Jump to content

Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


15 other countries

TharkunColl, why do you insist on inserting an ambiguously worded, redundant sentence into the lead paragraph? The dablink at the top of the page already explains that the Monarchy is shared, and then the very first section of the main article body explains in detail the personal union relationship. It seems the only reason you're pushing this is to insert the words "British Empire," but in such a manner as subtly impart on unknowing readers your colonial opinions about the non-UK realms. I ask: what's the reason to include such a sentence there? And, if there is a reason, the sentence must be recomposed. --G2bambino 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dynasty

A certain dynasty to link all the monarchs of England to Alfred the Great or William the Conqueror (since all monarchs are direct descendants or at least claim direct descendency from him) alludes me. I know that the French Monarchs from 987 are of the Capetian Dynasty. So what about the English Monarchy, surely it has its own dynasty, or dynasties? I imagine that because of the claim of the first sentence, it would be only one dynasty?Tourskin 06:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It eludes you because it doesn't really exist - there is no single dynasty that links all the monarchs of England and by no means is there any direct descendancy going back to William the Conqueror, much less Alfred. Instead, there are Royal Houses, most (but not all) of whom are blood-related in some way, and whose members have ruled over England (as well as "the United Kingdom", the "Kingdom of Great Britain", the "Kingdom of England", the "Kingdom of Scotland" and a host of other European countries and regions) at one time or another. Simplistically, these are the Houses that have ruled over "England" (in reverse order):
Prior to that, though, it gets tricky, because the Houses of York and Lancaster both held the crown at various points (if I recall correctly). Both, however, were effectively sub-Houses, i.e. offshoots of another royal House, so let's move on to that one:
Before that it gets very messy due to the crown going back and forth between Danish kings and the House of Wessex, until you reach the stage where it becomes debatable as to whether "England" existed, as a concept distinct from the kingdoms of Wessex, Sussex, Northumbria, Mercia, etc.
Confused? I know I am! :) -- Hux 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal union?

Can we have an official source that describes the relationship between the UK and the overseas realms as a "personal union"? Actual examples of personal unions, such as England and Scotland, and Great Britain and Hanover, are not the same, insofar as the kingdoms had different, independent origins, for example. The monarchies in the dominions, on the other hand, are derived from that of the UK. Anyway, I propose to remove the term unless someone finds an official citation. TharkunColl 20:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How is the "origin" of the non-UK Realm monarchies even relevant? The modern situation is that they are all independent kingdoms headed by one person as monarch in each of them; an identical situation to that which existed between Scotland and England, the UK and Hanover, etc. By your thinking Norway and Sweden weren't in a personal union because the kingdoms came to have one person as monarch in each through war and treaty rather than via merging lineage. --G2bambino 20:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No, Norway and Sweden (and Denmark) all began as separate kingdoms, though for many periods in their history have experienced personal union, for whatever reason. The case with the overseas realms is clearly different, as those polities were founded by the British. Be that as it may, until an official use of that term can be found, it should go. I have never heard it used outside Wikipedia in a Commonwealth context. TharkunColl 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Just like the kingdom issue, you don't need an "official use" of the term "personal union" to apply it to the Commonwealth Realms. Is there an "official use" of it for Sweden and Norway between 1814 and 1905? --G2bambino 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you do need an official citation if you want to keep the term, because there is considerable reason to doubt its accuracy. The relationship between the UK and its former colonies is not in any sense comparable to that between independent states that came together in personal union due to the vicissitudes of history. Please, therefore, provide an official citation - otherwise I'll remove it from this and all other articles that use it in a Commonwealth context. TharkunColl 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Present the "considerable reason." --G2bambino 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have - namely, the completely different historical and constitutional context, and the fact that it appears to be never used outside Wikipedia. But in any case, it is you who needs to provide a citation, should you wish to keep it. TharkunColl 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Explain how the historical context matters to whether or not two or more countries are in a personal union. --G2bambino 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to. If you cannot see why its different, then that's your business. But in order to keep the term, you need to provide a citation from an official source. TharkunColl 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but you do. You can't go about removing things to suit your POV, original research, and/or to make a point. --G2bambino 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It is none of things. If you can provide a citation that "personal union" is used to refer to the Commonwealth Realms then I'm happy to keep it. But I don't believe it is, and its use here is therefore inaccurate. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. TharkunColl 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Without a citiation it comes down to your personal judgement on whether or not "personal union" is an appropriate term to use to describe the relationship between the Commonwealth Realms? My, that's humble. Really, the goal here is to make an information source that helps people comprehend various topics and concepts. Hence, when attempting to explain to readers how the Realms of the Commonwealth are linked to each other, the use of the term "personal union" is both accurate and concise; the term was earlier agreed to as such and for use in Wikipedia. You want to overturn consensus based on your own personal (and incorrect) take on how the Realms are related. I think, therefore, it's up to you to provide the irrefutable logic that makes the larger number of editors wrong. --G2bambino 14:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want the phrase, provide an official citation. It's not up to me to try and prove a negative. TharkunColl 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It's up to you to prove why you must undo consensus - if you undo this here it will have wider implications. --G2bambino 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What consensus? It is only you who have objected - you seem to think you own all these articles that mention the Queen and her role. It's up to you to provide a citation, because it's you who want to keep the phrase. TharkunColl 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus earlier about "personal union" being the acceptable term. Read through the histories of Talk:Monarchy in Canada and Talk:Commonwealth Realm. --G2bambino 16:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change - you appear to be the only one supporting it. TharkunColl 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And you're the only one supporting your viewpoint. Perhaps you'd like to begin a debate on the use of "personal union" with a broader participation? If you read through the histories I suggested you might find that it would be futile waste of your effort. --G2bambino 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I simply asked for a citation. Wikipedia is not a democracy and facts outweigh consensus. If you think it's true, you should have no problem finding a source. Otherwise it's just Wikispeak. TharkunColl 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to offer an alternative to replace "personal union" as a description of the relationship between the Commonwealth Realms. As I said, removal of it here has wider implications. --G2bambino 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
How about, Queen of more than one country? It's not rocket science. TharkunColl 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not an alternative. What queen? What countries? --G2bambino 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The Queen of the UK and the dominions. Who else did you think I might have meant? TharkunColl 16:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That only relates to the UK. What do you propose for the other fifteen countries? --G2bambino 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The same, becaue it's still true. She's the same bloody person! TharkunColl 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Same person, different offices. --G2bambino 16:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
But still the same person, so the statement is still true. She is Queen of the UK and the dominions. TharkunColl 16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Same person, different offices. The Queen of the UK and "the dominions" (whatever those are) is only one of sixteen and relates only to the UK. --G2bambino 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's still true anywhere, because it simply states what she is. It's perfectly okay in English, you know, to mention all a person's offices at the same time. TharkunColl 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What states what she is? This is an article about the British Monarchy, therefore it pertains only to Britain. The Queen of the United Kingdom has no jurisdiction outside of the UK itself. --G2bambino 16:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
To say that the Queen of the UK is not the Queen of Australia, Canada, etc. is a gross perversion of language, because she is. TharkunColl 16:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The Queen of the UK is not the Queen of Australia. Read up on the Australian Supreme Court ruling in Sue vs. Hill. --G2bambino 16:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to respond to this. You are stating something that is so preposterously and obviously untrue that I'm lost for words. I'm not talking about the office here, but the person. TharkunColl 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the office, not the person. --G2bambino 17:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Without the person, there would be no office. TharkunColl 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but so what? If you agree that there are separate offices (or crowns) in each Realm all held by one individual then the proper description for that situation is a "personal union"; unless, of course, you can offer another suggestion. --G2bambino 17:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a citation that "personal union" is appropriate here. Historically it has always been used of independent states that have come together, not former colonies of one of them. TharkunColl 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Please provide an alternate description to use. --G2bambino 17:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not my responsibility. Just re-word the whole thing. TharkunColl 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's your responsibility; you want to change something, it's your responsibility to say what it should be changed to; nobody's here to do your dirty work for you. In essence, you have three choices right now: 1) Leave the article as is, 2) rewrite the sentence/paragraph in question, 3) delete the sentence/paragraph all-together. What's it to be? --G2bambino 01:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion it would inappropriate to describe the connection between - let's say - Australia and Great Britain as a Personal Union. As TharkunColl has pointed out a personal union is the result of a joint of two Kingdoms by f.ex. marriage. It should be pointed out in the article that there is an international dispute whether the successor of Queen E. will be King of the other countries. In the meantime it should be also pointed out that the British monarch currently is Queen of Australia, Canada and so on. That's quite relevant here. --89.12.165.37 14:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Provide evidence that a) there is an international dispute over the successor to Elizabeth II becoming monarch in any or all of the Realms, b) the Monarch of the UK is Monarch of Australia. --G2bambino 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
1. Cf. Monarchy in Australia (Section Debate on the monarchy) and republicanism in Australia
2. Cf. Monarchy in Australia. Because the UK and Australia have the same regulations of succession it is to conclude that the Monarch of the uk and Monarch of Australia is and will be the same person. (Unless Australia or UK change thier constitution) --89.12.165.37 15:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
1. The Australian debate is not international.
2. Because the same person is head of state of both countries does not mean one is subordinate to the other; ie. that the Queen of one country rules over the other. You too should also read up on the Australian Supreme Court ruling in Sue vs. Hill. --G2bambino 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Since it is patently obvious that the Queen of the UK is also Queen of Australia, Canada, etc. then, once again, it is you who have to provide an official citation that she isn't. TharkunColl 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
1. It is the same in other countries of the Queen, unfortunately I have to say.
2. I never said otherwise.
For the discussion: I'm not able to see the dissens here. Only the term Personal Union is unclear. But from what I read in that Wikipedia-article I'm wrong and you are right. The relationship between the UK and the other realms can be described as Personal Union although I never have heard that before. --89.12.165.37 16:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's wrong and misleading - and so is relying on Wikipedia. We need a citation that the term "personal union" is used in official sources. TharkunColl 16:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is an "unofficial" source: http://www.nira.go.jp/publ/review/98summer/george.html Quote: As a matter of legal theory, Australia and Britain have separate crowns, even though they are occupied by the same person; the two countries have a personal union of crowns analogous to that of England and Scotland from 1603 to 1707 and of Great Britain and Hanover from 1714 to 1837. The notion of a "Queen of Australia," however, is a legal fiction. The Australian constitution recognizes only "the Queen" who is the current occupant of the British throne and whose succession thereto is governed by British law.
This adds new arguments in the debate. If there is no "Queen of Australia" then there is no personal union although the article states otherwise. A personal union is only possible if there are two offices. But apparently the Crown of the UK and of Australia is only one office. --89.12.165.37 19:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The Australian Supreme Court has ruled otherwise; they have essentially stated that within Australia there is no such thing as the "Queen of the United Kingdom." I would rather go by their interpretation than that of a professor with a clearly pro-republican slant (who obviously knows nothing about the Statute of Westminster or the Australia Act). There are two offices, not one; Australia is not a colony of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino 14:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may add my contribution- apologies for interrupting the discussion- by Australian constitutional law and a UK Act of Parliament the Queen may not annul an Act of the Commonwealth of Australia's Parliament on the grounds that it is repugnant to the laws and interests of the UK (see veto- Australia). This would seem to indicate that in her office as Queen of the UK HM has no authority in the Commonwealth of Australia.--Gazzster 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The British monarch is also the monarch of Canada, Australia, etc. In legal theory, these are each separate and equal offices. However, the British monarch is also (albeit separately and equally) monarch of those other places by virtue of being the British monarch -- because those other countries have, so far, chosen to keep that historic link to the "mother country". I'm sure it would be unconstitutional, in each respective case, for any of these countries to have some other monarch than the British one, and if it came to constitutional change in connection with the monarchy, the only likely one is (respectively) its abolition, not the making of it into a fully separate monarchy in the practical sense of having an in-country monarch, different from Britain's. The monarchy is kept, after all, for the sake of tradition, not out of any particular keeness for monarchy, as such; having some other monarch than the British one would thus be quite pointless. Therefore it is altogether right to say that the British monarch "... serves as Head of State of over a dozen independent countries known as Commonwealth Realms, such as Canada, Australia, and Jamaica." Indeed, failure to say so would be a large omission from an article on the British monarchy. A brief explanation of the legal separateness would be good, to follow. Perhaps this: "This developed from the former colonial status of those countries, within the British Empire. Today, though, each of them is an independent country and legally the British monarch is separately and equally the monarch of each Commonwealth Realm, also."

This development from former colonial status bears on the "personal union" issue. "Personal union" is, I suppose, true to say, but only in a somewhat odd manner. Historically, "personal union" has applied to originally separate monarchies that have happened to fall into the hands of a single person, but are kept legally distinct, as against the lately gained territory being annexed to that held formerly (or vice versa). The Habsburgs built much of their empire by collecting crowns in this manner. The examples of England and Scotland, and of Great Britain and Hanover have already been mentioned. The Commonwealth Realms in relation to Britain are a different case insofar as that their monarchies were originally not separate, but have been legally split off from the Britsh. Moreover, they remain tightly bound to it: Legal separateness and equality notwithstanding, the British monarch is automatically and necessarily the monarch of each of the other countries, just by virtue of being the British monarch. We'll be seeing no Hanoverian scenario, where the personal union was broken over differing sucession laws. So originally and practically there is but one monarchy. Given these differences between the historic situations to which "personal union" has applied, on one hand, and the Commonwealth monarchies, on the other, I think that the term is somewhat problematic. To readers who know it, it bears false implications from the historic situations to which it applies. To readers who know it not, it is unhelpful. I think that it could be done without, and that a brief explanation of the relationship would serve better.

-- Lonewolf BC 06:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost correct, but you place the UK in too high a position, as though it is a benchmark of sorts for the other countries. This is not the case; the UK is as subject to the provisions of the Statute of Westminster as any other nation where it is a part of the constitution. Therefore, it could be said that the UK is as subject to Canadian approval for alterations in the line of succession as vice versa. However, would one then argue the monarch of the UK is an element of the Canadian parliament and therefore subject to Canada and not independent? By the theories presented here, perhaps that's what the article should state. --G2bambino 14:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The UK is no more bound by the Statute of Westminster than by any other Act of Parliament. It could be repealed or amended at any time, because the UK has no embedded constitution. TharkunColl 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The Statute of Westminster is currently a part of UK constitutional law, therefore the UK must abide by it. --G2bambino 14:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Gbambino06/G2bambino's remarks are beside my points, whereas I neither place the countries concerned at relative heights, nor consider alterations to the line of succession. I do refer to the fact that there is but one succession involved, common to all the theoretically separate monarchies (in contrast to the case of Britain and Hanover). So this stuff about the Statute of Westminster, etc. is nought but distraction in relation to what I wrote.
Getting back to that, for the reasons given, "...the British monarch also serves as Head of State of over a dozen other, independent countries..." (note the tweak) is plain truth and and needful content, while using "personal union" is somewhat problematic, even if technically right. Whereas these are the points at editiorial issue, it were best that they stay the focus of discusssion here. -- Lonewolf BC 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The Statute of Westminster is key, especially the clause "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion"; that means the Queen of the UK (a body of the British Parliament) cannot legislate in Canada, Australia, or elsewhere. Hence, the British Monarch serves as head of state only of Britain. Again, read the Supreme Court of Australia ruling in Sue v Hill. The same person who is the British monarch serves as the head of state of over a dozen other, independent countries; its self-contradictory to say a country is independent but under a foreign Crown. --G2bambino 16:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. No one, here, is saying that the British parliament can legislate for those other countries, much less arguing from any such premise. Oddly enough, the person who is the British monarch is the British monarch. That's a tautology. Therefore, the British monarch is also the monarch of those other countries -- not as the British monarch, formally, but because of being the British monarch. Actually, a country can be independent while being under a foreign crown if the monarch is just a powerless figurehead. But never mind about that because it is not the claim or premise here.
No more red herrings, please. We should be considering two editorial points about the article. -- Lonewolf BC 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are nonsensical; the person who is the British Monarch is also the Canadian Monarch for no other reason than Canadian constitutional law sets it up that way; Canada does not rely on the UK to choose a monarch for it. Further, a country cannot be independent under a foreign power, and, as the possessor of all executive authority in and over Canada Elizabeth is not a "powerless figurehead," as though she existed as some vague and useless symbol. Hence, you cannot claim that the non-UK realms are independent while also saying they're under the British Crown, which, itself, is a body of the British paliament. --G2bambino 18:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's the same person, then it's true to say that the Queen of the UK is Queen of those other places. This is an important fact and should definitely go in the article. TharkunColl 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Then you'll have to explain that the Queen of the UK is a part of the Canadian parliament, elsewise people might assume the UK is an independent country. --G2bambino 17:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. But we are getting severely side-tracked here: the key issue here is an editorial decision over what works best in an article. That being the case, I agree with Lonewolf BC: the use of "personal union", whether or not it is correct to use the term, is significantly misleading here. It should therefore be removed and replaced with an explanatory passage. The one he/she suggests would work nicely. -- Hux 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not work nicely because it's incorrect. If "personal union" is not to be used then some other accurate description must go in its place; nobody has yet come up with one. --G2bambino 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Really? I'm having a hard time seeing what's so wrong with, "the British monarch serves as Head of State of over a dozen independent countries known as Commonwealth Realms, such as Canada, Australia, and Jamaica. This developed from the former colonial status of those countries, within the British Empire. Today, though, each of them is an independent country and legally the British monarch is separately and equally the monarch of each Commonwealth Realm, also." Seems accurate enough for me. What do you think? -- Hux 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't own these articles, and your POV should not be allowed to distort the facts. The British monarch is also monarch of those other places and this is a very important fact about her. TharkunColl 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I never claimed to "own" any article, nor should anyone's POV, including yours, be allowed to distort facts. However, you've yet to present any actual facts that affirm the non-UK realms are subordinate nations to the United Kingdom, as your proposed insertions attempt to assert. --G2bambino 18:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
What a preposterous assertion. Those realms have chosen to retain the British monarch, and could become republics at any time. They are not subordinate. TharkunColl 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have consensus but for one implacably stubborn dissent. The passage I've suggested is correct so far as I can see, and Gbambino's insistence otherwise without saying why or offering an alternative wording is essentially worthless both as argument and as movement toward an editorial resolution. I suggest making the changes. Naturally, I'm open to their further refinement. -- Lonewolf BC 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, go for it. Perhaps instead of saying more than a dozen, say the exact number, fifteen. It's only a minor point though, and I'm happy either way. TharkunColl 18:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
To assert that the British Monarch reigns in the non-UK realms is to claim that the non-UK realms are under a foreign power: the British Crown, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Westminster parliament. There has been plenty of evidence presented to point to how that is not the case; it is not my fault if nobody chooses to read it or further research it. I've asked continually for an accurate alternate wording, and, as I just said, nobody has yet come up with one. Let's move towards an editorial resolution, but an incorrect one is completely unacceptable. --G2bambino 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is asserting that the British monarch reigns over the Commonwealth Realms. They are simply arguing that Queen Elizabeth II is queen of the UK and also queen of each of those realms separately and individually, which is a fact. The fact that she is queen of those other realms does not imply that those realms are subordinate to the UK, hence the phrase, "separately and individually". (And as a PS, please stop saying that the British Crown "falls within the jurisdiction of the Westminster parliament". That's nonsense. The Queen is part of the executive branch of government, which is distinct from parliament (which is the legislative branch, obviously). -- Hux 20:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, people are trying to assert that the British Monarch reigns over the Commonwealth realms; nothing else can be interpreted from "the British monarch is separately and equally the monarch of each Commonwealth Realm." The Queen of the UK is one of the three parts that form the British Parliament; only the British Parliament can create legislation that affects the British Crown. Hence, if any country besides the UK is under the British Crown it is therefore still, at least in part, dependent on the UK Parliament, and hence not independent. --G2bambino 20:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm saying "separately and individually", which I think implies what you're saying, i.e. that the monarch of the UK is also the monarch of the other Realms, but does not have the same powers in those Realms as he or she does in the UK. This text does not imply that any Realm is subordinate to any other Realm. Would you agree with that?
Secondly, your description of the structure of the British government is highly inaccurate. The government has three essential branches: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The Queen is part of (but not the whole of) the executive branch and is separate from parliament, which forms the legislative branch (and part of the judiciary, given that the House of Lords is the highest domestic court of appeal). -- Hux 07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems we have already reached a consensus. Please don't try and disrupt the article any further. TharkunColl 18:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You haven't reached a consensus; one other person clearly ignorant of the facts agrees with your ignorant interpretations. As I said, there are three options now available: 1) rewrite the sentence/paragraph in question in an accurate manner, 2) leave the sentence/paragraph as it is, 3) remove the sentence/paragraph all-together. You've proposed that the sentence say "the Queen" reigns in the non-UK realms, but failed to explain why the British Queen reigns in the non-UK realms (thereby supposing that those countries fall under another nation's jurisdiction); that, therefore, is not accurate. So, I suggest that if you disagree so stongly with "personal union" being used in this article, then just delete the words from the sentence in question. It will make understanding the relations between the Commonwealth Realms a litte more difficult for readers, but overall won't render the sentence's contents inaccurate. --G2bambino 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It is only you who seems to imagine that a country is not independent if it chooses to retain the British monarch. That is your POV. Please stop trying to control these articles. TharkunColl 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not POV, it's established fact that a country under a foreign head is not independent. If there is such a thing as a sovereign state under another coutnry's sovereign, please point us to that example. --G2bambino 18:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Bambino, your continual distortions of what others are saying here, and of the meaning of their edits to the article does you no credit. You seem to be the only one in dissent, and that dissent is incoherent. Your objections have been answered, and were never very reasonable to begin with. Please stop this. I regret that we cannot have full agreement, because of you, but we have clear consensus. -- Lonewolf BC 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Two people does not a consenus make. I've already said, if "personal union" is so objectionable to you both, remove the words from the sentence in question. It will make things less clear for readers, but overall won't affect the accuracy of the wording. What's your objection to that? --G2bambino 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
But there are more than two. I've already given my rationale for the intended edits. -- Lonewolf BC 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the wording proposed above. I think it states very concisely what the position is. And to paraphrase yourself, one person does not a consensus break. TharkunColl 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you mean "the British monarch is separately and equally the monarch of each Commonwealth Realm," then, no, that is not acceptable; it infers that the non-UK realms are not independent of Britain. Again, what is objectionable to simply dropping the term "personal union"? Or, do you actually have another motive here? --G2bambino 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the major problem here is that you're viewing this whole thing extremely pedantically, i.e. with the mindset that a nation must be either a) independent, or b) subordinate to another nation. In reality, both states can exist simultaneously and in fact that is exactly the case with the Commonwealth Realms. Take Canada: Elizabeth II is, according to Canadian law, both Sovereign and Head of State of Canada, holding the title "Queen of Canada". It is impossible for a Bill to become law in Canada without the Royal Assent, so in that respect one could argue that in theory Canada is still subordinate to the British Crown. However, given that the Governor General will never refuse to grant that assent on the monarch's behalf and if he/she ever does so then we can be certain that Canada would immediately cut all legal ties with the UK, we can say that in practice Canada is an independent country that happens to have the Queen of the UK as its purely ceremonial Head of State. In other words, on paper, Canada isn't independent, but in reality it is. Roughly the same state of affairs exists in the other Commonwealth nations. Got it now? -- Hux 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
A country is either fully independent or it is not; if a country remains under the Crown of another country, an institution that is a part of and controlled by a foreign parliament, then that country cannot be independent. The British parliament cannot touch any aspect of the Crown beyond the borders of the United Kingdom, hence, outside of the UK the insititution ceases to be British. If that were not the case then an alteration to the line of succession in Canada, for example, would take effect in the UK, meaning the UK is not independent of Canada. The Governor General of Canada represents only the Queen of Canada; the Queen of the United Kingdom, who is a part of the British Parliament and acts only on the advice of her British Ministers, has no part in Canadian legislation, or any other Canadian governmental affairs. Thus, Canada is not subodinate to the British Crown, either theoretically or in actual fact. --G2bambino 20:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No it does not. That's just silly, and you're the only one claiming so. -- Lonewolf BC 19:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't need the phrase "separately and equally", it is pedantic and pointless. Those words must be scored into your keyboard. And once again, a sovereign country need not have its own head of state, as the current examples prove. TharkunColl 19:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's silly to point out that a foreign monarch reigning over another country makes that other country subservient to the foreign power? Then I suppose it will be quite acceptable to state that the Canadian Monarch is separately and equally the monarch of each Commonwealth Realm; the UK must be under the reign of the Queen of Canada. --G2bambino 19:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Who just happens to live in the UK, the former colonial power, and is represented by governors general everywhere else? TharkunColl 19:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. By your arguments the UK is under the rule of Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, who's an element of the Canadian federal parliament. I guess the UK isn't an independent nation after all. --G2bambino 19:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, a consensus has emerged. Please, in future, try and keep your POV out of this article. TharkunColl 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
My future edits will depend on what's inserted by others. --G2bambino 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I am in support of G2bambino here, each Realm is independent, and the British Crown has no say at all over the New Zealand, or Canadian Crown.
Hux, your passage “In other words, on paper, Canada isn't independent, but in reality it is.” Completely is incorrect, I suggest you read up on Canadian Constitutional Law, Royal Assent is from the Canidain Monarch, the British Monarch is no way involved.
TharkunColl, could you please stop disrupting wikipedia with all your objections.
Lonewolf BC, your incorrect, “We'll be seeing no Hanoverian scenario, where the personal union was broken over differing sucession laws.” Should the UK parliament vote tomorrow for example, to ‘update’ the Act of Settlement that ‘update’ will only apply in the UK. Thus 15 of the 16 Realms will have different succession laws…. Brian | (Talk) 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Brian: I didn't say that "the British Monarch" was involved. I referred specifically to the person called Queen Elizabeth II, who is Queen of the UK and also, separately, Queen of Canada. If she should ever refuse to grant the Royal Assent to a Canadian law what do you think would happen? Do you think that the outcry would be, "Our Queen (as distinct from the Queen of the UK, even though they are one and the same person) is interfering in the affairs of the people"? Or would it be, "The British monarchy is interfering in the affairs of Canada"? Inarguably, surely, it would be the latter. Now sure, you can legitimately say that people espousing the latter are wrong, but that's a purely pedantic, hand-waving argument that detracts from the reality of the situation in practice, i.e. however much one would like the British monarch and the Canadian monarch to be entirely separate, the fact of the matter is that when the two offices are occupied by the same person it is impossible to regard them as entirely separate. Or to put it another way, just because something is de jure that doesn't magically make the de facto situation disappear. -- Hux 11:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The independence of the dominions is not in dispute. I thought that "barring legal changes causing differing orders of succession" was too obvious to need adding. -- Lonewolf BC 21:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The independence of the non-UK realms is indeed in dispute; to say a country's executive authority is vested in a foreign monarch is to say it is not independent. --G2bambino 21:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No it is not. No one is disputing it. You are merely insisting that others are disputing it, and insisting so on a nonsensical basis, that insists they say other things which they do not. We've been round this circle before, and your nonsense remains nonsense. -- Lonewolf BC 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No, we're going round in circles because you and Thark adamantly refuse to accept the evidence presented to you. In fact, neither of you have been able to explain how a country can have it's executive authority vested in a foreign body and still actually be independent; I suspect because you can't. What you're trying to assert is that the non-UK realms are reigned over by an institution that lies within the jurisdiction of Britain, hence making their own chief executive beyond their control, a situation that hasn't existed for at least 80 years, and certainly not after the patriation of each non-UK Realm's constitution.
To spell this out in greater detail, as it seems neither of you will bother to research this yourself:
  • Prior to 1927 the ability of the Dominions to legislate remained theoretically subject to the British Parliament, and the Monarch of the UK nominally reigned over them as a single imperial domain.
  • 1926: Balfour Declaration stated the Dominions "are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth." (Note: the Crown, not the British Crown.)
  • 1927: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act altered the monarch's title so as to reflect that he was king of each Dominion separately, as opposed to the British king in each Dominion (note the effect in Ireland).
  • 1931: Statute of Westminster grants formal legislative independence to the Dominions, making them effectively independent kingdoms under a common monarch, though retaining some residual constitutional functions for the Westminster Parliament, such as the right to legislate for a Dominion by request, and reserving the right to alter certain aspects of the constitutions of some Dominions.
  • 1936: abdication of Edward VIII, it is necessary for the Dominions to be consulted on the matter, and for them to pass separate legislation keeping their lines of succession parallel, as per the Statute of Westminster.
  • 1952: Elizabeth II proclaimed in UK as queen "of this Realm, and of her other Realms and Territories"; demonstrating the dismissal of the term Dominion, as well as the separation between the new queen's position in the UK and those in the other Realms; Canada issues it's own proclamation of accession of Queen of Canada as UK proclamation has no effect in Canada.
  • 1953: Royal Style and Titles Act passed in each Realm parliament, titles Elizabeth II separately in each Realm as queen of that specific Realm; over decades all but two non-UK Realms drop reference to the UK from the Queen's title.
  • 1982: English Court of Appeal rules in R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association that the Queen of UK and Queen of Canada are separate: "there is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth... in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada." (Note: this ruling came down before the patriation of Canada's constitution.)
  • 1982-1986: All Realms patriate their constitutions from the UK, ending all legal ties between the UK Parliament and their respective governments; Monarch of the UK now has absolutely no role in governments outside of the UK itself.
  • 1999: Supreme court of Australia rules in Sue v Hill that the UK is a foreign power to Australia; the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia are separate bodies; "The Queen as monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is in a position resembling that of the King of Scotland and of England between 1603 and 1707 when two independent countries had a common sovereign."
  • 2002: Ontario Superior Court rules that Canada and UK have separate crowns; "Absent this Canadian statute [Succession to the Throne Act, 1 Geo. IV, c.16], the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster. Arguably, without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada... the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain."
Given all that it is patently false to claim that the British Monarch has sovereignty, or indeed any role as head of state, in any country other than the United Kingdom. Thus, it is incorrect, misleading, and to act in bad faith to insert any statement that asserts the Monarch of the United Kingdom acts as head of state for the other Commonwealth Realms. --G2bambino 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Your grasp of relevance is getting no better. Neither is your understanding of what is being said by others here. Let me put it to you this way: if x=y and y=z then x=z. Or this way: If all A's are B and all B's are C then all A's are C. Where there is but one in the class, was with the monarch of the UK, Elizabeth II (of the UK), and the monarch of, say, Jamaica, "all" definitely applies, is simply determined and can be left tacit. So given that the monarch of the UK is Elizabeth II, and that Elizabeth II is the monarch of Jamaica, it follows that the monarch of the UK is also the monarch of Jamaica. It's that simple.
Your nonsense about this making Jamaica subordinate and less than independent would not affect that simple and obvious conclusion even if it were not nonsense -- which it is: irrelevant nonsense and nought but a big red herring you keep dragging across the discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 05:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said, "neither of you have been able to explain how a country can have it's executive authority vested in a foreign body and still actually be independent". Nobody is arguing that any of the non-UK realms have their executive authority vested in a foreign body. You also said, "What you're trying to assert is that the non-UK realms are reigned over by an institution that lies within the jurisdiction of Britain". Again, nobody is saying that the non-UK realms are reigned over by the institution of the British monarchy. They are simply pointing out the fact that the British monarch is also the monarch of the other Realms, according to the laws passed in each of those Realms. The entire source of your consternation appears to be a failure to recognize that there is a difference between "monarch" (person) and "monarchy" (institution). -- Hux 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
So, you will support the insertion of the fact that, by your logic, the Canadian Monarch is the head of state of the UK? --G2bambino 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I would support the presence of such a statement in the Canadian Monarchy article, sure. But it serves no purpose in this one. -- Hux 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The Canadian monarch is sure enough also the head of state of the UK but, as Hux points out, specifically saying so in the article on the British monarch would be without purpose. -- Lonewolf BC 19:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

In the interests of making this firm, I propose this two-part resolution:

  • Revert to edition of 70.68.228.208 at 16:03, 5 July 2007 (diff). This does away with "personal union" and other pedantry, and moves mention of the British monarch's roles outside of Britain back down to the bottom to the lead, where I think they belong.

and

  • Edit 70.68.228.208's version of that paragraph to: "The British monarch is also Head of the Commonwealth and, besides reigning in the United Kingdom, serves as Head of State for fifteen other, independent countries known as Commonwealth Realms or (more historically) as Dominions, such as Canada, Australia, and Jamaica. This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain. Today, though, each of them is an independent country and in law the British monarch is separately and equally the monarch of each Commonwealth Realm, as well.

Refinements to this are welcome, of course. -- Lonewolf BC 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of not letting this get too muddied, I'm inserting this survey and making a sub-sub-section for the discussion that the proposal has generated so far, and any further such. Please keep comments in the survey section brief, and do not use it for arguing back and forth. The discussion section is for that -- but even there try to keep to the immediate subject. (Some material there is beginning to run astray, which is part of my reason for organising the proposal's sub-section anew.) Thanks for your cooperation. -- Lonewolf BC 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Survey - supporting
  1. Support, naturally, it being my proposal. I think that, given that it is meant to go in the lead, the explanation might be cut down a bit, but that's pretty much a toss-up, to my mind. Certainly it should be no longer, full explanation belonging in the main body of the article. -- Lonewolf BC 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Lonewolf's version is admirably clear, and Bambino's criticisms of it are, so far as I can tell, entirely idiosyncratic. john k 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (Full comments in the discussion.)
  3. Weak Support and here's why: I support it because it mentions the fact that all the Realms as independent nations and that the British Monarch also serves as a seperate head of state for each of the Realms. I oppose it because of several wording issues I have with it. I believe that the wording could be reorganized in a fashion where it clearly states that the British Crown is not the same as the Crowns of the other Realms, but all the offices are held by the same person. Also, perhaps instead of just "independent countries", it should be "independent and sovereign nations"; that, I believe, will assert the fact that these nations are not subject to the British Crown, but to their individual Crowns. Nat Tang ta | co | em 06:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support (with caveats): What the text is trying to say is generally accurate. However, I would change it to say "separately and individually", rather than, "separately and equally". The latter is misleading because it implies that the same powers the monarch enjoys in Britain can be exercised in the other Commonwealth Realms, which is not the case. "Separately and individually", gives full credit to the fact that what the monarch has the authority to do in one place is fully separate from what they can do in the other places. I would also support Nat Tang's suggestion above that the text clearly state that "the British Crown is not the same as the Crowns of the other Realms, but all the offices are held by the same person". My second caveat is that I think the lead section should only contain the 16:03, 5 July 2007 reversion (or similar) and that the altered text should appear in the body of the article. The leader should be simple, unambiguous and will necessarily be incomplete since it's just an introduction to the topic. The 16:03, 5 July 2007 edit was perfectly fine in that respect. -- Hux 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. We need to use plain English. Gbambino's contention is pedantic and preposterous, and only serves to obfuscate and confuse the issue. TharkunColl 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support (also with caveats): I'm going to alter my vote with some suggestions, as I now see others have done. 1) As per Hux & Nat, there needs to be some explanation that the non-UK crowns are not the same as the British Crown, though the person who holds each of them is, with the appropriate references; 2) keep "separately and equally", this is a correct description as the monarch has the same authority in each country, and it acknowledges the equality provisions of the Balfour Declaration (there are references for this too). --G2bambino 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Survey - opposing
  1. Oppose: a) The proposed text is incorrect, as per facts presented above. b) Resolution to this dispute cannot take place via a vote; if a compromise cannot be reached, proper dispute resolution procedures should be followed. --G2bambino 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The proposal doesn't quite work. a) It ignores the provisions of the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster, and a number of Realm constitutonal laws. b) The United Kingdom is itself a Commonwealth Realm.

The sentence should read something more like: "Through constitutional development since 1931, wherein the previous Dominions of the British Empire attained full sovereignty from the United Kingdom, the person who serves as the British Monarch also acts independently as head of state for fifteen other countries; collectively, these states headed by the same person, including the UK, are known as the Commonwealth Realms. The British Monarch is currently Head of the Commonwealth, however that position is not attached to the British Crown indefinitely."

Though, of course, the contents of the first two sections within British monarchy#Modern status explain most of that anyway. --G2bambino 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote for option #1 above. It is accurate and straightforward for a lead section, which is supposed to serve as an introduction to the article. I don't agree with G2bambino's suggestions because, irrespective of accuracy, they are not in keeping with what a lead section is supposed to be. The precise details of the relationship between the British monarch and the non-UK Commonwealth Realms can (and should) be explained in the body of the article. -- Hux 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hux, your opinions are over 80 years out of date. --G2bambino 21:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, what? The only opinion I expressed in the comment you were responding is the idea that a lead section should be a simple introduction and that complex discussion should be in the main body of the article. What's "over 80 years out of date" about that? Or are you perhaps referring to my comments further up the page? If so then why are you referring to them here instead of, you know, up there where they would actually make sense in context? -- Hux 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
For instance, your comment: In other words, on paper, Canada isn't independent, but in reality it is describes Canada between 1867 and at least 1931. Thus, your opinion that it's correct to refer to Canada as still being under the British Monarch is seemingly supported by an outdated idea of Canada's relationship to the United Kingdom. --G2bambino 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
As I thought, your comments had nothing to do with what I wrote in this section. This section is for the discussion of the proposal made by Lonewolf BC. If you want to reply to comments I made in an earlier section of this page then please reply directly to them up there. For the sake of clarity, I'm not going to address out-of-context comments. -- Hux 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Canada was certainly not, "in reality" independent before 1926. It didn't conduct its own foreign relations, most notably, and the Governor-General acted as an agent not only of the monarch, but also of the British government, and was appointed by the British prime minister, not the Canadian PM. Canada was largely self-governing, but it was certainly not sovereign in any generally understood sense. john k 03:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Prior to 1926 Canada was not independent "on paper," as you say, being instead within the sovereignty of the UK; however, in practice, the UK parliament left most legislative and judicial decisions up to the Canadian parliament and courts. After 1931 Canada (and the other Realms) were, for all intensive purposes, independent "on paper"; the patriation of the Canadian constitution in 1982 fully confirmed the country's independence. Regardless, none of this undermines the point that Hex's take on present matters is seriously out of date. --G2bambino 03:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I really meant that as single proposal having two stages, not as an either-or. (I've now edited what I first wrote slightly, to make that clear.) I suppose that for the lead we could go with an even briefer form than what I've put above. -- Lonewolf BC 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
So, just to be clear: are you saying that you think the lead should incorporate something like suggestion #1 above and that the main body should contain something akin to suggestion #2? If so then at that suggests that, at the very least, there is no longer any disagreement about the lead section, correct? -- Hux 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm suggesting that the lead's last paragraph (the one 70.68.228.208 added to in the diff) be edited to as in the second part of the proposal. The first part of the proposal just undoes edits to the lead that were consequences of this dispute -- equivalent material, earlier in the lead. Sorry for the confusion.
-- Lonewolf BC 22:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, right. In that case my opinion is somewhat different. I'll add my comments to the survey section above. -- Hux 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lonewolf's proposal. TharkunColl 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(Moved down to here from the "Survey", with the poster's consent. -- LW)
As usual, Bambino stands for mindless pedantry. As far as I can tell, the basic problem is that while Queen Elizabeth II rules over the United Kingdom and more than a dozen other countries, the British monarch does not. Basically, Bambino is trying to impose the tenets of his constitutional theories onto the normal workings of the English language. Basically, all this does is obfuscate and confuse people who don't already know all the background and agree with him about how it is to be interpreted, and makes the whole thing into a mess of jargon. We should try to explain the situation in clear English, and not worry about whether, if interpreted in some particular way, it can be construed to imply some kind of attack on Bambino's preferred constitutional interpretation. Lonewolf's version is admirably clear, and Bambino's criticisms of it are, so far as I can tell, entirely idiosyncratic. john k 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you support the fact that the British monarch does not reign over more than a dozen other countries, why on earth would you support the insertion of a claim that the British monarch reigns over more than a dozen other countries? --G2bambino 03:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In regard to Gbambino's objection to the survey, it is no more or less binding than any other survey in Wikipedia. It borrows the form used in, for instance, "move" and "deletion" debates, and its purpose is the same: to show clearly the relative levels of support and opposition but separating them out from the mass of arguement, and to impart some order to the presentation of the various positions and reasons. This is not a simple majority vote, but an aid to resolution of the issue, countering the tendency for discussion to become a chaotic battle royal without a readily discernable outcome. It does not preclude further steps toward resolving the dispute, though those shan't be needed if it yields a clear outcome. -- Lonewolf BC 06:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your survey is a popular vote on a fixed solution, not an exercise in compromise. Thank you for acknowledging, though, that it is not binding. --G2bambino 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I regret that you do not or will not understand the purpose and function of surveys within Wikipedia discussions. Contrary to your seeming belief, they are not simple "popular votes" because a simple majority outcome is not necessarily decisive. Rather, they are tools for gauging both the quantity and the quality of opinion and its backing reasons, by better ordering the debate. If you still don't understand that, then that must be solely your problem. -- Lonewolf BC 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Modified proposal

I like Gbambino's goal of keeping things correct, but not always the means to attain that goal. Wouldn't a simple solution be taking the proposal as it is stated but changing "The British monarch is also..." to "The person who holds this office is also..."? That's the undeniable truth. We certainly don't need to say that the British monarch, as such, is monarch of anything else, and we also don't need to explicitly say that the Commonwealth Realms form a personal union, because while most agree that they do, this is pretty much a minefield. Would everyone agree on this modified version? -- Jao 10:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is mere pedantry. TharkunColl 11:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Concur. -- Lonewolf BC 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with TharkunColl - it's utter pedantry, completely unnecessary, and stylistically monstrous. john k 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It's hardly "stylistically monstrous" (really, John, you have such an affinity for overblown, dramatic condescension) to add three words to a sentence. Depending on what's done, this may be precisely what will be inserted; there are now cited, legal rulings to use as references for such an edit. --G2bambino 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Any edits you make against consensus will be reverted. The wording you propose is a grotesque abuse of the English language. TharkunColl 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Any edits I make that are relevant, accurate, and supported by acceptable references cannot be reverted. I'll try my best not to be grotesque, however. --G2bambino 15:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You still appear to think that you own this and all the other articles mentioning the British monarchy. I assure you that your edits can and will be reverted. Your POV should not be allowed to obscure the facts. TharkunColl 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Do as you please, Thark. Just be prepared to take responsibility for your actions. PS- I don't respond to threats, so you may want to stop wasting your time throwing them at me. Just a suggestion. --G2bambino 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh? It was you who threatened to vandalise the article. If you do as you say you will likely get blocked for vandalism. And it's funny how you're more than happy to bleat "consensus" when you think it supports your POV, but ignore it when it doesn't. TharkunColl 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, consensus elsewhere did support my previous edits, and often the onus is on the person breaking consensus to explain why. However, in this case, the cited facts have been presented that prove Lonewolf's proposal as including an inaccuracy; in fact, some of the supports for his edit come with the caveat that it be slightly altered to rectify the error. There is now more than one reliable source to affirm that the British Monarch is not the head of state of any country beyond Britain; cited edits will always trump your unsourced ones. --G2bambino 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You are committing a linguistic category error. Of course the British monarch is head of state of other countries. You might just as well say that the prime minister is not the first lord of the treasury, or that the pope is not the bishop of Rome. TharkunColl 15:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Three cited court cases from three different Commonwealth Realms prove you wrong. --G2bambino 16:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I must disagree with TharkunCol there. The British Monarch is not the head of state of the other Realms, however, the person who holds the office of the British Monarch, also holds the office of being the Monarch of the other Realms. What I am trying to say is the Crown in Britain is not the Crown of the other Realms, but all the Crowns are worn by the same person. Nat Tang ta | co | em 16:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawing my comments above as I see the point. As the Monarch is a person and not an institution as the Crown is, therefore the British Monarch can be the Monarch of other Realms, and because this is the case, by stating that the British Monarch is also the Monarch of other Realms, it does not immediately assert that the British Crown is dominant over the other Crowns and their respective Realms and therefore each Crown is seperate and sovereign from, and equal to the other Crowns of the Realms. Nat Tang ta | co | em 18:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing language with jurisdiction. To say that the British monarch is also monarch of other countries does not imply any legal subordination. To say that the British monarch is not monarch of other countries is simply untrue. TharkunColl 16:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting)
To echo what I just posted further up, the problem here, I think is that G2bambino (as well as Jao and Nat.tang, by the looks of it) is conflating the word monarch with the word monarchy. The reason why the statement, "the British monarch is also the monarch of Canada", is perfectly fine is because it refers to the person, not the institution in which that person occupies their position. Saying, "the British monarch is also the monarch of Canada", does not imply that Canada is in any way a subject of the British Crown. That being the case, Jao's modified proposal is unnecessary in my view. -- Hux 16:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, as I asked Lonewolf, do you support the inclusion of the "fact" that the Canadian Monarch is head of state of the United Kingdom? --G2bambino 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC) I see now you answered that question above. Alright, so you support that "fact"; should an article on the British Monarchy therefore not include the important "fact" that the British Monarch is an element of the Canadian parliament, and thus not sovereign? You see, that's where the confusion arises - "monarch" and "person" may well be interchangable, but preceeding "monarch" with a nationalizing adjective such as "British" or "Canadian" creats the incorrect statement that the Monarch of one country (read: the institution within the jurisdiction of that country's parliament) is also head of a number of other countries, meaning those other countries do not have full control over their own chief executive, making them still at least partly within the scope of a foreign power, and thus not independent. Drop the word "British" from the sentence in question, and it becomes far more accurate, though, that leaves one wondering what monarch is being talked about (Dutch? Thai?), and what it has to do with the British Monarchy in particular. Saying the person who is the British Monarch is also the head of state of other countries makes perfectly clear that no one nation is subordinate to the actions of another's government. --G2bambino 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said: "should an article on the British Monarchy therefore not include the important "fact" that the British Monarch is an element of the Canadian parliament, and thus not sovereign?" Obviously not, because it's not a fact. As I've already pointed out at least twice, the British monarch is not an element of parliament (whether in the UK, Canada or anywhere else), but an element of government. It would be accurate to say, for example, "the British monarch is an element of the Canadian government", based on the same fact that "British monarch" refers simply to the person who is king or queen of the UK.

G2bambino said: "if you say that "monarch" and "person" are interchangable, why then not simply accept "person" as an equal (if not more clear) substitute?" I did not say that "monarch" and "person" are interchangeable. I asserted that "monarch" refers to the person, not the institution. I support the use of the term "monarch" because it is a) the most accurate term in the context of the point being made, and b) considerably stylistically preferable in comparison to the textual gymnastics that would be required to avoid its use. -- Hux 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Could you please refrain from adding large chunks to an existing post by editing it and instead use the preview function? It makes it very difficult if we are posting at the same time because now I have to go back to your post, see what changed, see if mine is still relevant and potentially change what I wrote. Thank you. -- Hux 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said: ""monarch" and "person" may well be interchangable, but preceeding "monarch" with a nationalizing adjective such as "British" or "Canadian" creats the incorrect statement that the Monarch of one country...is also head of a number of other countries, meaning those other countries do not have full control over their own chief executive, making them still at least partly within the scope of a foreign power, and thus not independent." If this really is likely to lead to confusion (and I still don't think it is, but whatever) then it is very easily rectified by simply inserting the word "independent" into the sentence. For example, "The British monarch is also separately and equally the monarch of the other fifteen independent, Commonwealth Realms." Anyone who reads that and still manages to infer that those Realms are subordinate to the British Crown is beyond hope, quite honestly.

G2bambino said: "Saying the person who is the British Monarch is also the head of state of other countries makes perfectly clear that no one nation is subordinate to the actions of another's government." In the first place, I don't think it does make that clear at all; given that "the British monarch" and "the person who is the British monarch" mean the same thing, if one can infer subordination from the former than one can equally infer subordination from the latter so the problem, if there is one, remains unsolved. Additionally, and more seriously, you've now introduced even more ambiguity by removing the information that the person under discussion is also the monarch of all those other countries. The way your version is written one is left in the dark: Is this person considered a commoner in these other countries? Are they called 'president'?, etc. etc. -- Hux 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a simple fact: the three parts of the Canadian Parliament are 1) the House of Commons, 2) the Senate, 3) the Queen. Further, acts of parliament, such as the Act of Settlement and Statute of Westminster, bind the Crown; thus the Crown falls within the jurisdiction of parliament. By your logic, if the Canadian parliament unilaterally altered the Act of Settlement, to name a new King or Queen of Canada, because the Canadian Monarch is the head of state of the UK, Britain would be forced by Canadian law to receive a new monarch. Do you really believe that to be true?

Saying "monarch" refers to the "person" is indeed saying "monarch" and "person" are interchangable. However, "British Monarch" and "shared monarch" are not. --G2bambino 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino said: "It is a simple fact: the three parts of the Canadian Parliament are 1) the House of Commons, 2) the Senate, 3) the Queen." I'm not even going to bother getting into this, since it is both pedantic and not relevant to this article. Suffice to say that if you really believe that then you'd better go and make you case to the folks on the Template:Canadian politics talk page, because they clearly disagree with you.

G2bambino said:"By your logic, if the Canadian parliament unilaterally altered the Act of Settlement, to name a new King or Queen of Canada, because the Canadian Monarch is the head of state of the UK, Britain would be forced by Canadian law to receive a new monarch." My logic implies no such thing. I have been consistently clear in saying that the British throne and the Canadian throne are discrete positions occupied by one person on a separate basis, according to the separate laws of the two countries. -- Hux 17:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"the British monarch" and "the person who is the British monarch" mean the same thing Of course the British Monarch is a person, and that person is also head of state of a number of other countries, but that person's distinct role as British Monarch does not extend beyond the borders of the United Kingdom and it's associated territories, whereas the sentence "the British Monarch also serves as head of state of over a dozen other countries" implies that it does. The crowns of the Commonwealth are united in the person of the sovereign, not any one of the particular national institutions he or she holds. Thus, it's more correct to say "The person who serves as the British Monarch also serves as monarch of over a dozen other countries"; it's clear the British Monarch - as a synonym for the British Crown - does not extend beyond the borders of the UK itself, and it's clear that the person is a monarch in the other countries, not a president or private citizen. --G2bambino 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said: "that person's distinct role as British Monarch does not extend beyond the borders of the United Kingdom and it's associated territories, whereas the sentence "the British Monarch also serves as head of state of over a dozen other countries" implies that it does." Hence my suggestion above, that we use something like "The British monarch is also separately and equally the monarch of the other fifteen independent, Commonwealth Realms." Given the presence of the phrase, "separately and equally", along with the word, "independent", there is no way that anyone with the ability to comprehend English grammar can infer that those countries are in any way subject to the authority of the British government, or the British monarchy (as distinct from "monarch").
G2bambino said: "it's clear the British Monarch - as a synonym for the British Crown" Except that the two are not synonymous. "The British Crown" is synonymous with "the British monarchy", not "the British monarch".
G2bambino: "it's clear that the person is a monarch in the other countries, not a president or private citizen" Saying that "the person who is the British Monarch is also the head of state of other countries" does not in any way make it clear that the British monarch is also the monarch of those other countries because "Head of State" is not synonymous with "monarch". -- Hux 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It's self-contradictory to state that a country is independent while a foreign power maintains any level of conrtol over it. As "British Monarch" is indeed synonymous with "British Crown" (one cannot be separated from the other; "monarch" is more specific than "monarchy"), saying a dozen or so other countries are under the British Monarch is to say the British Crown encompasses more than just the UK.
I understand your point re. "monarch" vs. "head of state"; hence, my proposed sentence. As I'm working towards a compromise here, it reflects rather poorly on you all that you adamantly refuse to include merely the words "the person who serves as" before "British Monarch." In fact, one wonders what actual motivation could be driving such opposition to a simple, clarifying, accurate edit. --G2bambino 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said: "It's self-contradictory to state that a country is independent while a foreign power maintains any level of conrtol over it." Nobody is making such a claim.
G2bambino said: ""British Monarch" is indeed synonymous with "British Crown"" No it isn't. The Crown is the institution; the monarch is the person.
G2bambino said: "saying a dozen or so other countries are under the British Monarch is to say the British Crown encompasses more than just the UK" No it doesn't, at least not to anyone who understands that "the British monarch" is synonymous with "the person who is the British monarch", and not "the institution within which that person occupies their position".
G2bambino said: "I understand your point re. "monarch" vs. "head of state"; hence, my proposed sentence." What proposed sentence? I do not see one. (Perhaps you can link to the diff?)
G2bambino said: "As I'm working towards a compromise here, it reflects rather poorly on you all that you adamantly refuse to include merely the words "the person who serves as" before "British Monarch." Reasons have been given, at length, as to why those words a) are unnecessary, and b) stylistically poor. Compromise alternatives have been suggested. It reflects poorly on you that you have apparently ignored those suggestions, that you are spinning this issue to make it seem like a bunch of pig-headed people with no good reason to disagree with you, and that you are implying that you are the only one working towards a compromise here when that is clearly not the case. In fact, of all the people involved in this discussion, it appears that you are the only one who has consistently refused to accept any alternative proposal that is not identical in scope to your own.
G2bambino said: "one wonders what actual motivation could be driving such opposition to a simple, clarifying, accurate edit" It is disingenuous to say that it is simple, clarifying and accurate when many in-depth responses have argued that it is not. Further: WP:AGF. -- Hux 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The monarch is not a monarch without an institution of the crown to hold, ergo, the monarch and the crown are inseperable; hence, section 35 of the Canadian Interpretation Act states that "Her Majesty," "the Queen," and "the Crown" all mean the same thing. If they all mean the same thing, then the British Monarch is the British Crown, but beyond the borders of the UK the person who is the British Monarch ceases to be so and becomes a separate monarch in different jurisdictions; hence, the Realms are united in the person of the monarch, not any one particular institution. By saying the "British Monarch" is also head of state of several other countries specifically attaches the institution of the British Crown to the other Realms, which is a fallacy. Adding "the person who is" before "the British Monarch" is necessary for accuracy and clarity, reflecting the rulings of numerous courts; it is not stylistically poor in any sense.
I have capitulated to many of the demands made here (ie. dropping reference to a personal union, the association between the British Monarch and his/her British ministers, etc. My only assertion now, based on Lonewolf's last edits to the article, is that the words "...besides reigning in Britain, separately serves as the head of state for each of the fifteen other Commonwealth countries..." be modified to read "besides reigning in Britain, the same person separately and equally serves as the monarch of each of the fifteen other Commonwealth countries..." That's hardly an outrageous idea, and to say that it is would indeed be pig-headed. --G2bambino 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said: "section 35 of the Canadian Interpretation Act states that "Her Majesty," "the Queen," and "the Crown" all mean the same thing. If they all mean the same thing, then the British Monarch is the British Crown" I see. So on the one hand you're arguing (correctly) that the British Crown cannot exercise its power beyond the UK, yet on the other hand you're arguing that because Canadian law defines "the Queen" and "the Crown" as synonymous, the symonym applies universally. That's quite a bizarre feat of logic! Sadly I think you'll find that Canadian law doesn't apply beyond Canada and its territories and that the concept of "monarch" (person) as distinct from "monarchy" (institution) is universal, as reflected in, well, any dictionary in which you care to compare the two terms.
What next? "President" is synonymous with "presidency"?!
G2bambino said: "Adding "the person who is" before "the British Monarch" is necessary for accuracy and clarity" No it isn't. And what's more, you don't think it is either, as evidenced by your previous agreement that "the British monarch" and "the person who is the British monarch" are synonymous.
G2bambino said: "That's hardly an outrageous idea" It is, however, an unneccessary idea in the opinion of everyone here except you, as far as I can see. That's kind of significant for an online encyclopedia that relies on consensus in order to function, don't you think?
G2bambino said: "to say that it is would indeed be pig-headed" On the contrary, when one person is refusing to budge on something that everyone else thinks is unneccessary, having repeatedly explained why they think it is unneccessary, the person being pig-headed is the one, not the many. -- Hux 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is now taking place elsewhere. Please join us there. --G2bambino 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting)
We are once again getting bogged down is massive, tedious, and irrelevent argument, caused by Gbambino's unwillingness to accept consensus. The phrase "British monarch" means exactly the same as "the person who is the British monarch". One of them is plain English, the other is an absurd, grotesque tautology. TharkunColl 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree, and that's what makes this whole discussion so bizarre. For some reason that I simply cannot fathom, G2bambino holds the opinion (with which I agree) that "the British monarch" and "the person who is the British monarch" are synonymous, while at the same time arguing that the use of former implies something different from the use of the latter. It is self-evidently, logically incoherent. Either the two terms are synonymous or they are not. If they are synonymous then the implication is the same whichever one is used and his objection ceases to exist. -- Hux 18:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Of where?

TharkunColl, your words "the sovereign" are ambiguous; as I asked you "the sovereign" of where? Your response "The Queen is the sovereign" doesn't answer my question; in fact, I can ask to that: "the Queen" of where? The Queen of Jamaica certainly doesn't reign separately and equally in Papua New Guinea, for instance, though the person who is Queen of Jamaica reigns separately and equally as Queen of Papua New Guinea. I think you're confusing the offices with the individual who occupies them. PS - you've hit 4RR. What would you like to do? --G2bambino 20:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't hit 4RR - unlike yourself. And it is you who are confusing office with person, insofar as you almost seem to believe there are 16 queens, not one. The Queen is often called the Sovereign, just like she's often called the Queen. TharkunColl
You still haven't answered my question: the sovereign of where? The sovereign of Norway?
As for 4RR: Direct revert one, two, three, and four. I ask again, what would you like to do? --G2bambino 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a total massacre of the English language. In any normal understanding of the English language, it is perfectly correct to say that the Queen of Jamaica reigns equally and separately in Papua New Guinea. "The Queen of Jamaica" means precisely the same thing as "the person who is Queen of Jamaica". Everything else is pedantry. john k 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
john k has it and I'll go one further: "The Queen of Jamaica", "the person who is Queen of Jamaica", "the monarch of Jamaica", and, "the sovereign of Jamaica", all refer exactly equally to the same thing: the person, not the institution. -- Hux 16:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are all forgetting that the Queen is sovereign of these realms, and rules by the grace of god. If she so decides she can declare war, cede territories, sign treaties and appoint both bishops and ambassadors. She is the most powerful and famous woman to have ever lived on this Earth, and she should be shown the upmost respect. Her wealth and power is overwhelming and long may she continue to reign over us, her faithful subjects. GSTQ. 89.248.18.238 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

'When Britain fi-i-i-i-irst at heaven's command arose from out the azure main-?!'--Gazzster 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion, following edits made on the basis of the above proposal-discussion

Lonewolf, please note that the edit you insist on making is invalid for a number of reasons:

  1. As the cited legal rulings show, the British Monarch is not head of state of any country other than the UK; adding "the same person" is more accurate, not stylistically disruptive, and agrees with the contents of the section British monarchy#International and domestic aspects, wherein it is said the Realms are in a personal union relationship.
  2. Not all Commonwealth countries that have a monarchy are under the House of Windsor, as the Commonwealth Realms are.
  3. The newer version condenses yours while saying essentially the same thing.

I'm sure you can agree, therefore, that my edit is neither in bad faith, nor a setback of any kind. Improvements, are, of course, welcome. --G2bambino 21:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this stuff ad nauseaum and it has become plain that you refuse to respect consensus. On (1), consensus has soundly rejected both your interpretation and your addition, and you've been given good reasons why the former is wrong and the latter is bad. To argue with you about it further seems pointless to me, so I won't. On (2), if you can point to a Commonwealth country that has kept a monarchy (as an aspect of government) but not the British-derived monarchy, I'll gladly solve the cavil by taking out "the" before "fifteen". On (3), there is no net condensation to speak of, and what there is comes at the expense of clarity and style. Some of that is a matter of judgement; we'll see what others have to say about it. As for "good faith", while you may be acting in that in the special "WP:AGF" sense of aiming to improve the encyclopedia, you have certainly broken it in the common sense by going directly against the just-formed consensus. -- Lonewolf BC 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, consensus was requested for a statement that contained inaccuracies right off the bat; hence, three of the six contributors to your survey expressed a need for tweaks to your proposal that corrected the inherent errors. With half of those polled stating the proposed edit needed further work, it's difficult for you to claim my "interpretation" was "soundly rejected," or even that I went against any "just-formed" consensus. Thus, I am within bounds by correcting the contents to not only present accurate information, but to also prevent it from conflicting with the text that directly follows.
My edit did indeed condense yours; a simple count of words will prove that. Further, it created no undue complexity nor did it detract from style.
Lesotho, Malaysia, Brunei, Swaziland, and Tonga are Commonwealth monarchies not under the House of Windsor. --G2bambino 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You're a hoot, bambino. I accommodated your one sound complaint, though. -- Lonewolf BC 23:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea? Gee, thanks. --G2bambino 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Don't feel special, though. I'd do the same for anybody. -- Lonewolf BC 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has now been reached. Other articles that need substantial rewriting to exclude POV include Personal union, Commonwealth Realm, and Monarchy in Canada. TharkunColl 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Thark, that no consensus was really reached here (besides which, any consensus is not binding, as Lonewolf earlier acknowledged). Certainly, the vague conclusion reached here has no effect on other articles. --G2bambino 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I hardly think you can talk about 'consensus' when only a few editors have actually passed comment. It would make more sense to also consult editors from other articles; from the Canadian Monarchy, Australian Monarchy, Commonwealth Realms, etc. After all, a decision potentially impacts upon other articles. An editor is already talking about editing other articles and you can be sure that the same battle royale WILL be repeated in those other articles. Secondly, i was under the impression that the original dispute was about the use of the term 'personal union' to describe the union of the UK and the other Commonwealth realms in the person Elizabeth II, her predecessors and successors.It seems to have ballooned quite out of proportion to the original question. Now of course we cannot avoid questions of constitutional law in deciding the issue. And it seems that to decide the issue, we ought to avoid our own original research, and find an authority that refers to this union as a personal one. Otherwise, as has already been noted, come up with another phrase. From a general reading of the discussion so far, it seems that the concept is not really disputed, only the term.

I should also add however that G2Bambino's argument that a nation is not independent if it is presided over by a foreign monarch, even if that monarch be a mere figurehead, is perfectly sound. For sovereignty is not derived solely from legislative autonomy. Sovereignty is derived from an interplay of the executive, legislative and judicial powers. According to the constitutions of Australia, Canada, etc, the executive power consists of the Queen and the ministers selected from her Executive Council (or Privy Council), selected from the national Parliament. Despite appearances she does not play a purely symbolic role. She is the executive, even though she be represented by a Governor-General/Governors. Obviously, if as executive she is Queen of the UK, it means the executive power is a foreign power. It is not simply a matter of pedantics. For us in the non-UK Commonwealth realms it is vital to make that distinction. It is in fact essential to our independence. So it is not simply ambiguous but entirely incorrect to state 'Britain shares its monarchy with the other Commonwealth Realms'. One could say 'Britain shares its monarch with the other Commonwealth Realms' and that would be accurate. But the article is not about the monarch of Britain, but about the monarchy of Britain. That is something some of my British colleagues seem not to understand.And I should have thought that if they were seeking answers in this matter, they would consult the constitutional law of those realms, which is surely the ultimate authority? But, forgive me for saying, and without judging intentions, their assertions smack of arrogance.

--Gazzster 04:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of how a sovereign nation should be constituted is simply your own POV, and leads to the ludcrous assertion that the monarch of the UK is not the monarch of Australia (when she quite obviously is). The facts as they stand could easily be said to prove that a nation can be sovereign and have the head of state of another nation as its own head of state. TharkunColl 13:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI - we solved this debate at Monarchy in Canada by finding a few reliable sources that indicate that the Commonwealth is a personal union, rather than just arguing over it. You might find that more productive here. Cheers, WilyD 14:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite right, Wily, and those same references used at Monarchy in Canada have been inserted here. However, Thark and Lonewolf continue to insist that though one paragraph states that the Realms are in a personal union, another paragraph should state they are not. I suspect the counter-argument from them would be that "Because the person who is the British Monarch is the same person who is the Canadian Monarch, the British Monarch is therefore the Canadian Monarch"; however, as most people seem to know, and most cites verify, because the person is the same does not mean the institutions are the same. In reality, inserting five simple words - "the person who serves as" - before the words "British Monarch" would settle much of this dispute, but two editors adamantly refuse to allow that, even though it be hypocritical. --G2bambino 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Gazzster said: "i was under the impression that the original dispute was about the use of the term 'personal union'" It was, but objection to the use of that term appears to have evaporated: nobody other than G2bambino appears to be discussing the term now, and since the article has been unprotected, two editors who objected it to it have made edits but neither has removed "personal union", so I think we can assume that that particular issue is dealt with. That being the case, I'm baffled as to why G2bambino is still talking about it, and even more baffled as to why he is now requesting mediation for it!
Gazzster said: "G2Bambino's argument that a nation is not independent if it is presided over by a foreign monarch, even if that monarch be a mere figurehead, is perfectly sound" Yes it is. However, please note that this assertion of G2bambino's is a strawman: nobody is arguing that a nation is independent under those circumstances.
Gazzster said: "it is not simply ambiguous but entirely incorrect to state 'Britain shares its monarchy with the other Commonwealth Realms'. One could say 'Britain shares its monarch with the other Commonwealth Realms' and that would be accurate." That is exactly the distinction which, as far as I can tell, everyone here understands and agrees with except G2bambino. -- Hux 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(ToTharkuncoll) :Your interpretation of how a sovereign nation should be constituted is simply your own POV, and leads to the ludcrous assertion that the monarch of the UK is not the monarch of Australia (when she quite obviously is). On the contrary, it is you who is interpreting the sovreignty of my nation and others according to your own POV. The sovereignty of my nation is defined by the Constitution and appended documents of my nation. If you consulted those documents, which I and G2Bambino have given you opportunities to do, you would see that we are right. This is an example of the appearance of arrogance in some of the British editors. The person who is monarch of the UK is obviously the same person as the monarch of Australia, Canada, etc. But the monarchy is not the same. This is not matter of interpretation or POV. This is a matter of fact. Elizabeth II herself acknowledges the distinction, unique and unusual as it is.--Gazzster 15:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest you very carefully read what I wrote. I said "monarch", not "monarchy". But your anti-British words have rather let the cat out of the bag, wouldn't you say? TharkunColl 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Gazzster said: "The person who is monarch of the UK is obviously the same person as the monarch of Australia, Canada, etc. But the monarchy is not the same." If you read closely, you will see that on this point you are actually in agreement with TharukColl, Lonewolf BC, myself and, as far as I can tell, almost everyone else. The one person that you do not agree with on this is G2bambino, who is conflating the terms "monarch" and "monarchy" and, as a result, arguing that it is wrong to say, "the British monarch is also the head of state of the other 15 Commonwealth Realms". That's the major point at issue right now. -- Hux 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you addressing me? Please quote to me my 'anti-British words'? I have said nothing of the sort.The Monarch of the UK is not the Monarch of Australia. One person does fulfill both functions, but her titles and roles are distinct.--Gazzster 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are now contradicting yourself, because you said earlier that only the monarchies were distinct, not the monarch. As for your anti-British words, how about "appearance of arrogance"? TharkunColl 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. We have already bored the editors at 'Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom' to tears. Do we have to do the same here? I dont see how noting that some editors give the 'appearance' of arrogance (and I made a disclaimer that I wasn't accusing them of actually being arrogant) constitutes an attack on the British Isles. And I do not contradict myself. The person who is monarch is obviously the same; her roles and titles are however, distinct. Let'sw drop it Thark (yawn)--Gazzster 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I said "monarch", not "monarchy". The monarch forms a part of the monarchy; if there are different monarchies there are different monarchs, even though they may be the same person. There's already a reference that points out that the relationship amongst the Realms is the same as that between Scotland and England before 1707: a personal union, wherein the two or more kingdoms/crowns/monarchies are headed/held by one person. By defying cited material, Thark is the one who is bordering on vandalism with his continued edits (and I speak not just of the commotion and annoyance he's caused here). --G2bambino 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said: "The monarch forms a part of the monarchy; if there are different monarchies there are different monarchs, even though they may be the same person." None of this changes the fact that the word "monarch" refers to the person, and is distinct from the word "monarchy", which refers to the institution. That being the case, phrases such as, "The British monarch is Head of the Commonwealth and, besides reigning in Britain, separately serves as the head of state for each of fifteen other Commonwealth countries", do not imply that any of those other countries are in any way subordinate to the UK. -- Hux 19:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The British Monarch is a part of the institution of the British Monarchy. If there are two separate monarchies (and there are), the British Monarch cannot be a part of the Canadian Monarchy, which the sentence "the British Monarch... serves as head of state for each of the fifteen other Commonwealth Realms" states the British Monarch is. The British Monarch heads the British Monarchy, the Canadian Monarch heads the Canadian Monarchy, and though the two monarchs are the same person, Elizabeth's roles do not cross over.
The nature of a personal union is that the crowns are united through a person. It has been established that the Realms are in a personal union relationship, ergo, they are united via Elizabeth the individual, not Elizabeth the British (or Canadian, or Barbadian) Monarch. --G2bambino 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said: "The British Monarch is a part of the institution of the British Monarchy." Correct. And when something is part of something else is it A) synonymous with that something else, or B) not synonymous with it? The answer, as anyone with a dictionary and a rudimentary grasp of English grammar and set theory knows, is B. Therefore, if "monarch" is not synonymous with "monarchy", the phrase, "the British monarch is also the monarch of Canada", means that Britain and Canada share the same monarch, but not the same monarchy, thus the sentence does not imply that Canada is in any way subordinate to Britain. All it says is that the British Queen and the Canadian Queen are the same person.
G2bambino: "If there are two separate monarchies (and there are), the British Monarch cannot be a part of the Canadian Monarchy". Exactly my point!
G2bambino: "which the sentence "the British Monarch... serves as head of state for each of the fifteen other Commonwealth Realms" states the British Monarch is." No it doesn't, because the operative phrase is "the British monarch" and not "the British monarchy".
G2bambino: "The British Monarch heads the British Monarchy, the Canadian Monarch heads the Canadian Monarchy, and though the two monarchs are the same person, Elizabeth's roles do not cross over." Again, exactly my point!
G2bambino: "The nature of a personal union is that the crowns are united through a person. It has been established that the Realms are in a personal union relationship, ergo, they are united via Elizabeth the individual, not Elizabeth the British (or Canadian, or Barbadian) Monarch." As far as I can see, this particular point is no longer in dispute and has not been for the last two days of this hugely verbose discussion, so why do you keep bringing it up? -- Hux 22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You are completely tied up in knots; perhaps you should try clarifying your arguments. Regardless, if you agree that the British Monarch cannot be a part of the Canadian Monarchy, then you must agree that the British Monarch cannot be the Canadian head of state, as it is the Canadian Monarch, the head of the Canadian Monarchy, who is. This discussion continues because some people can't differentiate between a person and an institutional position. What would say the British Queen and the Canadian Queen are the same person would be to state that the same person who is the British Monarch also serves as the Canadian Monarch, which is what I've been trying to insert into the article all along! --G2bambino 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said: "You are completely tied up in knots". I don't really see how; my argument is perfectly logically consistent.
G2bambino: "perhaps you should try clarifying your arguments." If you can indicate which part is unclear to you I would be very happy to clarify.
G2bambino: "if you agree that the British Monarch cannot be a part of the Canadian Monarchy, then you must agree that the British Monarch cannot be the Canadian head of state". The British monarch can be part of the Canadian monarchy because "British monarch" refers solely to the person and that person clearly is part of the British monarchy and also the Canadian monarchy: she is queen of both.
G2bambino: "This discussion continues because some people can't differentiate between a person and an institutional position." Correction: this discussion continues because one person can't differentiate between a person and an institutional position, and that one person is you. It clearly can't be me because my argument absolutely depends on the distinction between "monarch" (person) and "monarchy" (institution), a distinction I've stated and clarified repeatedly. -- Hux 06:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The British Monarch certainly cannot be the Canadian head of state; as I explained, the British Monarch is part of only the British Monarchy. You may well be aware that there are separate crowns and separate monarchies, but where you stall is at your inability to recognize the established, strict boundaries between the spheres of jurisdiction over which Elizabeth - the person, not "the Queen" - reigns. As they are distinct, non-divergent, parallel and equal, Elizabeth's role as Queen of the UK cannot be linked in any way to her role as Queen of Canada. --G2bambino 15:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino said: "where you stall is at your inability to recognize the established, strict boundaries between the spheres of jurisdiction over which Elizabeth - the person, not "the Queen" - reigns". On the contrary, I fully recognize that Elizabeth in her role as Queen of the UK is not legally capable of exercising authority over the other Realms. What you are failing to recognize is that it is perfectly possible to use the phrase, "the British monarch" solely as a means of referring to Elizabeth II, the person, without intending to imply any connection with the jurisdiction of the British monarchy. And in fact, the text you keep trying to remove does exactly that. -- Hux 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Its a unique situation, obviously. And hard to find a historical precedent that fits perfectly analagously. But its not actually a hard concept to grasp.--Gazzster 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it certainly isn't difficult to comprehend (or, it shouldn't be); and, really, it seems the only difference between the Realms and other personal unions is that the former opted to establish one whereas the latter occurred because of covergences of lineage or conqests of some sort. --G2bambino 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Bambino et al are largely engaged in a war against the English language here. Pretty much every statement made in support of this position is based on a bizarre esoteric understanding of language. "Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom and also the Queen of australia" is a statement we would all agree to be true. "Queen Elizabeth II is the British monarch" is another statement we would agree to be true. "Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch of Australia" is another statement we would all agree to be true. The basic premises of logic and of normal English usage, then, would suggest that the statement "The British monarch is (also) the monarch of Australia" is completely correct - it follows directly from statements that we all agree are true, so long as the English language means what it normally means. It is simply not incorrect to say that the British monarch (i.e. Elizabeth II) rules over 15 other countries. It would be incorrect to say that she rules over them as Queen of the United Kingdom, but nobody is trying to say that. john k 06:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And, of course the British monarch is the head of the Canadian monarchy. She just isn't the head of the Canadian monarchy as British monarch. To give a different example, David Miliband is both Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Member of Parliament for South Shields. Thus, "the MP for South Shields is the Foreign Secretary." To state this does not imply that there is some special relationship between being MP for South Shields and being Foreign Secretary. It is merely stating a simple fact. If one can say that "The MP for South Shields is the Foreign Secretary" without implying any special connection between these two roles, and of course you can, then I don't see why you can't say "The British monarch is the monarch of Barbados." The two statements are, so far as I can tell, grammatically and logically identical. john k 06:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One word: Exactly! One sound: that of the nail being hit on the head! I'd appreciate it if you could add your opinion to my survey below. Thanks! -- Hux 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you have hit the nail on the head, though, I suspect, not in the way Hux thinks you have. The statement "She just isn't the head of the Canadian monarchy as British monarch" sums up perfectly the fact that the British Monarch is not the Canadian head of state. The definitive lines drawn in the early 1930s between the one monarch's jurisdiction and the other's, and the established provisions of equality between those jurisdictions, mean clearly that one monarch cannot be head of state of another country; thus, your example, wherein the two roles held by one person are overlapped, doesn't apply.
Similarly, then, the Foreign Secretary is not MP for South Shields? Oh, wait. john k 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the British monarch is the Canadian head of state, she simply isn't the Canadian head of state in her role as British monarch. Beyond that, you're clearly using the English language in an esoteric way. Obviously one monarch is head of state of both Canada and the UK. That monarch is Queen Elizabeth II. Your whole argument is based on torturing the English language. john k 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino: Let's try to sum it up a different way:

Problematic statement: "The British monarch is the Canadian Head of State."

Non-problematic statement: "The British monarch is also the Canadian Head of State. The two roles, however, are legally distinct as Britain and Canada are independent nations."

The difference between these two statements is context: the first is ambiguous whereas the second is not due to the additional context. The edits you keep making to the lead section are unnecessary because the necessary context is already there. It is not grammatically impossible to infer from the text that the British Crown (AKA monarchy, AKA government) has power over Canada, nor that the Queen in her role as Queen of the UK has any such power. See what I mean? -- Hux 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(to John Kenny) No, we're not engaged in a war against the English language; were actually defending it. We're getting into subtleties true, but then, English is a subtle language. An example: to say, the 'British monarch is also the monarch of Australia', is true on one level. Concedo. But it is also ambiguous. It can mean, 'The British monarch, as monarch of Britain is also monarch of Australia.' And the latter is most certainly not true, as all of us agree. And this statement is also ambiguous: 'The British monarchy is a shared monarchy.' It could mean, 'the monarchy as experienced in abstract by Britain is a shared monarchy'. This would be true. It could also mean, 'the Monarchy of Britain in its constitutional sense is a shared monarchy'. This is false. That is why G2Bambino, myself (and others, for all I know) want the phraseology to be clear. Not necessarily explained in every sentence (that would be ridiculous and tedious) but at least at some prominent point be made clear. There is no question of murdering the English language or Brit-bashing.After all, us Aussies speak English (well, a form of it! lol)--Gazzster 04:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, saying, without any context, "the British monarch is also the monarch of Australia," is perhaps ambiguous. That being said, the version that Bambino keeps reverting says:
The British monarch is Head of the Commonwealth and, besides reigning in Britain, separately serves as the head of state for each of fifteen other Commonwealth countries that have stayed monarchies. This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain, but they are now independent and the monarchy of each is legally distinct from that of Britain.
I don't see how one could possibly view this as misleading. It clearly indicates that the monarchies are distinct, that she rules separately over the other s tates, and that the commonwealth realms are independent. I don't see how having awkward phrasing about "the same individual" can possibly serve any worthy cause, except that of bad writing, which I don't usually consider a worthy cause. john k 05:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
"I don't see how one could possibly view this as misleading. It clearly indicates that the monarchies are distinct, that she rules separately over the other s tates, and that the commonwealth realms are independent." This, for me, is the point in a nutshell and it's what makes G2bambino's reverts so unnecessary. Irrespective of his opinion about the meaning of "the British monarch" (and similar phrasing), the point is that in the context in which it is being used on this page, it is grammatically impossible to infer that the non-UK Realms are subordinate to the UK, or that the British monarchy holds any kind of authority over them.
Objectively, the edits are not needed. (And that's before we even get to how stylistically ugly they are.) -- Hux 12:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

(From my talk-page, but I believe this rightly concerns the editorship-at-large of this article. -- LW)
I have opened a Mediation Cabal request; User:GrooveDog has since asked if he is acceptable as a mediator. You may want to voice your approval or disapproval there. --G2bambino 01:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I cut out the contentious lead, since it is unecessary anyway. A reference to the other monarchies seems irrelevant in a lead to an article about the British monarchy. And the lead is, as we have said, inaccurate.If we wish to replace it we can discuss it here, but I feel it is not necessary to replace it with anything.--Gazzster 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster said: "I cut out the contentious lead". As far as I can see, you cut out the DAB, which was not contentious (at least I assume not, since prior to you deleting it nobody had touched it since the page was unprotected). The contentious parts appear to be the last paragraph of the lead ("The British monarch is Head of the Commonwealth...") as well as the second paragraph in the "International and domestic aspects" section ("Fifty-three states are...").
Gazzster: "A reference to the other monarchies seems irrelevant in a lead to an article about the British monarchy." I disagree. The fact that the British monarch also serves separately as the monarch for other countries is one of the key things that distinguishes it from "normal" monarchies. As such I think the lead should make mention of it (as should the leads of the articles relating to the Canadian monarchy, the Australian monarchy, etc. etc.). -- Hux 06:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus survey: "monarch" versus "monarchy"

After considering the extensive discussion above, I believe that the pivotal point of disagreement that underpins everything else is what people understand by these two words. Therefore, in order to obtain a clear indication of consensus that will hopefully enable us to get past this sticking point, I would like to present the following assertions for your consideration. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with them in the "Votes" section below. If you wish to comment further, please use the "Discussion" section so as to keep the voting area as uncluttered as possible. Thank you. -- Hux 14:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Assertions

1) "Monarch" and "monarchy" are two distinct terms, the former referring to a specific person (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II) and the latter referring to an institution (i.e. a system of government comprising, among other things, a monarch acting as Head of State). In support of this assertion I present the following:

Dictionary.com: monarch, monarchy
Merriam-Webster: monarch, monarchy
Wiktionary: monarch, monarchy
And from "What is Constitutional Monarchy?" at royalinsight.gov.uk (emphasis mine):

Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen acts as Head of State, while the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament...As a constitutional monarch, The Queen cannot make or pass legislation, and must remain politically neutral.

2) Given the above, "the British monarch" and "Queen Elizabeth II" are synonymous (well, at least for as long as Elizabeth II is alive anyway!) since they both refer to a specific person rather than the institution of the monarchy.

3) Given the above, since Elizabeth II is queen of each of the Commonwealth Realms separately, phrases such as "the Canadian monarch", "the British monarch", "the Australian monarch", etc., are all (currently) synonymous with "Queen Elizabeth II".

Votes

Discussion

The issue isn't really the word meaning, but the impression. If we say "The Jamaican Monarch rules Great Britain" this is technically true, but it runs a real risk of creating a false impression. "The Jamaican Monarch" sounds like an office. Every case needs to be looked at in context, not in isolation. WilyD 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But it's all in the verb. If we said "The Jamaican monarch is also monarch of the United Kingdom and fourteen other commonwealth realms," [and I do think the UK ought to always be set out separately in such sentences, since it is qualitatively different from the others in that, you know, the queen lives there and all - but even without that, "The Jamaican monarch is also monarch of fifteen other commonwealth realms" is perfectly fine and not misleading] there wouldn't be a problem. Similarly "The Foreign Secretary is MP for South Shields" is fine, while "the MP for South Shields runs the Foreign Office" might give a false impression. I'd also add that the British (and Jamaican and Papua New Guinean) monarch reigns but does not rule, so your statement is misleading for that reason. "The Jamaican monarch reigns over the United Kingdom" still seems vaguely misleading, but "The Jamaican monarch also reigns over the United Kingdom" is not. john k 15:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
WilyD: Following on from john k's point, if all we were discussing was the possible misunderstanding of a single sentence out of context then I would agree with you. However, what we're actually talking about is the use of such phrases in the lead section of the article, where there is some context, and in the body, where there is a lot of context, including a detailed explanation of the shared monarch situation. In neither case is it grammatically possible to infer a false impression, thus avoiding the phrasing is unnecessary. (Obviously a few people will inevitably misunderstand no matter how it's phrased; that's unavoidable.) As such, I don't think your objection holds water. -- Hux 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not only a matter of impression, but a matter of making clear the divisions of jurisdiction that exist between the Commonwealth Realms. If, as the English Court of Appeals stated, "there is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth... in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada," then Elizabeth II is synonymous with Queen of Australia, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of Tuvalu, etc., but the roles of Queen of Australia, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of Tuvalu, etc., are not synonymous with each other; they are independent and distinct. The wording of the sentence in question now reflects that decision by the Court of Appeal. --G2bambino 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not an objection, just a note - that context often requires we be cautious and conservative to avoid creating a misleading impression. The issue doesn't just affect the lead here, but resonantes in other articles as well. Each time it needs to be addressed seperately, which phrasing is correct and clearest. That's all. WilyD 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Bambino - but we do make clear all that. It doesn't have to be 100% clear in every damned sentence. That way is the way to bad writing, as is the case with the sentence in the third paragraph of the intro at the moment, with the irritating indirectness of "the same person is..." Wiley: Of course we have to be careful about how we phrase things. The disagreement isn't over that, it's over whether a particular formulation is misleading or not. I don't think it is misleading to say that "The British monarch also serves independently and separately as monarch of fifteen other commonwealth realms," or something similar. I hesitate to add that both the historical fact that the monarchy originated in Britain and the practical fact that the monarch's role in British government is considerably greater than in any of the other realms makes it more appropriate to say "The British monarchs also reigns over Canada, Australia, &c." than it is to say "The Canadian monarch also reigns over Britain," but that's also true, whatever the strict legalities of the matter. (Let me hasten to note that I don't think it's incorrect to say that the Canadian monarch also reigns over Britain - it's certainly true. It's just a kind of weird thing to say, given the historical reality that the British monarch became monarch of Canada, and not vice versa, and the political reality that the monarch has always resided in Britain). john k 17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino: Just to make my opinion clear: I agree with you that there is a semantic distinction between, say, "the Queen of Canada", referring to the person known as Elizabeth II, and, "the Queen of Canada", referring to the position that is currently occupied by Elizabeth II. (For a parallel example, "the US president" can mean, "George W. Bush", or it can mean, "the person who is president of the United States, whoever that may be".) For this reason, I would not support the use of phrases such as, "the Queen of Canada is the Queen of Jamaica", without any explanatory context, because they are likely to be confusing. But note the operative phrase in that sentence: without any explanatory context - in the section you keep reverting we do have that context: it is made clear that "British monarch" is being used to mean "the person who is the British monarch, whoever that may be". How is it made clear? By the qualifying information that the non-UK realms "are now independent and the monarchy of each is legally distinct from that of Britain". This guarantees that it is impossible to infer that those Realms are subordinate to the UK or that the British monarchy has any power outside the UK because the wording only refers to the person, not to the UK-specific monarchy. That's what makes your edits here unnecessary. -- Hux 13:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "monarch" and "monarchy" are different (if tightly related) concepts, and in this context "monarch" means the person and "monarchy", the institution. Parallel cases are "king" and "kingship", "president" and "presidency", and any number of others. This is a plain-English distinction with which few people have trouble, so there is no need to bloat wording with legalistic pedantry in order to make it clear. -- Lonewolf BC 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually any legitimate protest to the inclusion of the three words "the same individual"? --G2bambino 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I assume you have defined "legitimate" to mean "any protest which I would find to have merit," and that thus the answer is "no." Obviously, those of us who disagree with you do not agree. I will ask in return, is there actually any legitimate reason to include the words "the same individual"? john k 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Two simple reasons: accuracy and clarity. Even if your supposition that the British Monarch and the Canadian Monarch are the same thing, for the sake of three words it becomes more clear to readers that the role of the British Monarch is separate to that of the other crowns Elizabeth holds if the person is highlighted apart from the positions. Not everyone understands the complexities of the personal union between the Commonwealth Realms to the level that you and I may do, and hence impression does matter. --G2bambino 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I feel the last edited lead is fine. My main objection was that the original could be read to imply that the United Kingdom monarchy is shared, rather than the monarchy in abstract. Im happy that the lead now implies that there are indeed separate monarchies whose encumbants are the same person. Sure, we could spend days finding a perfect phrase, but I'm happy. Now, back to the 'personal union' issue lol?--Gazzster 03:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ireland

May I throw another spanner in the works by pointing out that Ireland is not part of Great Britain and never has been? Some readers will find the current phrasing offensive. A more acceptable alternative might be:

"...in 1707 the kingdoms were merged to create the Kingdom of Great Britain, which eventually evolved into the monarchy of the United Kingdom as it is known today."

"The British monarch is Head of the Commonwealth and, besides reigning in the United Kingdom, separately serves as the head of state for each of fifteen other Commonwealth countries that have stayed monarchies. This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain, but they are now independent and the monarchy of each is legally distinct from that of the United Kingdom." DrKiernan 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really understanding the objection. The sentence in question doesn't imply that Ireland is or ever has been part of Great Britain. Confused! -- Hux 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The lead essentially states "the British monarch reigns in Britain". So she does, but she also reigns in Northern Ireland. (No need for arguments here about legal, separate, independent identities - the offices are one and the same, without distinction). "Britain" is generally taken by the Irish to mean Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. By saying "the British monarch reigns in Britain" you are implying that Britain includes Northern Ireland, which, to my and millions of other minds, it does not. DrKiernan 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not Britain "is generally taken by the Irish to mean Great Britain", to the British, Britain is most often used as a synonym for the UK. If they wanted to refer to the island, they would call it Great Britain. TharkunColl 15:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
To quote you, "Britain is… most often used as a synonym for the UK". Hence, it is irrelevant to you whether it says "Britain" or "the UK" because you have yourself admitted that to your mind they are the same. Consequently, your objection is not logical. It matters to me because to my mind "Britain" and "the UK" are not synonyms, and describe different entities. DrKiernan 15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why there is such a flap about this, since the only thing changing "Britain" to "the United Kingdom" can do is remove ambiguity. Those who contend that the two are identical should see no problem with the terminology, as they are identical, and thus no change has been made in their eyes. Those who find "Britain" incorrect will be pleased as it will remove what they see as an inaccuracy.--Ibagli (Talk) 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There clearly isn't much of a flap about it. Tharkun's being argumentative, but doesn't really care about the actual issue with the article, and Nat started a vote for no reason. john k 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As with the large debate further up the page, I think the objection here is more than a little pedantic. The fact of the matter is that "Britain" is a universally understood synonym for "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (just as "America" is a universally understood synonym for "the United States of America") which means it is acceptable to use the former as shorthand for the latter, as well as in place of stylistically ugly abbreviations such as "the UK". The alternative to that is that Wikipedia takes into account the very small minority of people who are personally offended by colloquial terms that fail to precisely match geographical fact, the end result of which is an encyclopedia where everyone has to say "USian" or "UKian", or whatever the next PC replacement term is. That, imo, detracts far more from the readability and quality of articles than simply using established colloquial terms that the vast majority of readers find to be perfectly understandable and entirely inoffensive. -- Hux 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
To draw an analogy: what if I said I was offended by the use of "Ireland" in an article, saying that it should be "the Republic of Ireland", because "Ireland" refers to the whole island, part of which is a different country? What if I then changed all instances of "Ireland" in an article to "the Republic of Ireland", resulting in a stylistic mess? I'm betting that people would say I was being pretty ridiculous. And frankly I think they'd be right. -- Hux 20:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly a bit pedantic, but United Kingdom isn't particularly awkward, and I see no reason to start a fight over it. john k 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not saying that I'm going to fight against the replacement of "Britain" at all costs, but at the same time I really, really want to avoid things like this. "The United Kingdom...the United Kingdom...the United Kingdom...the United Kingdom" - it reads so horribly. It would be a far superior article, in terms of readability and at no cost to understandability, if we at least had the option to use "Britain", you know, just like every other historical and political article everywhere else does. It seems so...petty to me that we should have to moderate ourselves so far to avoid hurting the feelings of a very few people who, as far as I'm concerned, really don't have a good reason to be offended. However, I fully accept that this is just my opinion and if the consensus is to never use "Britain" then I'll go along with it. I just wish the consensus would be, "it's fine to use 'Britain', as long as the context makes it clear that the geographical place being referred to is the UK". Perhaps it can be. Thoughts? -- Hux 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't really care and the only reason I had the thing put up was because I thought that it was going to be a highly polarized issue (I guess isn't...). Secondly, not to be pushy or anything, just a reminder, it isn't a vote/isn't called a vote, because if you look at RFAs, even if someone has a majority of support, for instance 90%, their RFAs could be unsuccessful. Same goes with the consensus building on talk pages. Anyhoo...Hux's suggestion is fine by me. Nat Tang ta | co | em 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get pedantic but I think it's probably wise to make a point here. While many people do take Great Britain and the United Kingdom to be perfectly synonymous I can understand why others don't. This is often for reasons of ethnic pride. As we've already seen (and I don't want to keep this issue going), us Commonwealth country nationals don't like our monarch called Queen of the United Kingdom. We see it as an affront to our national pride, as well as being constitutionally inaccurate. In a similar vein I could see how an Irish person would object to be called British, even in a loose sense. Similarly, a Scot would object to being called English, etc. This is perhaps something we as editors ought to be more aware of. That does not mean we must bow to whatever pc wind is blowing. Rather, we need to be both accurate and sensitive.--Gazzster 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think we need to be accurate and sensitive, but only up to a point. Too much pedantic accuracy and the article becomes a mess; too much respect for hyper-sensitive readers and the article becomes a mess. I think this particular issue is a good example of going too far. As an example, there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who describe themselves as "Irish" and would strongly object to being described as "British". However, as a description of citizenship, "British" is the only accurate word to use, therefore it would be wrong, in my opinion, to cater to the feelings of such people by refraining from using "British". This is a similar situation: "Britain" as a colloquial synonym for "the UK" is universally understood. Additionally, it affords more editorial breadth for editors to write better, more readable articles, since they don't have to use "the United Kingdom", or "the UK" all the time. Therefore, I don't think it makes sense to cater to the feelings of those who object to its simply because geographically speaking, "Britain" doesn't include Northern Ireland. It's a "benefits outweigh the drawbacks" argument, I guess. -- Hux 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs inline citations

I might also say that as a featured article, there really should be more than 10 references. Can anyone insert some more? DrKiernan 12:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Hello everyone. We need to reach a consensus again and this one will looks simple, but discussion could and will be heated. I'm going to be writing the following like a bill because I'm bored :P Nat Tang ta | co | em 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What's going on? Does anyone object to changing "Britain" to "United Kingdom"? Why are we voting when there's no hint of disagreement? john k 18:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the vote which Nat added. I don't see why it is possibly necessary, since nobody actually objects to using United Kingdom. The discussion could become heated, but it has not yet, and I see no particular reason to imagine that it will be. This page is cluttered up enough with votes, without us needing to add a completely unnecessary one. john k 19:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverts of 12 July

Thark, I'll ask you once more to not delete cited material. When you do so under the guize of "consensus," when there wasn't even a discussion on the matter of that section or quotations, let alone any consensus on the matter, you are being borderline disruptive, and therefore teetering on the edge of vandalism. Once again, as this is a new and separate matter, don't revert those edits again without presenting reasoning here first. --G2bambino 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that there was a huge, interminable discussion. It is you who are acting like a vandal here. Please stop. TharkunColl 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Point out where there was a discussion regarding the inclusion of a quote from an English Court of Appeal ruling, or that "countries that stayed monarchies" is a better descriptor than "Commonwealth Realms," etc., etc. Your reverts are extremely counter-productive. --G2bambino 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We discussed the right wording to use ad nauseam. It is clear that you will keep attempting to disrupt this by claiming to bring up new points, which in reality are not new at all. TharkunColl 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we discussed the choice between "British Monarch" and "the person who serves as the British Monarch"; that was all. When the "consensus" (of which there wasn't even a clear one) doesn't even touch on the material I'm inserting, nor the condensing of text that doesn't change the actual information in the article, then your automatic, knee-jerk reverts are reversing good faith, constructive edits. You can't hold the entire article hostage, Thark, and that you are attempting to do so puts you in a very bad position. --G2bambino 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you two stop it...it's getting quite annoying...discuss in a more civil tone...that means don't call each other vandals, extremely counter productive, and so on...and stop reverting each other, that would just get you blocked. Nat Tang ta | co | em 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino It is you who have continually tried to wreck this article with your own personal opinion of what it should contain. Go ahead, report me for vandalism like you threatened. I believe I used the term browbeating to characterise your tactics - and this just proves it. I really don't wish to argue. TharkunColl 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys, take a moment to cool off; this isn't helping. It's convention to discuss content, and not contributors. Try to be more diplomatic in your discussions, outline here what you'd each like to see in the article and why, and then try to work out a compromise. I can see logic in both approaches, and would urge a little co-operation. Jza84 22:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The discussion has already been had - see above under Consensus survey: "monarch" versus "monarchy" and its various subheadings. TharkunColl 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not terribly helpful. You both appear to have voted with the same opinion in a survey, and haven't really discussed at length what the problem is beyond today. Consensus can change, particularly from small catchments. What you both appear to be warring over has not been discussed at all in terms or facilitating a compromise. Jza84 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of being a smartass, I think it bears pointing out that we have been "discuss[ing] at length what the problem is beyond today". The discussion got going on July 5 and has become really extensive in the last four days, since the page was unprotected. Or, to put it another way, this talk page is around ~150KB and about 95% of that is this one discussion! ;) -- Hux 11:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What you both appear to be warring over has not been discussed at all in terms or facilitating a compromise Precisely; not one single edit I made here today had anything to do with the discussion above; in fact, I grudgingly left the wording of the one sentence that was the focus of the debate above quite alone. None-the-less, the party I have to get to now takes priority over this mess (incomprehensible, I know!), so I'll have to continue this tomorrow. --G2bambino 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The whole thing has been discussed as nauseam, as G2bambino knows full well. It's all about wording. All other editors according to the current consensus have opined that the terms "British monarch" and "the person who is the British monarch" are identical in meaning. G2bambino disputes this, but none of his citations are relevant because they tell us nothing we don't already know. In other words, the dispute is linguistic rather than constitutional. The second phrase is a stylistic monstrosity that has no place in a serious encyclopedia, and can actually lead to untrue statements (e.g. by saying that the British monarch is not the Australian or Canadian monarch, when she quite obviously is). TharkunColl 22:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Tharkuncoll, I for one voted yes but added a qualifier. And several of those voting noted that they did not understand how the vote was useful. Which indicates that further discussion was necessary.--Gazzster 01:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The terms seem to suffer from both common and technical uses. By chance, I'm a Brit, with a Canadian grandfather (albeit Anglo-Canadian), a Bangladeshi grandmother (born in pre-Indian partition times) and Scottish-Ulster Scots father; I'm not particularly well read in the detailed and constitutional framework of the monarch(y), but I think I can at least try to offer an impartial standpoint on this without being too much of an Anglophile.
What G2bambino asserts is a point of veiw - that's for sure. But it's not necessarily a breach of WP:POV, and not necessarily a sole-point of view, as I think it's a valid one which questions the role of monarch(y) just from a different cultural perspective.
However, all that may be required here as it appears to be a lingustic problem (even in the intrim) is a statement for context... something like "assuming the "British monarch" from such a perspective..." or using Queen Elizabeth rather than "British Monarch" - try to take an ultra-neutral point of view. If there is conflicting source material try to make this clear in the article. Try to consider something like Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy for this to have an inclusive (though of course encyclopedic) outcome. Jza84 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is not being helped by personalising it. I agree with Jza84 that if we put the language in context it will be fine. Actually, I do not see we have to debate this. This article is about the British Monarchy. Why do we need a discourse on the other Commonwealth Realms at all? An internal link, which we have, would be sufficient. But if we must have a reference to the other realms of the House of Windsor and use the term 'British Monarch' or similar, let's simply contextualise it to show the separate roles of the sovereign. I thought the phrase we had yesterday was OK. But, why dont each of us who are interested nominate a short phrase, and everyone votes on them?--Gazzster 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's only one thing that I see wrong with G2bambino's insert, and that is the repetition of "Fifty-three states are members of " as the first line of two paragraphs. My suggestion for the "International and domestic aspects" section is in whole:

The British Monarchy is a shared monarchy, meaning the United Kingdom is in a personal union relationship with many of its former colonies.[1][2][3] Fifty-three states are members of the Commonwealth of Nations. Sixteen of these countries are known as Commonwealth Realms and recognize the British monarch as their Head of State; the UK is one of these. Despite sharing the same person as their respective national monarch, each of the Commonwealth Realms is sovereign and independent of the others. The English Court of Appeal ruled in 1982, while "there is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth... in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada."[4]

See also: Commonwealth Realm: Constitutional implications

DrKiernan 07:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider, that paragraph sounds very professional, reasonable, and establishes context. Jza84 14:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, how could I really disagree with DrKiernan's proposal, save for the at least misleading description of the Realms all regarding the British Monarch as head of state; it's already said in the following sentence that the UK is one of the Realms, therefore it seems redundant to say Britain recognizes the British Monarch as head of state. I might suggest a slight reword, to condense the text and remove any redundancies.
Sixteen states within the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations are in a personal union relationship and are known as Commonwealth Realms. The UK is one of these, therefore the British Monarchy is one shared amongst former territories of the British Empire.[5][6][7]. Despite sharing the same person as their respective national monarch, each of the Commonwealth Realms is sovereign and independent of the others. The English Court of Appeal ruled in 1982, while "there is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth... in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada."[8]
See also: Commonwealth Realm: Constitutional implications
If we can come up with a succinct, accurate and non-controversial compsition here, it could be used to improve Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Australia, Monarchy in New Zealand, Monarchy in Jamaica, and any others that are created. --G2bambino 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the both paragraphs, however, I believe that the current dablink is sufficent as dablinks are not supposed to be so wordy and long, as both G2bambino and DrKiernan's proposal are too wordy and long (no offence). If you guys revise and shorten your proposals, I will be willing to support. Nat Tang ta | co | em 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we were proposing a new dablink; rather it's for the "International and domestic aspects" section. --G2bambino 18:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear, oh dear! Why do we have to make such a big thing of this?! The paragraphs proposed are good, but we don't want to start writing a tome. How about,

The British monarch is also sovereign of 15 other realms, holding the title and role in each separately, by virtue of the constitutional law of each realm. See Commonealth Realms.

Remember, this is an article about the British Monarchy. The reference to the others should be succint and brief, with an internal link.--Gazzster 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. It just looks similar to the phrasing in the dablink. Nat Tang ta | co | em 18:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about interrupting your contribution, Nat.--Gazzster 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much of an issue here. Some info has to be given about the fact that the UK shares its monarchy with other countries, and how that came to be; the sections British monarchy#International and domestic aspects and British monarchy#Development of shared monarchy cover just that. --G2bambino 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that an explanation of the situation re the Commonwealth Realms needs to be in the main body of the article. It's important to establish the shared monarchy aspect given that it distinguishes the British monarchy from most others. From a stylistic point of view, I would suggest that we have a concise explanation near the top, to establish the current situation, and a slightly more detailed description in the history section below. We don't need to go into major detail anywhere on this page since the proper place for that is in the Commonwealth Realms article. -- Hux 08:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I see the discussion re: the "International and domestic aspects" section has died off. I'll take it, then, that there are no serious objections to the proposed wording? --G2bambino 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What proposed wording? -- Lonewolf BC 16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Either of the two proposals above from either DrKiernan or myself, or some combination of the two. --G2bambino 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay; got them now. (It's not so easy to find proposals amid these long, wandering discussions. Kieran's name was the useful handle.)
Off-hand, the part about the English court-case is needless and seems more argumentative than informative -- belabouring the point. I think it should be scrapped. The rest is not bad, but I think it could be said better. -- Lonewolf BC 18:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it? It should at least be included as a reference. --G2bambino 19:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no particular reason to mention anything about the Commonwealth Realms being former "possessions of the British Empire" in the dablink, of all places; that information is already well covered in the body of this article, as well as at the Commonwealth Realms article itself, which is linked in the dablink. The dablink should be as consise as absolutely possible; the words "...several former colonial possessions of the British Empire known as..." seem simply superfluous in that context. (I've already edited down the dalink at Monarchy in Canada to suit.) --G2bambino 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a very important fact about the British monarchy, and explains why it still has a presence all over the world. TharkunColl 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Regardless, it doesn't belong in the dablink. --G2bambino 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's no need to argue about it. Let's see what others think in due course. TharkunColl 17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I should also add: nearly the exact same text is repeated in the opening of the article itself: "This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain..."; further affirming the redundancy of keeping "...several former colonial possessions of the British Empire known as..." in the dablink. --G2bambino 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
DABlinks should provide the minimum possible information to allows readers to find the article they're looking for. WilyD 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm sure there enough links in the lead, sec. 2.1 and sec. 7, should readers wish to pursue the matter.--Gazzster 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree: the DAB should be as short as possible and should establish: a) that the monarchy is shared, b) how to find info on the other monarchies within that shared system, and c) how to find info about the British royal family. Any and all explanatory information beyond that belongs in the article. -- Hux 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)



Possible confusion: separate monarchies vs. "shared monarchy"

The following just occurred to me: as we have discussed at length above, Elizabeth II is, separately and simultaneously, the monarch of sixteen countries. However, at the same time it is stated that the British monarchy is a "shared monarchy". As far as I can see, these two assertions are conflicting and the article is therefore potentially confusing; Britain does not share its monarchy with any other country because the British monarchy is entirely separate from the other 15 nations of which Elizabeth is queen. Therefore, I propose that we need to avoid the use of "shared" in this article and explain it in a different way.

Agreements? Disagreements? -- Hux 08:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We have covered this before in so many words, but may I say you put the problem clearly and succinctly in a way we have not seen so far. Our discussions over the word 'monarch' and 'monarchy' revolve around this issue. English can be very subtle and we probably need to agree on some unofficial definition of 'monarchy' for use on this page. My understanding of the phrase 'Britain shares its monarchy with 15 other nations' can be taken in two senses:
1) When monarchy is taken in a sense abstracted from any role or title, the monarchy residing in Great Britain is indeed shared by the other nations;
2) When monarchy is confined to a certain constitutional role in a particular country, i.e., in this case Britain, it is, as you say, certainly not true that the monarchy is shared.
I think the present dablink is fine. But the question for me is, how much do we have to make this subtle distinction? I dont think we need to. Certainly not for a dablink and not for an article which is about the British monarchy. AS weve said, there are enough links to explain the situation. As to the term 'shared monarchy', it is used in other Wikipedia articles and I think it may be used outside of Wikipedia as well. And if we changed the phrase we would have an enormous battle and probably an edit war. But good work, mate. You make intelligent and useful contributions.--Gazzster 09:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
A PS: I ran the phrase 'shared monarch' on Google. It actually appears frequently on many monarchy-related websites in connection with Elizabeth II.--Gazzster 09:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments! I guess the only relevant question for my suggestion would be, "Is 'shared monarchy' going to confuse readers, given the explanation about the separate nature of the British, Canadian, Jamaica, etc., monarchies?" If we can confidently say "no" to that then there's not really an issue. If it is likely to confuse, though, then I think it would be a lot better to just avoid the phrase 'shared monarchy' (and similar) in general, which wouldn't really be a big deal, I think. However, I didn't want to change anything without raising it first, given the edit warring that even seemingly minor edits have recently (and very irritatingly) produced. -- Hux 13:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The same thought has occurred to me about the seeming contradiction. I agree that "shared monarchy" it is liable to confuse, though I don't think that necessarily means it should be left out of the article altogether. The problem with it is that it really does not explain. Rather, it needs explaining. Accordingly, if it belongs in the article at all then it belongs lower down, after the "sharedness" but "separateness" have been explained. Putting it up in the "dablink" or in the lead, without explanation, is not useful; it just introduces potentially confusing terminology and a side-tracking link. Using it up there and explaining it there, too, is digressive and unbalancing in what should be an overview. "Personal union" is much the same case -- it does not explain, but needs to be explained.
(If I may somewhat digress, the "dablink" as a whole suffers from this sort of problem. It seems to be aimed more at highlighting particular terms and certain aspects of the British (and other) monarchies, off the top and out of turn, than with directing readers to the article they really want. If it should be kept at all, it should be made really short, and the jargon and attendant links should be edited out.)
-- Lonewolf BC 17:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes,that is the problem with dablinks; they are meant to be brief leads but they can turn into tomes. Yes, shared monarchy requires an explanation, but 'shared' in the dablink links to personal union. And, yes, as Lonewolf comments, the concept of personal union is not really an explanation. 'Shared monarchy' however, appears to be a term to describe the unique relationship between the encumbent of the throne of the United Kingdom and the 15 other realms. And there is no article here for 'Shared Monarchy'.I suggest that the dablink contain no reference to the shared monarchy whatsoever. After all, it should introduce the concept of the British monarchy, not the shared one. A short dablink to explain the shared monarchy could be inserted in section 7. --Gazzster 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried getting rid of the dablink, and placing one in sec 7 to explain the shared monarchy.--Gazzster 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry we tripped over each other a bit, there. I reloaded the dablink in a really short and to-the-point form -- just a signpost for readers who are really seeking a different article, which is all that dablinks are really meant to be -- which I think works out fine. I think explanation of the shared monarchy belongs in the article, not down in "See also", do I undid that part of Gazzter's edit. The text might be salvaged or cannibalised for use elsewhere in the article, but I didn't want to monkey with that just now.
-- Lonewolf BC 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, your edit is better Lonewolf. Short and to the point.--Gazzster 23:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And now more tripping, this time on the talk-page.  ;-) Glad we agree. -- Lonewolf BC 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Zines, The High Court and the Constitution, 4th ed. (1997) at 314: "The Queen as monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is in a position resembling that of the King of Scotland and of England between 1603 and 1707 when two independent countries had a common sovereign"; the relationship between England and Scotland during those years is described as a personal union.
  2. ^ P. E. Corbett (1940). "The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law". The University of Toronto Law Journal. 3. {{cite journal}}: Text "pages 348-359" ignored (help); Unknown parameter |Number= ignored (|number= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law. 38 (1): 34–49.
  4. ^ R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association, QB 892 at 928; as referenced in High Court of Australia: Sue v Hill [1999 HCA 30; 23 June 1999; S179/1998 and B49/1998]
  5. ^ Zines, The High Court and the Constitution, 4th ed. (1997) at 314: "The Queen as monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is in a position resembling that of the King of Scotland and of England between 1603 and 1707 when two independent countries had a common sovereign"; the relationship between England and Scotland during those years is described as a personal union.
  6. ^ P. E. Corbett (1940). "The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law". The University of Toronto Law Journal. 3. {{cite journal}}: Text "pages 348-359" ignored (help); Unknown parameter |Number= ignored (|number= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law. 38 (1): 34–49.
  8. ^ R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association, QB 892 at 928; as referenced in High Court of Australia: Sue v Hill [1999 HCA 30; 23 June 1999; S179/1998 and B49/1998]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2&oldid=1050169391"