monarch as a (figure) Head-of-State.


References
[1]. F.R. Scott, "The End of Dominion Status", The Canadian Bar Review, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp.725-744, November, (1945).
[2]. W.D. McIntyre, "The Strange Death of Dominion Status", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol.27, No.2, pp.193-212, (1999).
[3]. J.A. Dabbs, Dei Gratia in Royal Titles, Mouton and Co., The Hague, Netherlands, pp.280, (1971).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Realm of New Zealand" exists, it is the official name for the territory in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. New Zealand is only one nation in the Realm. The realm also includes Tokelau and the Ross Dependency, and the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue.
Even the royal offical website recognises the term [1]
as lewis has said it doesn't change anything about this article really, aside from refuting AVD's assertion that no country uses the term 'realm' in its long-form name. Brian | (Talk) 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Brian, the long form name for the whole shah-bang is,

Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependencies

where the dependencies (of the Dominion of New Zealand) have the following designations,

Associated State of the Cook Islands,

Associated State of Niue,

Ross Dependency,

Territory of Tokelau.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

no:

Brian | (Talk) 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A Royal Letters Patent can not over-rule an Act of Parliament (or a Royal Proclamation). The original names are still in legal force regardless of the Royal Letters Patent issued by the Government of New Zealand.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I did actually get the above wrong; technically New Zealand's long-form name isn't the "Realm of New Zealand"; as Brian states above the "Realm of New Zealand" is a different entity from New Zealand proper; which is a part of the realm.
Secondly, the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 AVD quotes is the relevant Act of the Parliament of the UK; however the Act relevant to New Zealand is the Royal Titles Act 1953 (and the later 1974 Act), which as Brian noted above uses the term "Realm"; this supported the 1952 Royal Proclamation.
Anyway, none of this changes the article in question. What it does show is that the term "Commonwealth Realms" might not be the most accurate term, but it is certainly a verifiable term - otherwise, the Queen's website would be wrong... --Lholden 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

LHolden, I assume that you are refering to this speech.

http://www.gg.govt.nz/media/speeches.asp?type=constitutional&ID=229

This "piece-of-dribble" spouted by your (ex-)Governor-General does not a legal precedent make. It is only their bloody OPINION, nothing more, nothing less. Oi.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh so learned articles, professors, government, even HE the Governor-General's office, are wrong are they? Brian | (Talk) 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian, read carefully what the articles actually say, before you pass judgement.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly AVD, I've read most of the key constitutional law books in question (mainly Philip Joseph, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand); secondly our former Governor-General was a Judge of our High Court, hence she knows constitutional law better than you or I; Third even if we accept your claim that a statute and Letters Patent doesn't over rule a Proclamation (Which in my view is incorrect- statute law is supreme because of Parliamentary sovereignty, refer Dicey; thus a proclamation can be impliedly repealed by statute) then what of the 1952 Proclamation of QEII's accession to the throne, which uses the term "realm"? Is that incorrect as well? --Lholden 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

LHolden, please brush up on your legal terms. An Act of Parliament is a statute. A Letters Patent is not a statute. Parliamentary Sovereignty ONLY applies to a statute. If you are going to make a Constitutional Law arguement, please do me the courtesy of getting your terms right eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry AVD, you've got your wires crossed here. Parliamentary sovereignty means that statute law is supreme. I didn't say that Parliamentary sovereignty applied equally to Letters Patent (i.e. that statute and letters patent are supreme); the point is that a statute is supreme law; supreme to Letters Patent and Proclamations. It follows therefore that your claim that the 1907 proclamation is still in force is incorrect; ipso facto New Zealand's long-form name is not the Dominion of New Zealand. --Lholden 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Letters Patent are not a statute (i.e., Parliamentary Sovereignty ONLY applies to statutes). Please look up the legal definition of a statute. Get back to me when you get your legal terms straight there bub.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

AVD, I didn't say that letters patent are statutes. I was answering your claim that a Letters Patent and a statute (which is what we have here - the Letters Patent 1983 using the term "realm" and the Royal Titles Act 1953) do not repeal the proclamation of 1907. --Lholden 09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

LHolden, I said that a Letters Patent can NOT over-rule an Act of Parliament (i.e., a statute) or a Proclamation. The ONLY tdocumen that mentions the Realm of New Zealand is the Letters Patent of 1983. NOTHING ELSE. Therefore the Proclamation of 1907 that declared the Dominion of New Zealand is still in legal force.

Additionally, try as you might, the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 does NOT change the long form name of the Dominion of New Zealand to the Realm of New Zealand. In no way, shape, or form does it do this. Not even close eh! Nice try, but no cigar.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 09:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted above? "Realm of New Zealand" in not just mentioned in the Letters Patent. It is a real term, perhaps you need to brush up on your knowledge of New Zealand Brian | (Talk) 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yawn. The issue isn't whether a Letters Patent can overrule an Act of Parliament or not. The issue is that the Proclamation can be overruled by an Act of Parliament (i.e. the 1953 one, which is in itself derived from the Proclamation of 1952). The 1983 Letters Patent confirms this change. A statute does not need to explicitly state what it repeals, by the doctrine of implied repeal - that is, the use of the term "realm" instead of "dominion" - the proclamation of 1907 was impliedly repealed in 1952, then in statute (supreme to both Proclamation and Letters Patent) and confirmed again in 1983. --Lholden 09:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Double-Yawn". The use of the word Realm instead of British Dominions across the Seas does NOT change any long form name of ANY country. Your assertion that the Proclamation of 1907 has been implied repealed via the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 illustrates a complete ignorance of the legislative process.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 10:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, that's the UK statute... I'm talking about the New Zealand Royal Titles Act 1953; in any case that Act was based on a Proclamation itself using the term realm. The doctrine of implied repeal is pretty clear, given that the term "Realm of New Zealand" appears in the Letters Patent of 1983, the 1907 proclamation has clearly been impliedly repealed.--Lholden 10:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

LHolden, PLEASE READ the New Zealand Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, and carefully EXAMINE its PRECISE WORDING eh,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_Zealand

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

— Royal Titles Act 1953 (NZ), s 2; Royal Titles Proclamation (1953) II New Zealand Gazette 851


Therefore, via this "lovely" New Zealand notion of the "Doctrine of Implied Repeal" we would have not only long form name the so-called Realm of New Zealand, one would also have the long form name of the Realm of the United Kingdom.

Since this legal interpretation would create the ABSURD term of the Realm of the United Kingdom, then the term Realm of the New Zealand is equally IN-VALID.

The ONLY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION is the the shorter terms of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Realm were inserted for BRIEVITY (i.e., to DUMB-DOWN the wording, nothing more!) in the place of the longer terms the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Dominion of New Zealand,and the British Dominions across the Seas.

Blunty put, NO EXPLICIT NAME CHANGES of the COUNTRIES CONCERNED are contained within theNew Zealand Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

AVD - firstly, the title of the Act in question, repealed in 1974, is the Royal Titles Act 1953. Secondly, I never said the New Zealand Act applied to the United Kingdom. Logically, it doesn't. Hence your claim that because the title doesn't apply to the UK it cannot also apply to New Zealand is incorrect.
If you read what I said above, which I suspect you haven't, you'll see that the doctrine of implied repeal (which is a well settled doctrine in common law countries, it's not simply a New Zealand invention) follows because of the 1952 proclamation, the 1953 Act, and the 1983 Letters Patent. This is not simply my view, it's also the view of the learned law professor Philip A Joseph.
Finally, your argument that the use of "Realm" instead of "Dominion" is a dumbing-down of the use of the term is incorrect. As Brian notes below, the reason for the use of "realm" in place of "dominion" is because of the 1947 adoption in New Zealand of the Statute of Westminster 1931, clearly the intention was to emphasise New Zealand's greater independence from the UK. For example, New Zealand's armed forces became legally distinct for those of the United Kingdom. --Lholden 07:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
LHolden, the bottom line is to over-rule the Royal Proclamation of 1907 you need a Statute (i.e., an Act of Parliament). You have not been able to produce ONE STATUTE that explicitly re-defines the long form name of the country as the Realm of New Zealand. NOT ONE STATUTE. Until you can pull that out of your ass, the Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand is still in legal force. The Letters Patent of 1983 defines the USAGE of the term Realm of New Zealand, but does not CHANGE to legal name from Dominion of New Zealand, to Realm of New Zealand. As much as you would like this to be so, legally it is not so. I challenge you to bring someone knowledgable about the workings of the LAW into this discussion as you seem to me to be incapable of grasping certain "legal mechanics" as it pertains to the long form names of countries. Whether you are being willfully ignorant and inane, or you just can not fathom these concepts, I find me-self "talking-to-a-brick", with regards to you.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
We could do without the personal abuse thanks AVD. Brian and myself have quoted a number of learned academics and others in this debate. I find it strange that, after quoting a learned professor of constitutional law, a former Governor-General who was also a High Court judge, and all the relevant enactments Brian and I are both still wrong, whereas your position that the doctrine of implied repeal doesn't apply and the 1907 proclamation is still in legal force is correct. Following your argument, if the Letters Patent defines the use of the term "Realm of New Zealand", then New Zealand's long-form name is still the "Dominion of New Zealand"? With respect, that is an absurd reading of the law and in my view your comment as to my legal abilities really applies to yourself. As I have stated above, the doctrine of implied repeal applies in this instance. The ratification of the Statute of Westminster 1947 began a process confirmed by the Letters Patent 1983 that New Zealand's long-form name is the Realm of New Zealand. This was confirmed by the Proclamation of 1952, the Royal Titles Act of 1953, the Interpretation Act and the Letters Patent. Sorry AVD, the legal weight falls to the Realm of New Zealand being our long-form name. --Lholden 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


LHolden, you wrote above,

"Sorry AVD, the legal weight falls to the Realm of New Zealand being our long-form name"


Really, so how about this then eh,

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html

New Zealand CIA Factbook Entry

long form name: none

short form name: New Zealand


If so, then why is Realm of New Zealand NOT listed as the long form name of New Zealand on the CIA factbook website?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the CIA *gasp* is wrong? More importantly, why is Philip A Joseph wrong? --Lholden 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the CIA is wrong, perhaps. I don't think so though. The original Dominions had the long form names the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Dominion of Newfoundland, the Union of South Africa, the Dominion of India, and the Dominion of Pakistan. The later three Dominions subsequently became Republics. The Dominion of Newfoundland of acceded to Dominion of Canada in 1949. The Commonwealth of Australia still uses its long form name as it was written into its constitution. Canada had its long form name (i.e., the Dominion of Canada) first explicitly mentioned in the first amendment of the BNA Act, (i.e., British North America 1871). New Zealand had its long form name (i.e., the Dominion of New Zealand) offically conferred in the Royal Proclamation of 1907.
With regard to Dr. Philip A. Joseph, why don't you send him in here to Wikipedia so he can answer that question himself?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the leading texts on New Zealand constitutional law says that:

The New Zealand Official Yearbook states that:

Brian | (Talk) 10:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to all concerned, this argument does not seem to have anything to do with the content of the article. Could you all please either wind it up or take it offline or to some other more appropriate place. Or, since AVD is the driver here, if he really thinks this discussion belongs here, could he please submit an actual proposal for text he would like to change or insert, so that there is something relevant that we can debate. Thanks. --Chris Bennett 20:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I believe that the title of this article Commonwealth Realm should be changed to a Queens' Realm within the Commonwealth . How is that for a suggestion then eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Find a cited use of the term and it might be considerable for a mention within this article. Otherwise, it's simply original research. --gbambino 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
AVD, if I correctly understand your objection to the current title of the article, it is that you believe the term Commonwealth Realm has no statutory basis. Accepting, purely for the sake of argument, that this objection is both factually correct and relevant, what is the statutory basis for your proposed replacement? Also, the phrase suggests that there is a Queens' Realm that is not within the Commonwealth. What is it? --Chris Bennett 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


William Crampton, Flags of the World, Dorset Press, New York, USA, pp.160, (1990).

p.12, Antigua and Barbuda, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 1 Novemeber 1981,

p.13, Commonwealth of Australia, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 1 January 1901,

p.15, Commonwealth of The Bahamas, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 10 July 1973,

p.17, Barbados, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 30 November 1966,

p.18, Belize, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 21 September 1981,

p.24, Canada, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 1 July 1867,

p.48, Grenada, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 2 February 1974,

p.58, Jamaica, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 6 August 1962,

p.74, New Zealand, established as a Dominion 26 September 1907,

p.79, Papua New Guinea, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 16 September 1975,

p.84, St. Christopher-Nevis, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 19 September 1983,

p.84, Saint Lucia, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 22 February 1979,

p.85, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 27 October 1979,

p.89, Solomon Islands, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 7 July 1978,

p.98, Tuvalu, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 1 October 1978,

p.101, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And the reason we should prefer this evidence to, say, Hansard is what? Does Crampton cite an Act of Parliament, or a Royal Proclamation, or any other statutory (or authoritative) source comparable to those that you have yourself cited in this debate for this usage? Or, indeed, any source at all? All I see here is evidence that a pithy phrase such as Commonwealth Realm is actually needed.
Also, you didn't address my other question: What Queen's realm is not of the Commonwealth? --Chris Bennett 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well said Chris. It seems strange to me that after putting across a terse case based on constitutional law, AVD now cites Crampton as proof of an alternative (and in my view unduly complex) name for the article. As Chris states, the name Commonwealth Realm seems to be the most pithy in this instance.
Oh, and BTW AVD - why don't you get Mr Crampton to come here and confirm what he said to be correct? If it's good enough for Prof Joseph, it should be good enough for Crampton ;-)
--Lholden 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Well guys, it comes down to this, I have debated here in good faith. You can look at the information that I have provided and think it over. What you do with what I have said is up to you. Food-for-thought, if this was a courtroom or a lecture hall in academia, I would of been more motivated to take both of you "to-the-carpet" piece by piece.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


That last comment shows that you weren't really debating in good faith. Your other offensive remarks against myself and to my country also confirm a lack of good faith. Moreover, the lack of any point to the debate, other than proving some esoteric point. It was not until Crampton was quoted that we actually heard exactly what it was you wanted the article renamed as. With respect, your efforts in researching this point were really wasted because of this. --Lholden 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


I take AVD's last comment to mean that he does not wish to pursue this debate any further. Perhaps, as he suggests, we can all chew over his comments offline as we see fit, and consider the matter closed. --Chris Bennett 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Australian Referendum

Normally I wouldn't feel the need to justify a fairly minor reworking of two sentences, but given the heat this article has generated to date... I felt the original bald statement "A referendum held in 1999 was defeated" was rather misleading, even allowing for the qualification that "republicans felt...". In context, the sentence implied (to me) that the proposal was for a republic, which is was not. It was a proposal for a particular model of republic. The misinterpretation was not greatly relieved by the "clarification" so I reworked the section accordingly.FrankDynan 16:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


"Commonwealth Realm" is not a bona-fide term, its a euphemism for Dominion

This article in my opinion is highly suspect, and misleading (e.g., for the primary and high school students who come here). The phrase "Commonwealth Realm" is not a bona-fide term, its just a euphemism for Dominion. I know this an old arguement between me and other Wikipedians, but I feel a caveat about the euphimism-type nature of the "Commonwealth Realm" phrase should be added to this Wikipedia article. Just added for your consideration.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What would the wording of the proposed caveat be? --Lholden 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What makes a term "bona-fide"? To call it a euphemism for Dominion is slightly missing the point, but I would agree with a caveat pointing out that the term is not widely used. JPD (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It could be pointed out that realm is a euphamism for dominion, but Realm is not a euphamism for Dominion - there's a difference between the word dominion used simply as a noun, and Dominion used as a title. The latter was used in conjunction with Canada, Australia and New Zealand specifically to differentiate them from the United Kingdom (see: Canada's name: Adoption of Dominion); Realm, on the other hand, was adopted explicitly to end the subordinate association with the title Dominion and to point out that all the countries under the Commonwealth Crown were equal. But, each country, including the UK, remains a dominion of the Crown.
I could agree, however, to mention that the term Commonwealth Realm is not popularly used. --G2bambino 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


A King/Queen is the Sovereign of a Kingdom, Dominion, Union, Commonwealth. They are by virtue of a common Sovereign the same Feudal Rank. The reason the Kingdom of Canada was not bestowed in 1867 was the fear of Canada possibly establishing its own Canadian Royal Family. The long form name(s) of the Dominion of Canada, Union of Canada, Commonwealth of Canada do not explicitly imply the establishment of a "local Royal Family". The caveat is that neither is the possibility excluded.

G2bambino wrote,

"Realm, on the other hand, was adopted explicitly to end the subordinate association with the title Dominion and to point out that all the countries under the Commonwealth Crown were equal."

That is a common misconception of history, perpetuated by Academia. The terms Dominion, Union, Commonwealth are not subordinate to the term Kingdom. They are of equal Feudal Rank.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, here we go again... not that I really want to debate this issue again, but suffice to say that it makes little sense to say the term "Dominion" is not subordinate when the title "Realm" is now used, post Statute of Westminster 1931. The caveat proposed makes no sense - none of the Commonwealth Realms mentioned could have established their own individual monarchies prior to the Statute of Westminster, it simply wasn't a legal possibility. --Lholden 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
AVD - Your first omission is that a realm is of the same rank as a dominion or kingdom; the Miriam-Webster definition of realm is:
Main Entry: realm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English realme, from Anglo-French, alteration of Old French reiame, from Latin regimen control -- more at REGIMEN
1 : KINGDOM 2
2 : SPHERE, DOMAIN [or, dominion]
3 : a primary marine or terrestrial biogeographic division of the earth's surface
And secondly, you also disregard the fact that the Colonial Office in London disliked the term "Kingdom of Canada" because it had a tone deemed too pretentious for a fledgling country - hence Dominion was used to reflect a monarchical nature, but on a lesser level to the Imperial mother Kingdom. Even Sir John A. bemoaned the lower stature of the title Dominion. Thus, once all nations under the pan-Commonwealth Crown were deemed to be equal to one another, the idea of a subsidiary title of Dominion could no longer apply - and Realm replaced it.
If you so strongly believe that the above is wrong, and the title "Dominion" truly is analogous to "Realm", then you'd have to concede that the United Kingdom is today a Dominion - but is there any reference to the Commonwealth Dominions? --G2bambino 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


G2bambino,

Sir John A. MacDonald intended this,

"Had a different course been pursued—for instance, had Canada been declared to be an auxiliary Kingdom, as it was in the Canadian draft of the Bill—I feel sure (almost) that the Australian Colonies would, ere this, have been applying to be placed at the same rank as ‘The Kingdom of Canada.’ "

Please note Sir John A. MacDonalds' explicit use of the term an auxillary Kingdom (i.e., one with the option of establishing its own local "Canadian" Royal Family). The term Kingdom was only applied to the Mother-Country. There is no explicit subordination of the terms Dominion, Union, Commonwealth to that of a Kingdom, as their Feudal Ranks are equal (i.e, their Sovereign is a King/Queen).


Unfinished work (i). The Dominion of Canada as the intended name.

Sir John A Mac Donald 1889 Letter


Bold text: Ewart's large type-face used,

Blue text: Sir John A MacDonald's own words,

Italised text:' Ewart's own italised text.


From J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers, Volume II, Mc Clelland, Goodchild, and Stewart, Toronto, Canada, pp. 384-385, (1912-1917).


Sir John’s Testimony.—Twenty-two years later after the passing of our constitution act, Sir John was still resentful at the failure of Colonial Office sympathy with the great project of founding a Kingdom, and writing to Lord Krutsford (18 July, 1889) he said—

“A great opportunity was lost in 1867, when the Dominion was formed out of several provinces. This remarked event in the history of the British Empire passed almost without notice. The new Confederation had, at the time of the union, about the same population as the thirteen colonies when they rebelled and formed a nation imbued with the bitterest feelings of hostility towards England—feelings, which by the way, exist in as offensive a form now they did on the day of the ‘declaration of independence.’

“The declaration of all B.N.A. provinces, that they desired one Dominion to remain a portion of the Empire, showed what wise government and generous treatment would do, and should have been marked as an epoch in the history of England. This probably would have been the case had Lord Carnarvon, who had Colonial Minister had ‘sat at the cradle’ of the new Dominion, remained in office. His ill-omened resignation was followed by the appointment of the late Duke of Buckingham, who had as his advisor the then Governor-General, Lord Monck—both good men, certainly, but quite unable from the constitution of their minds, to rise to the occasion. The Union was treated by them as if the B.N.A. Act were a private Bill uniting two or three English parishes. Had a different course been pursued—for instance, had Canada been declared to be an auxiliary Kingdom, as it was in the Canadian draft of the Bill—I feel sure (almost) that the Australian Colonies would, ere this, have been applying to be placed at the same rank as ‘The Kingdom of Canada.’

“Pray pardon this long discursive letter, which I have been tempted to bore you with by the pleasant and cool breezes of the Lower St. Lawrence, where I am spending so weeks to escape the heat of Ottawa, and by the hope that, the time this reaches you, you will have been able to get away from official cares.

“Should I be able to visit England this year, I shall refrain from pressing my views on Her Majesty’s Government at even greater length than I now venture to trouble your lordship with.


“Meanwhile, believe me, dear Lord Knutsford,

“Faithfully yours,

“John A. MacDonald.”


“P.S.—On reading the above over, I see that it will convey the impression that the change in the title from Kingdom to Dominion was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. That is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then Foreign Minister, who feared the first name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees. I mentioned this to Lord Beaconsfield at Hughenden in 1878, who replied: ‘I was not aware of that circumstance, but it is so like Derby, a very good fellow but one who lives in a region of perpetual funk.’—J.A.M.D.”


Note: Sir Joseph Pope, published the above letter of Sir John A MacDonald, in his book Sir John A MacDonald, Vol. I., pp. 311-313, and in Sir Joseph's letters to the Ottawa Citizen (newspaper) of July 26, 1917.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to follow your logic. Dominion was used between 1867 and 1931 to explicitly differentiate the UK from the former colonies that were still then under the sovereignty of the British Crown. I see no evidence of Sir John A. planning for a separate Canadian Royal Family in the future, only his disappointment with what he clearly viewed as a title inferior to that of Kingdom. Regardless, use of the title Dominion ceased in reference to countries that shared a pan-Commonwealth crown equally with the UK after 1931. The onus is on you to prove that its use continues today, and that there exists some group of countries dubbed the Commonwealth Dominions. --G2bambino 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


The "Commonwealth Realms" (all 16 of them) have as their Sovereign the British Monarch (i.e., Queen Elizabeth II). Thus, is essense we are still "under the sovereignity of the British Crown" . There is NO THRONE, but that of Britain.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry AVD, the Statute of Westminster 1931 begs to differ. Thus it follows that the countries who adopted the Statute were no longer Dominions. --Lholden 22:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia has the British Monarch as sovereign as much as Britain has the Jamaican Monarch as sovereign. Certainly they all have Elizabeth II as their Queen, but she's only the British Monarch in the UK. I'm afraid, AVD, that Lewis is right - your views are about 76 years out of date. And I still see no evidence of a group of countries dubbed the Commonwealth Dominions. --G2bambino 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


G2bambino and LHolden, perhaps you two should actual READ the text of the Statute of Westminster 1931 more carefully.

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/westmins.htm

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

G2bambino, I never gave any credence to the term Commonwealth Dominion, that is your "invention". The only bona-fide term within the Statute of Westminster 1931 is Dominion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a list of the names of the states to which the Act applies to. The term "realm" isn't used there as the long-title names listed are the actual names of the states in question at the time when the Act was passed. Your argument above was that: "The "Commonwealth Realms" (all 16 of them) have as their Sovereign the British Monarch (i.e., Queen Elizabeth II). Thus, is essense we are still "under the sovereignity of the British Crown" ." which is incorrect, as the Statute of Westminster divided the Crown legally between the individual realms of the Commonwealth - irrespective of whether the Sovereign might only reside in the UK. Virtually every legal enactment since then has used the term "realm" - and as I've pointed out to you before, the legal title for all of New Zealand's territories and dependencies is the Realm of New Zealand. --Lholden 07:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


The Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 (and its companion Royal Proclamation 1953) does not abolish the term Dominion. The generic term Realm is used and nowhere is this "fictional term" Commonwealth Realm to be seen in the text. NOWHERE, bub.

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1953

The salient text is as follows,

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 ".

It is quite ridiculous the lengths that some Academics take the phrase,

"Her other Realms and Territories"

in an attempt to imply the abolishment of the term Dominion. It truely is one the greatest, most blatant examples of "give an inch, and they take a mile!"

ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've explained the legal reason for this to you before, AVD. It is because of the doctrine of implied repeal. This is not simply an academic invention created to justify changes in legalese, it is a fundamental tenant of the common law. If you cannot accept that the learned academics are correct, then that is not up for discussion here. What is to be discussed is what changes, if any, should be made to the article. You have rejected Gavin's suggested term "Commonwealth Dominion", which really is the only logical other name this article could have. The caveat you suggested - to state that under Dominion status, the states in question could possibly establish their own monarchies - is a legal and historical nonsense. The only conclusion to draw from this is that you are taking issue with the term because it does not fit with your view of the British monarchy. --Lholden 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Look it, you are not the sole judge of "the Doctrine of Implied Repeal". Frankly, I have always found you quite arrogant, and ignorant.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's nice. If stating facts and putting forward logical arguments is arrogance, then I am, but I am not ignorant. And you're right, I'm not the sole judge of the Doctrine of implied repeal. However, I have quoted from legal academics before who confirm the use of the term realm. If you cannot tell us why they are wrong, or put forward any suggestions as to how this article should be amended, then this discussion is pointless. --Lholden 10:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. Whether or not "Dominion" has been repealed does not affect whether "Commonwealth Realms" is a valid term. Neither does whether Dominion and Realm are technically equal. Whether or not it would be valid to refer to the various countries today as Dominions, the fact is that the term most often used (which admittedly isn't very often) to refer to them collectively is "Commonwealth Realms". The change is due to the subordinate connotations which "dominion" had acquired when used in the British context, whether subordinance is technically in the meaning or not. You may consider this a "euphemism", but it was done to reflect an actual change in the situation. JPD (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely; and thank you for summing it up so succinctly.
There is evidence of the use of the term "Commonwealth Realm" after 1931. There is no evidence of the use of the term "Commonwealth Dominion." Even if Canada's official name was "The Great Federated Dominion in the North Called Canada and oh, Did We Mention it is a Dominion?" it would still be classified as a Commonwealth Realm. I move that this silly discussion be closed, and if AVD still has issue with the term "Commonwealth Realm", he can take it up with those who seem to have originated it: the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. --G2bambino 16:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

LHolden, JPD, G2Bambino ... oh really? Please quote a CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENT since 1931 that explicitly states the term "Commonwealth Realm" in the statutory portion (and/or schedule) of the the statutory instrument (i.e., Royal Proclamation, Statute (i.e., Act of Parliament), Royal Letters Patent, Royal Warrant, Order-in-Council).


Put-up or shut-up.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the, I think, fourth time: please point to any document that explicitly states the term "Commonwealth Dominion," whether within Royal Proclamation, Statute, Letters Patent, Royal Warrant or Order-in-Council. Until then, the evidence points only to the use of the term "Commonwealth Realm," and to assert anything otherwise would be original research. --G2bambino 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
And again: We don't need to produce any constitutional documents to that effect. The use of "realm" in place of "dominion" in itself is evidence of the term. That the words "Commonwealth" and "Realm" don't appear together doesn't change this fact. --Lholden 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


LHolden, JPD, G2Bambino, I re-state the following,

The Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 (and its companion Royal Proclamation 1953) does not abolish the term Dominion. The generic term Realm is used and nowhere is this "fictional term" Commonwealth Realm to be seen in the text. NOWHERE, bub.
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1953
The salient text is as follows,
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 ".
It is quite ridiculous the lengths that some Academics take the phrase,
"Her other Realms and Territories"
in an attempt to imply the abolishment of the term Dominion.

The inescapable point-in-fact is that the phrase,

"Her other Realms and Territories"

does not create, validate, establish, or enshrine the term Commonwealth Realm as a replacement for Dominion. I know it is "difficult" to fathom for "some", however the USAGE of the word REALM is just of generic convenience (nothing more, nothing less). Of the 16 so-called "Commonwealth Realms", there is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (a Unitary Kingdom), and 15 Dominions (some are Federal Dominions, whilst others are Unitary Dominions).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So what are you proposing to change about the article? Change its name to "Her Majesty's Commonwealth (d)ominions"? Surely if what you've said above is true, the term "Commonwealth kingdoms" could also be used, since the states are legally distinct monarchies, albeit with a shared Head of state. --Lholden 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the term Commonwealth Realm is simply a euphemism for the legally defined term of Dominion (or Dominion Status). Please look up the definition of the word euphemism.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

AVD says: the USAGE of the word REALM is just of generic convenience (nothing more, nothing less). That's exactly the point: WP is an encyclopedia, not a constitutional document, and therefore should reflect ordinary usage.

To the extent that there is a real issue here, it's one about how WP should reflect evolution in usage. The simple fact of the matter is that the term dominion is becoming obsolete as a way to describe a country which shares a monarch with Britain. I'm old enough to remember when it was still standard usage, which was well into the 1960s, but it isn't standard usage any longer.

I wonder if this issue could be addressed within the Dominion article rather than here. That article currently has the following text:

Dominion also remains a term used for self-governing countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, other than the United Kingdom, where the British Monarch remains head of state. However, those countries which were previously referred to as Dominions are now independent kingdoms where the sovereign reigns no longer as the British Monarch, but as Monarch of each nation in its own right. This was demonstrated in the proclamation of Queen Elizabeth II's new titles in 1953, where she was to be called Queen "of her other Realms and Territories," thereby replacing "dominion" with another mediaeval French word with the same connotation, "realm" (from royaume). Thus, today the former Dominions of the Empire (including the UK) are known as Commonwealth Realms.

With some slight modifications and extensions I think this could address the question of changes in usage. For example:

Dominion remains a term used for self-governing countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, other than the United Kingdom, where the British Monarch remains head of state. However, those countries which were previously referred to as Dominions are now independent kingdoms where the sovereign no longer reigns as the British Monarch, but as Monarch of each nation in its own right. This concept was demonstrated in established by the proclamation of Queen Elizabeth II's new titles in 1953, where she was to be called Queen "of her other Realms and Territories," thereby replacing "dominion" with another mediaeval French word with the same connotation formal meaning, "realm" (from royaume), but which did not carry any connotation of subordination to the United Kingdom. Thus, today the former Dominions of the Empire (including the UK) are known as Commonwealth Realms. While the term "Dominion" is still used to refer to a country where the British Monarch is the head of state, it is increasingly being replaced by the term "Realm". Both terms are unambiguous when used in a Commonwealth context, but on the rare occasions it is necessary to refer to the realms collectively in a different context, they may be distinguished from other realms as Commonwealth Realms.

Is this a viable approach? --Chris Bennett 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Chris Bennett, I find your suggestions very viable indeed. In my opinion they improve the clarity and accuracy of this article "by leaps and bounds" (in my opinion).
http://www.royalgenes.biz/alt.talk.royalty/thread343.html
ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


OK then, here is a draft second paragraph for this article rather than Dominion:
A self-governing country within the Commonwealth of Nations, other than the United Kingdom, where the British Monarch remains head of state has long been known as a Dominion. However, those countries are now independent kingdoms, where the sovereign no longer reigns as the British Monarch, but as Monarch of each nation in its own right. This concept was established by the proclamation of Queen Elizabeth II's new titles in 1953, where she was called Queen "of her other Realms and Territories," thereby replacing "Dominion" with another mediaeval French word with the same formal meaning, "Realm" (from royaume), but which did not carry any connotation of subordination to the United Kingdom. While the term "Dominion" is still used to refer to a country where the British Monarch is the head of state, it is increasingly being replaced by the term "Realm". Both terms are unambiguous when used in a Commonwealth context, but on the rare occasions it is necessary to refer to these realms collectively in a different context, they may be distinguished from other realms as Commonwealth Realms.
I recognise its not perfect, for example it repeats some material already in the first paragraph. But if this text is generally acceptable then I can put it in the article and people can tweak it from there using a more normal editorial process. --Chris Bennett 03:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Chris Bennett, I thank you very much for your kind suggestion on the wording of this article. I am in completely agreement with your added text/draft, shown above. In my opinion it clarifies the "informal nature" of the term "Commonwealth Realm" as a comprimise substitute term settled on in 1953 to refer to the 1 Unitary Kingdom of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ands its co-equal 15 British Dominions (Federal Dominions and Unitary Dominions), in other words the 16 Constitutional-Monachies within the British Commonwealth of Nations that have Queen Elizabeth II as their Sovereign.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems generally acceptable to me, and if AVD is ok with it, it's probably a good idea. I don't really see how it is necessary, since the article did not imply that it was a legally defined term, and noone here claimed that it was, so AVD's references to consitutional documents were largely red herrings. I'm not sure that the term did originate in 1953 (when there were a lot less than 16, and the word "British" was removed from just about everything, even in legal documents), and I do think that if we bother to clarify the "informal nature" of the term, we really should saying something about it's lack of wide use. JPD (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

JPD, my references to Constitutional Documents were red-herrings? What do you think the Royal Styles and Titles Acts (1901, 1917, 1927, 1948, 1953) and their companion Royal Proclamations were? Toilet paper?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the text addressses AVD's concerns and is generally acceptable to JPD. I'm going to add it with one minor change to address JPD's concern about "origination" in 1953. While I believe this is its first use in a formal context, I don't know for sure, so I propose to replace "established by" with "enumnciated in". As to "saying something about it's lack of wide use", I believe the phrase "rare occasions" address that concern. --Chris Bennett 16:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
My concern was about the AVD's comment about the term "Commonwealth Realms", rather than your sentence, which discusses the concept of separate dominions, but the change is still an improvement, I think. Sorry for missing the "rare occasions"! AVD, if you know the different between red herrings and toilet paper then read what I said again carefully. Constitutional documents didn't come into the discussion until the long name of New Zealand was mentioned, which isnt' at all relevant. JPD (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


JPD, the term British Dominions (beyond the Seas) was in explicit legal Constitutional Usage from 1901-1953. Here is not a piece of "toilet paper", but an excerpt from the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1901 (with its companion Royal Proclamation),

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1901

"We have thought fit, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, to appoint and declare, and We do hereby, by and with the said advice, appoint and declare that henceforth, so far as conveniently may be, on all occasions and on all instruments wherein Our Style and Titles are used, the following addition shall be made to the Style and Titles at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies; that, is to say, in the Latin tongue, After the word "Britanniarum," these words, "et terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione stint Britannicâ;" and in the English tongue, after the words---of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," these words, "and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas."


and was in legal force until the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 (with its companion Royal Proclamation),

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1953

Upon use of the English Language one should be able to discern its validity, even for those inhabitants of that wee-island of Aotearoa , more commonly known as the Dominion of New Zealand (and its Dependencies).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

AVD, you just proved my point: if the term "Dominion" appears in the 1901 Act of Parliament that defined the title of the Sovereign of the state(s) in question, but that term was not carried over in the new (1953) Act, the previous term has been impliedly repealed. So again, I ask what exactly do you want changed about this article? Other editors have proposed changes (without, I should add, making childish remarks about their respective countries; and New Zealand is made up of many islands mate) to the article. --Lholden 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

LHolden, I repeat you are not the sole judge of Implied Repeal . It is best if you and I do not converse. We frequently de-volve into fruitless "exchanges".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lholden, AVD has agreed that a statement about the evolution of usage addresses his concern. Your issue about implied repeal is irrelevant to that. Can you and AVD please take it offline? --Chris Bennett 05:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing --Lholden 08:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris Bennett, I consider the matter of Implied Repeal closed. I have no interest in pursuing a discussion with LHolden any further.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please hold off on adding the text, as I'm currently working on a version that includes some of the above, but is condensed to remove repetition and unrelated information. Thanks. --G2bambino 16:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, as I alluded to earlier, I don't think it's necessary to go into so much detail that has nothing to do, really, with the subject of this article. Thus, I suggest the following:
A Commonwealth Realm is any one of the 16 self-governing countries within the Commonwealth of Nations that separately recognize Elizabeth II as their monarch. These countries, other than the United Kingdom, were previously commonly referred to as Dominions, a practice that declined around the early 1950s. All the countries are now independent kingdoms, where the sovereign is specifically monarch of that state; a concept illustrated in the proclamation of Elizabeth II's new titles in 1953. Since then, for example, in Barbados she is known as "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Barbados," or, simply, the Queen of Barbados. Hence the Commonwealth Realms are in personal union with one another, much as, for instance, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England were before their unification in the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
While the term "Dominion," as a title, can still be used to refer to any of the Commonwealth Realms other than the United Kingdom, it is increasingly being replaced by the term "Realm". Both terms are unambiguous when used in a Commonwealth context, but on the rare occasions it is necessary to refer to these realms collectively in a different context, where they may be distinguished from other realms as Commonwealth Realms.
I think this is all that is necessary for the opening paragraph, as the other info about how the word "Realm" came to replace "Dominion" is already well documented in the Historical development section. --G2bambino 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this, go for it. I think we don't need to continue this discussion, as I said before I hope we can now evolve the text in the ordinary fashion. I would make one small change: Replace the phrase "a practice that declined around the early 1950s" by something like "but use of this term has declined in recent decades". --Chris Bennett 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
****  side thread left in for historical completeness ****
I was going to suggest that AVD take his points to either Dominion or Realm, but it seems you've beat me to it. Your proposal seems viable, however I have some minor suggestions. Should this discussion be continued at Talk:Dominion? --G2bambino 21:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, it's a suggestion, I'm not hung up on precise wording. I don't care where it's discussed. The protagonist here is AVD, so the important question is whether he accepts that the real issue is about usage, and if so whether he thinks that it could be addressed this way. If not then there's no point in pursuing it and I will go away to more productive endeavours. --Chris Bennett 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that will resolve the issue, not because AVD might be making a valid point, but because he is using this page to settle the issue of the meaning of the term "Commonwealth Realm". For that reason I see no point to this conversation unless AVD actually proposes changes to this article and can justify those changes. So far there have been amendments put forward by multiple users queries on arguments made by AVD as to how the article could be changed, all of which have been rejected by AVD. I suspect the issue taken by AVD regarding the name of this article and its contents can never be resolved. --Lholden 22:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen Picture

The large picture of the queen at the top of the article I belive is not a fair impression of her, due to the unfortunate exression she was wearing when it was taking. To make it fairer I ask someone replace it with a better looking picture? Tom walker 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Former Commonwealth Realms

Quite a lot of mixed up information, with countries listed as having ceremonial presidents when they have executive ones (like Kenya) and vice versa, like Malta. Most African countries adopted presidential systems of government when they became republics, although some, like South Africa, Nigeria and Uganda, initially did have ceremonial presidents.

The flag of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) changed to the existing design twenty years before it became a republic, while using the colonial ensign for Trinidad and Tobago is just silly - that was replaced by the existing design at independence.Quiensabe 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Queen is not queen of commonwealth realms because she is queen of UK

This morning Kitch edited the initial sentence of the article:

A Commonwealth Realm is any one of the sixteen sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that recognise Elizabeth II as their respective monarch.

to read:

A Commonwealth Realm is any one of the sixteen sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that recognise the monarch of the United Kingdom (currently Queen Elizabeth II) as their respective head of state.

The original sentence is simple, clear and correct. The proposed additon is factually wrong and adds nothing but complexity.

The head of state of, say, Australia is not Elizabeth II Queen of the United Kingdom. She is Elizabeth II Queen of Australia. She is queen of Australia because she is so designated in the Australian constitution. She also happens to be queen of Antigua, Bahamas ... Tuvalu and the United Kingdom. But none of these other roles have anything to do with her role as queen of Australia.

Tharkuncoll supports Kitch's erroneous proposal. The argument given is that the Queen is British. Yes she is. That is irrelevant. I hope this discussion makes it clear why.

Further, even if the proposed addition were correct, what is the point of adding it, especially here? The first sentence of an article should be a brief, broad-brush statement defining the scope of the article. Details and nuances can be filled in later. Anyone who reads the article will get the idea that its not a simple matter.

--Chris Bennett 01:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that she should not be called "the monarch of the United Kingdom" in that sentence. If it's her Britishness that these people want to stress, then we could simply say "... that recognise the British resident Elizabeth II ...". I don't know how useful this is, but it would at least be factually correct. She is no more monarch of the UK than she is monarch of Australia, but she is certainly more resident of the UK than of anything else. However, I wonder if the problem here isn't more that the definition includes her name. It is true now that a CR is a country where Elizabeth is the monarch, but it won't always be this way. It will be very unwieldly to have a future definition: "A CR is a country that recognises A as its monarch. When used about the period 20xx-20xx, the term refers to a country that recognised B as its monarch. When used about the period ..." If seen in light of this, Kitch's change makes quite a bit of sense. It would be phrased much better as "... that recognise the Head of the Commonwealth (currently Elizabeth II) as their respective head of state.", though. -- Jao 01:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is as Jao describes it, but Chris's points are also valid. Jao's solution seems good enough for me. JPD (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, alas, it doesn't work that way. Upon Elizabeth's death her heir automatically becomes monarch of all the commonwealth realms. But the Commonwealth, curiously enough, won't have a head, since Elizabeth seems to have become Head of the Commonwealth in a purely personal capacity. The Commonwealth will have to separately declare a new head; and if they can't all agree to recognize Elizabeth's heir as such then maybe the Commonwealth will break up. Doops | talk 19:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I was afraid it would be something like that. Anyway, for my part, I'm satisfied enough with your compromise, Doops. A little more wordy is a fair price to pay for correctness. As long as the UK remains a monarchy, this definition should do fine. (I won't even begin to think about what would happen should the UK proclaim republic while some of the other Realms retained Elizabeth as their queen...) -- Jao 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The sentence isn't about the head of the Commonwealth. It's about defining what a Commonwealth Realm is. The reason for mentioning Elizabeth II at all is that she is the head of state of those commonwealth members which are monarchies in personal union with each other. What that means, how and why that arrangement came to be, and how the realms relate to each other, is the body of the article. The relationship of the other realms to the UK is addressed in the body. There is no need to raise it in the very first sentence. All that the first sentence does, and all it should do, is to define what a Commonwealth Realm is. Nothing more.
And I agree that the sentence will have to change when Elizabeth II dies. But why is that a problem? Especially in Wikipedia!
The existing sentence is perfectly fine. People seem to think that we need to change it just because someone has a suggested a change. It ain't so. --Chris Bennett 00:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
True; but it's also not set in stone. The wikipedia is living, breathing, evolving. To my eyes, it really does look odd that the entire lead of the page doesn't mention the United Kingdom at all; frankly, it feels forced and unnatural, as though we're going out of our way not to mention the elephant in the room. (The fact that the UK *is* mentioned in respect of that personal union example just makes it worse; and, now that I come to think of it, since most readers won't have prior knowledge of the UK/Hannover personal union that example is probably too obscure for a page lead anyway.) Doops | talk 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingdoms

TharkunColl, while I have nothing against your removal of "kingdoms", I don't agree that "official citations" are needed to keep the term. According to Merriam-Webster, a kingdom is "a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen". That applies to them all, and applying a dictionary definition is hardly original research. -- Jao 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Current Commonwealth Realms

I thought that table should not be listed alphabetically, but by the order of precedence implied in this statement from the page on Queen Elizabeth II

Traditionally, Elizabeth II's titles as Queen Regnant are listed by the order in which the remaining original Realms first became Dominions of the Crown: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (original dominion), Canada (1867), Australia (1901), and New Zealand (1907); followed by the order in which the former Crown colony became an independent Realm: Jamaica (1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Papua New Guinea (1975), the Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Antigua and Barbuda (1981), Belize (1981), and Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983).

Do please leave your thoughts on this. If no-one raises a serious objection in the next week or two, I'll change it accordingly. Cheers Nudge67 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine as it is & actually a person could see it chronologically via the DATE by clicking on the >< symbol beside it in the boxed frame it's in. That-Vela-Fella 11:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't know you could actually do that. Nudge67 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a note of it above it then for others who may not be aware of it also. That-Vela-Fella 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Monarchy" column

Just reading this article, it isn't clear what the proposed new "monarchy" column means. It looks like a redundant copy of the "Country" column.

Your justification says this has something to do with linkage to other articles. That's all very well, but it must be possible to do it in a way that makes it clear why the linkage is needed. Or could it be implicit, e.g. by adding the links to the Royal Standard column in some way?

--Chris Bennett 20:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In essence, it seemed this article was going to become a hub of sorts for the individual articles on the Commonwealt Realm monarchies; however, on further reflection, it seems a dedicated, overreaching article specifically on the shared crown is a better option - there's certainly enough information to fill one out. All the Commonwealth Realm monarchy articles can then have a dablink there. --G2bambino 18:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's still not self-evident what the "monarchy" column is supposed to mean, whether its in this article or in the other article (whose existence I was previously unaware of and which seems to have been pretty redundant to this point).
While I don't object to splitting up this article if there is a good reason to do so, I don't understand your rationale. What do you mean by saying it "was going to become a hub of sorts for the individual articles on the Commonwealth Realm monarchies"? I've seen no evidence of this -- if anything, it was the other article that was looking like a hub. From my perspective you seem to be saying that you have made a unilateral decision to chop up this article in order to create such a "hub", whose individual spokes have an obscure and undefined scope. For example, why do you believe that we need an article on the monarchy in Tuvalu separate from the artice on Tuvalu? --Chris Bennett 20:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at the dablinks at the head of British monarchy and Monarchy in Canada and see where they direct readers to; and perhaps the discussion at Talk:British monarchy for background as to why they were decided to be that way. It seems the dablink format should be repeated at Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in New Zealand, Monarchy in Jamaica, etc. I'm not saying a column is necessarily the best way to assist users once they reach Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms, but once there they should be able to find easy links to the other Commonwealth Realm monarchy articles. --G2bambino 18:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed this material. IMO it doesn't make the case.
Those dablinks direct the reader to a place where there is generic information about the monarchy in other Commonwealth realms. That information is (or was) in this article -- its monarchy is the defining feature of a Commonwealth realm! The discussion at Talk:British monarchy barely mentions this article in passing as a possible destination and gives no reason at all for not using it, even though it has (or had) a very full discussion of the topic. Nor does it give any justification for directing the reader to a new article that seems to have been created solely for the purpose of having something for the dablinks to point to. The editorial content in the discussion seems to be mostly about wordsmithing the dablink, a very minor issue compared to this wholesale restructuring.
Moreover, you can't assume that the reader of Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms has all this editorial background. Just by reading the text of the article, there is nothing to tell you why that column is written that way. It's obscure.
I think this restructuring is entirely unnecessary and unhelpful. A separate Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms article is redundant on its face. In most of the realms there are no special constitutional issues justifying a separate article about their monarchy. For the very few where there are, a see also reference is quite sufficient. I think these changes should be reverted, and the dablinks to Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms turned into dablinks to this one. That article should be abolished or turned into a redirect here.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this? --Chris Bennett 20:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who created Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms, nor the reason why they did so, but it seemed like a better place to direct those looking for information on another Realm monarchy than here; at least, the way this article was set up at the time. Someone a) shouldn't have to read through the entire British monarchy article before realising, when they hit the "See also" section, the info they wanted is somewhere else; and b) being directed here from British monarchy, looking for info on another Realm monarchy, shouldn't have to sift through excess text to find the appropriate link; hence, I thought the list of monarchies was somewhat useful for that purpose, and then later thought a dedicated article was appropriate (and for other reasons as well).
I'm only attempting to orgnize things in such a way that will hopefully work well with the other articles; it is neither complete yet, nor at all set in stone. --G2bambino 23:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I think its fine to have a dablink at the head of the British monarchy pointing to a place where there is information about the other moanrchires, but I think that place should be here. In older versions of the British monarchy article, it was. I see no reason for the change. The Realms are the monarchies -- the distinction you are drawing is entirely artificial as far as I can see.
I'm glad to see you have restored the status quo ante. Before embarking on such major surgery, I'd ask you to submit a detailed proposal here, saying in detail what you propose to do and why, allowing people time to discuss it, and perhaps take it to a vote. --Chris Bennett 00:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
How old a version of the British Monarchy article are you talking about? The dablink was only revamped last week; the first iteration directed here. As for where it, and the parallel dablinks on Monarch of Antigua and Barbuda, Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Jamaica, Monarchy in New Zealand, Monarch of the Solomon Islands, and British monarchy, directs to: I don't at all see how differentiating between the country and the monarchy of it is "artificial." Are you arguing that the individual monarchy articles should be deleted? --G2bambino 03:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you guys were going at it hammer and tongs in that article for quite a while in the first half of this month. I haven't bothered to track it in detail, though I now understand the origin of a couple of the weirder things that someone tried to do to this article during that period. But as late as July 14 the dablink read: For information on the monarchies in the other Commonwealth Realms, see Other Realms below, which directs the reader both to this article and to a list of articles about specific monarchies. I think that's a sensible approach. Sometime on July 15 the link to this article was removed.
No, I'm not arguing that individual monarchy articles should be deleted, although some of them are currently content-free and probably should be deleted. Those monarchies which do have particular local constitutional issues -- which I think consists of Australia, Canada, Cook Islands, New Zealand, the UK -- certainly merit country-specific discussions. Whether they should be discussed in separate articles or as part of a discussion of that country's constitutional structure might vary case by case.
I'm not arguing against a distinction between a country and its monarchy. I'm arguing that any distinction which may exist between the notions of Commonwealth Realm and Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms is too fine to justify maintaining two separate articles. A Commonwealth Realm is a constitutional concept which transcends individual countries, and the essence of that concept is the monarchy.
I don't know why the Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms article was first created, but the initial version was a direct copy of a section of this article, with no justification given. As far as I can see, it has always been redundant. --Chris Bennett 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It was pointed out to me (and correctly, I think) that dablinks shouldn't link to the very article they're in. Hence, the link to the "See also" sections was an improper format. Yes, Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms always seemed a bit redundant, so I had no issue changing it into what is essentially just a disambig page to direct users on to other articles. Its current wording may not be ideal yet, but it now serves the purpose I envisioned the chart here might. Perhaps "Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms" needs re-titled? --G2bambino 01:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was told at Talk:Monarchy in Canada that dablink hatnotes shouldn't link within the article, however, reading through Wikipedia:Hatnotes, I find no evidence of such a ban. Is it thus okay to leave the dab here as it is now? --G2bambino 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm biased, since I created the dablink, I think we have consider primarily what makes sense in the context. It would completely overload the dablink to have all those individual links listed within it. See also is the appropriate place to list them. --Chris Bennett 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a huge dab. This is why I thought the Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms page acted as a pseudo-disambig page that was easy to find and understand. --G2bambino 17:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Actually, I just noticed that the way it's set up now there's a "double dablink": from, for instance, British monarchy one is directed by the dablink here, and then by the dab at the head of this article to the "See also" section below. That doesn't seem very efficient. --G2bambino 17:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The dablink on the BM page gets you to this article, which is about the generic concept. The dablink here directs you to pages about individual monarchies. Totally different things -- that's why I worded it the way I did.
Dablinks should take you to closely related topics which are likely to be of interest. I think its unlikely, for example, that most people looking at the BM page, even those from a Commonwealth perspective, are going to want to go directly to (say) an article about the Antiguan monarchy. However, as well as a link to the CR article, the BM article could have a link to a See also section that lists indiviudal monarchies in the same way as is done here.

--Chris Bennett 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems we're going to have to have a discussion about how the dablinks on all the Commonwealth Realm related articles are going to work. So far, it seems there are two issues unresolved:

  1. Piped and unpiped versions of the link to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
  2. Where the "Monarchy in [Realm]" article dablinks direct to.

For the former, User:Chris Bennett argued "WP policies are (or should be) guidelines that allow for exceptions if appropriate in individual cases. In this case, since the whole point is that the realms are theoretically equal in status, it's a conflicting message to follow this guideline too rigidly. I think the exception is wholly justified." I tend to agree.
For the latter, I'm still undecided about the "double dablink" situation currently standing. I think it needs some finessing. --G2bambino 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

On (1), do we really need the link to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom at all? She's mentioned and linked on the first or second line of each article.
PS on the British Monarchy page, User:nat.tang just pointed out that Elizabeth II already exists as a redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which means we can solve this problem in an excruciatingly correct fashion. This works for me. --Chris Bennett 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
On (2) If I understand the problem correctly, the concern is that you have to go through an article that you don't want in order to get to one that you do. I.e. it's only a "double dablink" if you come to the Commonwealth Realm article from one of the others AND if what you are really looking for is information about one specific other monarchy. I personally doubt that this is a common or likely situation. However, if the consensus is otherwise, then why not just repeat that list in the See also section of each Monarchy article (removing, of course, the subject of the article itself)? That way the reader gets to link directly based on what he or she wants to see. The option of putting the entire list in the dablink is very unwieldy, since there are already 8 links and could be up to 16. --Chris Bennett 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion about what DAB links are for: they are there purely to direct the reader to the article they were actually wanting, rather than the one they mistakenly arrived at. End of story. They are not part of the content of the article on which they appear and therefore their links cannot be inferred to be conveying meaning relating to that article. They are simply there to head off confusion. That's why the links are supposed to be the exact links for the article they are directing the reader towards, rather than piped links or redirects. Hence, in a DAB it should always be [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]] and not [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Elizabeth II]] or [[Elizabeth II]].
Within the article, we should absolutely be using, say, [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Elizabeth II]] in order to prevent confusion or misleading inferences, but DABs should only ever contain original, unaltered links so that readers will know that they've reached the right page when they click on them. -- Hux 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no confusion about what DAB links are for. The questions are: do we need them here; and how best to set them up. Assuming we need them, we need to create them in such a way (a) [The EIIR issue] it doesn't create confusion by using terminology that apparently conflicts with the body of the article concerned and (b) [the multiple monarchies issue] it doesn't overburden the dablink.
On EIIR, I'm personally unconvinced that the dablinks are needed at all. However, since they were already there, they need to be consistent with what a Commonwealth Realm actually is -- not part of the United Kingdom. Fortunately, I think we've found a perfectly good solution that conforms to policy: Elizabeth II is an "exact" link.
On the multiple monarchies issue, which IMO is the more serious case for a DAB link, I think its bogus to link to an article solely for the purpose of conforming to wiki policy, which is what the Monarchies in Commonwealth Realms "article" was doing. From the user viewpoint, the See also solution in each article that I proposed would work perfectly fine. The only problem is that you seem to think it is never acceptable to depart from this Wiki Policy in any circumstance whatsoever. If that is really your view, then, rather than argue about its merits, let's try to find a way to square the circle. For example, we could conform to the cited policy statement by making the dablink in each other article point to the See also section of this article. That only leaves the issue of how to address it in this article, for which I see no good solution if we must be totally inflexible about the rules. However, I would be willing to forgo mentioning it at the head of the article in the interests of keeping the peace. --Chris Bennett 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris Bennett: "There's no confusion about what DAB links are for." With respect, there clearly is. You (and G2bambino) are suggesting that if there is a link to the "Elizabeth II" page in the DAB then that link should not read "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" but should instead be a piped link or a redirect. That conflicts with the entire purpose of DABs, which is to unambiguously point the reader to the article they were actually looking for, hence the guideline: "Show the entire linked article title as is, to avoid confusion, which is the reason for the top link in the first place.". If a piped link or a redirect is used then it inserts ambiguity.
Like I said, the exact text of a DAB link has no reference to the content of the article on which it appears, so the argument that "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" might cause confusion in the DAB is a non-argument - nobody is going to be confused by that link right at the top of the page, before they've even started reading about how Elizabeth if also the monarch of fifteen other countries.
However, if this is something that seriously concerns you then surely it's a much greater concern that the title of that article is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" in the first place, in which case it seems to me that a much better idea would simply be to change the title of that article to something else, e.g. "Queen Elizabeth II". That way we'd be killing multiple birds with one stone: your concerns would be addressed not just here but on any page that links to the Elizabeth II article, plus the DAB guidelines would still be respected. What do you think? -- Hux 06:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think that would be the best solution. In fact, if you look at the history, the Elizabeth II article started out that way. The content was moved to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in 2002, citing some "nomenclature" rule which I am unable to find. I hesitate to just correct this error, I suspect some people would raise a firestorm of protest. However, I will float a proposal to rename the article in the talk page there and see what happens.
While I want to focus on finding a practical solution to the problem at hand, I have to register disagreement with your comment that "the exact text of a DAB link has no reference to the content of the article on which it appears". By that logic, I could place a DABlink to an article about flying saucers at the head of this article. Insistence on that rule overlooks the point that WP is for readers, not for editors. A reader looking up an article about the monarchy in Australia is being given information which is just as irrelevant if s/he is directed to look at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for information about the current monarch of Australia. The current monarch of Australia is Elizabeth II of Australia. --Chris Bennett 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris Bennett: "The content was moved to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in 2002, citing some "nomenclature" rule which I am unable to find." Looks like the relevant guidelines are at WP:NCNT, where it says, "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland" (emphasis theirs). Having read that article I'm going to retract my suggestion to change the article to [[Queen Elizabeth II]] because I think the convention makes more sense. Why? Because the purpose of such conventions is to make the site more accessible and more logical for the reader and I would argue that this trumps any personal offense people may take if article titles are not precisely, constitutionally correct.
"I have to register disagreement with your comment that "the exact text of a DAB link has no reference to the content of the article on which it appears". By that logic, I could place a DABlink to an article about flying saucers at the head of this article." Well, yes, of course you could...if people were likely to get to this article intending to read about flying saucers. In that event it would be entirely appropriate to put a link to flying saucers in the DAB. A DAB is nothing more than the wiki equivalent of a guy standing at the door to, say, St Paul's Cathedral and saying, "What's that? You wanted Westminster Abbey? Okay, go here..." The way in which he imparts that information has nothing to do with St Paul's, or anything that relates to St Paul's. It's just a simple redirect.
"Insistence on that rule overlooks the point that WP is for readers, not for editors." I find this assertion bizarre because the whole point of the DAB guidelines is to help readers by ensuring that the link they're clicking will take them to the exact page they're expecting, without any ambiguity. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make here?
"A reader looking up an article about the monarchy in Australia is being given information which is just as irrelevant if s/he is directed to look at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for information about the current monarch of Australia." I don't really understand what you're trying to say. As far as I can see, the Elizabeth II article gives the reader a great deal of relevant information about Elizabeth's constitutional role in Australia, whether the title of that article is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", "Elizabeth II of Australia" or "Queen Lizzle Duce of the sixteen nation posse". Can you elaborate? Because I think I'm getting the wrong end of the stick! -- Hux 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the dabs to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom are currently needed, particularly as articles like Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, and British Queen currently redirect to, respectively, Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in New Zealand, and British monarchy, and the like. Thus, we either a) change the redirects to go to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, or, b) leave the dabs on the monarchy articles. Going with b), however, poses a particular problem: do we stick to WP, or circumvent it for the sake of not contradicting the contents of the article the dab heads? I see the merit in both arguments: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom being listed as the monarch of a country supposedly independent of and equal to the United Kingdom is contradictory. On the other hand, a user might be confused when clicking on Elizabeth II but ending up at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
As for multiple monarchies, the dabs at the head of each used to direct users down to the article's own "See also" section; however, User:LonewolfBC changed this at Monarchy in Canada for the reason that dabs can't link to the very article they head. As I said, a review of Wikipedia:Hatnotes reveals no such policy. Thus, perhaps we should just put all the monarchy article dabs back as they were. --G2bambino 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino: "do we stick to WP, or circumvent it for the sake of not contradicting the contents of the article the dab heads?" But it doesn't contradict the contents of the article that the DAB heads. When it's in the DAB it's literally nothing more than the title of an article; it doesn't imply anything about the article below the DAB. (I went into more detail on this in reply to Chris Bennett above.)
"On the other hand, a user might be confused when clicking on Elizabeth II but ending up at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom." Exactly - that's a distinct possibility and that's exactly why WP:DAB makes the point of saying that DAB links shouldn't be pipes or redirects. I would strongly argue that this trumps any notion that readers may get confused by some subtle implication of the formatting of DAB links relative to the article below it, when they won't have even read that article yet!
"the dabs at the head of each used to direct users down to the article's own "See also" section...perhaps we should just put all the monarchy article dabs back as they were." I don't think that works. Whether or not it does or doesn't specifically say we shouldn't be linking to the same page in the DAB, the purpose of the DAB implies that we shouldn't be doing that because DABs are there to get the reader to the article they were looking for. If they're already at the right article then they don't need to be told that in the DAB.
At this point, I reckon the most straightforward thing to do is to create a disambiguation page for things relating to Commonwealth Realm monarchies and then point to that in all of the related articles. After all, that's the purpose of such pages: to direct people to disambiguation information that is too long/complex to go in a DAB. -- Hux 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I just created a rough idea of the disambiguation page I suggested here. I suggest we create this page for real and title it something like, "Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation)", and then link to it in each relevant page. This would solve pretty much all the problems, as far as I can see. -- Hux 20:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've just read through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping, wherein it states there can be exceptions to the "no piping" rule, and that redirects are sometimes acceptable. Further, it goes so far as to say "For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." Thus, there seems no reason not to use Elizabeth II if we're going to keep the dab from the monarchy articles. --G2bambino 22:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly my view on these issues: by all means look to policies for guidance, but do what makes sense in the context. As to EIIR, I've previously said that I'm happy with the Elizabeth II solution. I do not believe that anyone is really going to be confused if they end up at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. As to the See also rule, perhaps you could ask User:LonewolfBC to produce chapter and verse and justify its reasonableness in the circumstance.--Chris Bennett 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to note that there is a difference between policies and guidelines. Policies should always be respected, whereas guidelines are open to a looser interpretation. I mistakenly thought that the the DAB page represented policy when in fact it's a guideline. Even so, I feel that guidelines are there for a good reason and we should respect them in all cases except where it is seriously problematic to do so. I personally don't think that this situation is so problematic, but if others do then (as I said above) I think that changing the title of the "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" article to something else would be the better solution. -- Hux 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've made an attempt (though, by no means concrete) to reorganize this article to a) create a section to which the dabs at the head of monarchy articles can link and which contains links to the other monarchy articles, b) remove some duplicated text, and c) generally make for better reading/comprehension. I think this eliminates the need for the dab at the head of this article all-together. I too am satisfied with the Elizabeth II solution. --G2bambino 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Per discussion below, this reorg fails as a solution to the dablink issue. You are focussing on the editorial/policy issue, not the general reader. The reader sees a list of 16 monarchies followed by a second list of links to a subset of monarchies with no explanation or obvious reason for being given a second list or why its a subset. Also, PLEASE don't make massive changes without discussing them. Apart from anything else it makes it hard to see and assess what you've done.
I'm reverting these changes so that we can go through the issues in an orderly, step-by-step, fashion. --Chris Bennett 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of realms

User:G2bambino, your reorg appears to be an attempt to finesse the issue of how to link to articles about individual monarchies by embedding the links in a list in the body of the text.

It doesn't work. This list comes immediately after the pretty flags table listing all the existing monarchies. It appears to the reader as a redundant relisting of the monarchies, and moreover one that is incomplete for no obvious reason. (Even on its own terms, it misses the Solomon Islands article.)

I'm sorry, but the See also approach is the natural and correct approach for this issue. I thought we had just established that the policy guidelines enourage us to set up dablinks as appropriate to context. Why not just let that discussion go ahead to see if we could get agreement on how to handle it using that mechanism?

You have a penchant for making massive unilateral edits without consultation or in the middle of discussions. This is provocative and unnecessary. --Chris Bennett 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I think there's a confusion in the meaning of the word "monarchy"; in one sense it means a country, in another it means an institution. While the chart may list the countries, the following section deals with the institutions, so I don't see how either is redundant.
That's the point: It's CONFUSING! --Chris Bennett 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The list of monarchies has to go somewhere, whether in the present location, in a "See also" section here, or elsewhere on this page. As for the completeness of the list, there's nothing that can be done about that save for keep creating new articles. Secondly, a dab at the head of each monarchy article stating: "For information on the other monarchies of which Elizabeth II is sovereign, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies" a) avoids internal linking, and thus avoids debate about such a manoeuvre; b) avoids any potential "double dab"; c) avoids repeated lists of other monarchy articles on each monarchy article; and d) removes the need for a dab at the head of this article.
You can get that effect with Commonwealth Realm monarchies or something similar.
The article needed reorganization for better reading and to remove repeated material anyway. I don't see what I did as being all that drastic; nothing pertinent was removed at all. --G2bambino 00:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It probably does. The trouble is it's hard to assess what you've done, since you didn't discuss it in advance, it's a massive rearrangement, and you have also added new material, material which is a unilateral (and IMO not acceptable) solution to a problem that was still under discussion. Why not try to get consensus? --Chris Bennett 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of putting DAB links at the top of all the pages relating to the monarchies of the individual Realms, rather than a long list in the "See also" section of all those pages. However, I don't think it makes sense for such links to point to a section within the "Commonwealth Realm" article. Given that the very first sentence of the article reads, "A Commonwealth Realm is any one of the sixteen sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations with Elizabeth II as their respective monarch," we can just use a normal link to the page, leaving readers free to read the rest of the article at their leisure. -- Hux 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You really want to see a DABlink that directly refers users to Monarchy in Antigua and Barbuda, Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Jamaica, Monarchy in New Zealand, Monarchy in the Cook Islands, Monarchy in the Solomon Islands, and British Monarchy, with potential for another 9 links??? --Chris Bennett 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand me. I was saying that we should have a DAB link in each relevant article to this article. From here, readers are able to find the links to the individual articles for the Realm monarchies. I was specifically trying to avoid a) a massively long DAB in each and every relevant article, and b) a long "See also" list in each and every relevant article. However, this suggestion is now moot because I'm now advocating that we create a separate disambiguation page instead because it seems we have a lot of info to disambiguate. -- Hux 20:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
People who are looking for info on the countries that are Commonwealth Realms will most likely not start out at an article about a monarchy. However, if someone's looking for info on the monarchy of a specific realm, they may mistakenly start out at British monarchy; it won't do them much good to be directed to a lengthy article on the countries known as the Commonwealth Realms, wherein they have to eventually stumble across a list of the specific monarchies and find the one they were looking for in the first place. By my reading of WP:DAB, a link to a section of an article is perfectly acceptable if the article the section is contained in is not wholly dedicated to the relevant topic. --G2bambino 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a misjudgement of what people will actually be looking for, but we can't tell who's right without looking at the statistics, which we can't get. Be that as it may, I don't have a problem creating DAB links to handle both problems, but I think its exceedingly ugly and over-weighty for one of those DAB links to refer to 9 and possibly up to 17 other articles. --Chris Bennett 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is. Would someone going to the British monarchy article really be looking for information on Canada; or is it more likely they'd be looking for info on the Monarchy in Canada? I would argue strongly that it's the latter.
I think mostly they'd be looking for information about the British monarchy. After that they'd like to know how the monarchy functions in the rest of the Commonwealth, without differentiating the realms. If they already know enough to know that there is a separate Canadian monarchy I doubt they'd start looking for information about it under British monarchy, they'd start in an article related to Canada.
That's why I think yuo're wrong, but my main point is that it doesn't matter which of us is right about how people behave, because we would need empirical data we can't get to prove it one way or the other. So let's agree to disagree and figre out how to soplve the problem. --Chris Bennett 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, speaking as a resident of a non-UK realm, people here often confuse the British Monarchy for the Canadian one, believing them to be one and the same thing. From my time in Australia, I can say there seems to be a similar trend there. Thus, it seems perfectly plausible to me that people wanting to know about the monarchy in their particular country may well start out at British monarchy, believing there to be no such thing as legally distinct crowns in each realm. (Discussions here at Wikipedia have exposed such gross misunderstandings.)
I doubt we'll find empirical evidence; but the purpose of dabs is to make the use of Wikipedia easier, and help people find what they're looking for. I don't believe it's a stretch of the imagination to say that people looking for any info on the Relms themselves - ie. the countries, or even the group of countries - are probably not going to start at British monarchy.
Whatever. I'll stipulate that you are right so that we can move on. --Chris Bennett 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Gee, well, thanks... I guess. --G2bambino 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The "double dab" is one possibility; however it a) creates one of the volatile internal links, and b) still requires a list of monarchy article links somewhere here.
The dabs on the monarchy articles could link directly here; however, again, someone wanting info on the monarchy within their specific country probably won't want to sift through an introduction on the Commonwealth Realms, Dominions, the Commonwealth of Nations, then a list of countries, then... well, I don't know what now that the article has been reverted back to its old, disorganized format, before finding any link to the actual, specific monarchy they were looking for.
The TOC is pretty high up, a See also is fairly visible there. --Chris Bennett 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Those not knowing there are separate monarchies, or those perhaps thinking the info on the monarchy of their country is contained within British monarchy, won't, I suspect, know to go to "See also" when arriving here. A dab at the head of this article could direct users to the "See also" section, but, I've raised my two concerns with that above.
I completely agree that all seven articles should not be listed in dabs; hence the desire for a single, central list instead, to which all the dabs link. It's a much more efficient process.
On the topic of the revert, however: the reorganizaton of the article did not add any content or remove anything that wasn't repeated at least twice; it was essentially just a copyedit. The only contested part seems to be the addition of the list of monarchies. --G2bambino 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
My point was that what you had done was opaque and the timing was bad. All you said was "reorganize page, rm some duplication, add section to which monarchy article dabs can lead". The size of the reorg overwhelms the ability of the diff feature to tell me clearly what was done and to assess whether I (or anyone else looking at it) thinks it is justified - and the dabs section was poorly timed and IMO misplaced.
I'll take your word for it that you think it should not be controversial, but I'd like to be able to tell for myself. Why not do it step by step, describing each step as you go? And hold off on the DABs till we get an agreement. Personally, I was perfectly happy with your earlier approach, as in the current reverted version. --Chris Bennett 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that multiple little edits are undesirable; making edits and using "preview" before finally saving is preferred - I've seen people being chastised for the former; now it appears I'm being chastised for the opposite! Ah well, such is life at Wikipedia, I guess! ;)
All I want is for you to use some judgement, not to follow some black-and-white dogma. Sheesh. --Chris Bennett 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No dogma, just observation of others' actions and the consequences. --G2bambino 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino: At the risk of massaging my own ego, did you come to this understanding as a result of my suggestion to you about not making a large number of small edits to the same text? If so then I need to make clear that I only brought that tendency up as being a problem with reference to talk page edits, i.e. posting a comment, then making multiple edits/additions to that comment can cause problems if another person is trying to reply to it right after you first hit "Save page", because obviously their reply will only be relevant to your initial post and may make no sense if you subsequently edit that post. This reasoning doesn't apply to article pages because there people are not replying to each other - they're just editing the same text. (When it comes to articles I prefer to edit section by section because I think it makes the diffs more readable, but that's just a personal preference. Different editors have different styles.) -- Hux 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, perhaps each monarchy article needs a dab something like the following:
This article is about the monarchy of Canada. For information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
For information on the other countries of which Elizabeth II is sovereign, see Commonwealth Realm.
For information on the other monarchies of which Elizabeth II is sovereign, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies.
I suggest some rewording and reordering:
This article is about the monarchy of <realm>. <realm> is one of 16 countries sharing a common monarch. For information on this arrangement, see Commonwealth Realm.
For a list of pointers to articles on some of the the other monarchies, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies
For information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, who is also monarch of <realm>.
. --Chris Bennett 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"Commonwealth realm monarchies" would be a subsection of "See also" here. Whatever happens to the Elizabeth II link depends on the result of the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
Not looking good so far. See above for another approach --Chris Bennett 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It might be a tad long-winded, but the complexity of the topic may warrant such detail. --G2bambino 18:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I might also note, Chris, that you, unilaterally and before any consensus, changed Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms into a redirect. So, we all may be a little guilty of such acts, even if we do have the best intetntions in mind. --G2bambino 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Noted. IMO, the circumstances and the nature of the edit are quite different, but let's not start a tu quoque match. --Chris Bennett 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I quite like your proposal for the monarchy article dabs; I only have very minor suggested adjustments, mostly to condense length:
This article is about the monarchy of Canada, one of 16 that share a common monarch. For information on this arrangement, see Commonwealth Realm.
For pointers to articles on some of the the other monarchies, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies.
For information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, who is also monarch of Canada.
--G2bambino 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Great. I'm going to put a motion to a vote, under Hux's topic so that the threads are gathered together.--Chris Bennett 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Could a Commonwealth Realm leave the Commonwealth

And still retain the Queen as its head of state? TharkunColl 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting concept, but it's not outside the realm of being impossible. Although it just seems very improbable due to the connections any of them currently have from a historically, culturally, etc. stand. The advantages of staying in also outweigh those of going out. That-Vela-Fella 06:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is theoretically possible. The institution of the Commonwealth is not per se tied to monarchy. There are members of the Commonwealth who do not own EII as their sovereign.--Gazzster 08:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the Pope could also excommunicate himself. Jonathan David Makepeace 17:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hux's proposal

I just created a rough idea of the disambiguation page I suggested here. I suggest we create this page for real and title it something like, "Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation)", and then link to it in each relevant page. This would solve pretty much all the problems, as far as I can see. -- Hux 20:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether the list goes in a section here, or at a page such as Hux proposes, I don't particularly care. Either will work with Chris Bennett's proposed dab. --G2bambino 02:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for copy/pasting my suggestion here. I was going to do it myself because I figured it might get lost in the nested discussion up there. Also, I just thought of another benefit to a disambiguation page: it would theoretically result in the movement of all the arguments about disambiguation form and content to a single talk page, rather than having them spread out among a lot of pages related to the Realms. That can only be a good thing! ;) -- Hux 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a disamguation page works with this approach. Let's see if we can close this thing out.

Moved:

That a dablink be placed at the head of each existing article about an individual realm reading:
This article is about the monarchy of <realm>, one of 16 that share a common monarch. For information on this arrangement, see Commonwealth Realm.
For pointers to articles on some of the other monarchies, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies.
For information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, who is also monarch of <realm>.
where <realm> is replaced by the name of the inidividual realm.
That the phrase "who is also monarch of <realm>" shall not appear in the case of the article British Monarchy
That the dablink at the head of the Commonwealth Realm article be amended to read:
This article is about the common features of those monarchies in the Commonwealth of Nations which have the same monarch.
For pointers to articles on some of the other monarchies, see Commonwealth Realm monarchies.
For information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, who is the monarch of each of the Commonwealth Realms.
.
That Commonwealth Realm monarchies be created as a disambiguation page giving a list of realms that possess separate articles

Does that capture it? --Chris Bennett 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I think this is fine, save for my opinion that the word "other" should be omitted from the proposed dab for this article. Besides that, I think this is a good way to organize all these disparate but connected articles. --G2bambino 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - Looks good to me. GoodDay 18:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, given that the three parties involved are in favour of the proposal - with one outside support - it seems then we can go ahead with this. I'll start the process, and others can refine it, I'm sure. --G2bambino 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm/Archive_7&oldid=1136306477"