Talk:Personal union/Archive 1

Archive 1

Personal Union of Great Britain and Corsica

According to the Wikipedia page Anglo-Corsican Kingdom King George III of Great Britain was also King Giorgio of Corsica between 1794 and 1796.

Removal of Albania and Ethopia

Removed Albania and Ethopia. Italy annexed them outright and so it wasn't a personal union.

Roadrunner 04:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could you please prove that the Italian government ever proclaimed Ethiopia and Albania to be parts of the Kingdom of Italy? I am quite certain that they never did. Victor Emmanuel was proclaimed Emperor of Ethiopia and King of Albania, which suggests that the formal nature of the junction was a personal union. The case is much similar to that of the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Russian Empire. Please note that the concept of personal union is a very formal one – it has little to do with which state actually possessed power over the other, nor by what means that relation had arosen. -- Jao 07:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-agreed with the first post as far as ethiopia was concerned: this was a mere title, analogous to the british monarch as 'emperor of india'

-disagree as far as albania was concerned. The albanian crown was, at least formally at least, 'offered' to vittorio emanuelle III and he accepted. Thus, at least officially, this was a personal union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth

By the definition given in the first paragraph, are not the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in a personal union with the United Kingdom? Should they be added? Or maybe the definition needs refining?

The question, perhaps, is whether all territories need to be one of A) a sovereign state, or B) a part of a larger sovereign state. Jersey or the IOM certainly are not B (as they are formally not parts of the UK), and if they are A they are to be included here. But isn't their status more like those of associated states like the Cook Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia -- and then, is that an A, a B, or rather a third alternative? The question is open, here. The definitions are not obvious. -- Jao 09:31, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Realms could include a large number of other states. See for example King of India and Pakistan. --Henrygb 01:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Channel Islands are held by the Queen in her status as Duke of Normandy, not Queen of the United Kingdom. Even though the end result seems similar, they are not part of the United Kingdom. I'm unsure if the laws of inheritance of the Duchy are the same as for the UK. For example, is a catholic eldest son of the Duke of Normandy eligible to succeed to the Duchy, while ineligible to succeed to UK crown? If so, then it is indeed a personal union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteboar101 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the above editor meant Duchess of Normandy. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

She is the Duke of Normandy, just as she is the Lord of Mann. Maproom (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

She is neither Duchess nor Duke; see my argument (to which no one responded) in Talk:Duke of Normandy#oh come now. —Tamfang (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy problem.

I don't think a colony that has the same head of state as its coloniser can be considered to be in a state of "personal union". With the possible exception of India, states that became Commonwealth Realms upon independence should not be listed as having been "personal unions" when they were colonies since they were consitutionally linked with the "mother country" by means of being its possession where a "personal union" suggests no constitutional linkages other than a shared head of state. Homey 10:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand your objection. I was the person who added many of the former Commonwealth Realms, and dates to those present ones already in there, and my intention was definitely to include them based on independence from Britain or Australia till change to the monarchy. Taking Papua New Guinea, for example, it says:

• Since 1975 upon independence from Australia, a Commonwealth Realm, officially a personal union since 1927 (see Antigua and Barbuda, above, for past and present participants)

which is meant to say that it's been in Personal Union with the other Commonwealth Realms since 1975, and the Commonwealth has been a personal union since 1927 (before my edits it simply said it had been a realm, which since 1927 was a personal union—I had the same objections as you!). Notice especially also:

Not all of these were a personal union between Antigua and Barbuda and the mentioned country because they ceased to be Commonwealth Realms before Antigua and Barbuda's independence, but are included here for conciseness.

which clearly mentions independence as a criterion. Notice also that not all Commonwealth members are mentioned—those which became republics on independence are missed out entirely.

Is it simply a dating/series of dating error(s)? I copied them across from the article on the Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth Realms, but might've made some mistakes. In that case, edit till your heart's content.

Is it the 1927 that you object to? I admit it might be ambiguous, and probably if I was writing it today I wouldn't include it past Antigua and Barbuda—or maybe Ireland, being the first independent Commonwealth Realm IIUC. I won't remove it today, though, but feel free to if you want.

Felix the Cassowary 09:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A personal union refers to two (or more) different and constitutionally distinct states that share a monarch. This term cannot be used to describe colonies as they are not constitutionally distinct but are possessions of another country. Antigua and Barbuda, for instance, did not have a prime minister attending imperial conferences in the 1920s and is not one of the countries mentioned in the 1931 Statute of Westminster ie it was not a dominion. The only countries in the British Commonwealth that might be said to have become personal union countries in 1927 were Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa and, of course, Britain. See the Statute of Westminster article please. Homey 13:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that conflicts with either what I've said or the article says. It says Antigua and Barbuda has been a personal union since 1981 upon obtaining independence. (BTW: The Statute of Westminster dates to 1931, and didn't affect Australia and New Zealand until the 1940s, so you can't say they became personal union countries till after 1927. Which, I note, the article already does.) Felix the Cassowary 13:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What you say is:

Since 1981 upon obtaining independence, a Commonwealth Realm, officially a personal union since 1927,

That is incorrect. Antigua has not been a personal union since 1927, officially or unofficially. Indeed, I don't think you can say that Canada, Australia or any of the dominions became personal unions in 1927 as the UK could still legislate for them without their permission until the Statute of Westminister was enacted and even then the UK Parliament had to pass constitutional amendments for Canada until 1982. I don't think Canada, for instance, can be described as being a "personal union" state until 1982 since, prior to that, it was constitutionally linked with the UK. Homey 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

(a) It's not what I say, it's what the article says. (b) It's not incorrect, it's ambiguous. I read it as intending to say the Commonwealth Realm was officially a personal union since 1927, and I kept that much of the wording through my changes. As for Canada, I have no wish to get into that debate, and I'm going by Commonwealth Realm. Felix the Cassowary 14:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

which is meant to say that it's been in Personal Union with the other Commonwealth Realms since 1975, and the Commonwealth has been a personal union since 1927

Then you should rewrite it since what you have actually written doesn't say that but suggests it's been a personal union since 1927. Homey 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well for godssake change it then! Felix the Cassowary

Please re-add the relevant information you deleted (you may choose where) in short order, or I will revert your deletion. — Felix the Cassowary 13:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

In Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Finland, there is a well-argued case that the Grand Duchy of Finland was not in personal union with Russia, despite having a separate constitution and governmental structures. The basic point seems to be that Finland was conquered, and only then, separately, was Finland granted its autonomous status and continuance of the old Swedish constitution by the czar, which means that the czar did not succeed the previous king by legal means. Opinions? 130.188.8.9 12:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this point of view. In my encyclopaedia, printed in St Petersburg in 1909, Finland is called 'a Grand Duchy, annexed to the Russian Empire in 1809'. Finland was not a separate country in a personal union with Russia, it was an autonomous part of the Russian Empire. Mapple 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This issue is not limited to Finland. though. There are plenty of other analogous "conquered-then-given-autonomy" cases listed, such as the Commonwealth Realms and Ethiopia and Albania. Should they also be removed? Or should there be a separate section for cases like these, where some people have claimed a personal union to exist, even when it was strictly speaking not true? 130.188.8.9 08:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Organization - a suggestion

Perhaps the unions would be easier to explain by listing the unions involved, rather than the individual countries. That would give the Commonwealth Realms their own section, where the relationship can be explained more clearly. That relationship, by design, evolved gradually, from the Treaty of Versailles (1919) recognizing a kind of autonomous status, to recognitiono of separate relationship to the Crown in 1927, to independence and equality starting in 1931 (or Dominion status, for later dominions). Also that relationship can be contrasted with others such as the British Crown dependencies, which are in a sort of associated state relationship with the United Kingdom but not other Commonwealth realms. Peter Grey 15:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realms: source needed

Can someone cite an official source or legal opinion that supports the assertions given in this article about when the dominions separated from the British crown? As it stands, I'm worried that the article is just conjecture dressed up as fact. There is a lot said on Wikipedia about the division of the British crown, but no evidence provided for it.

Ben Arnold 10:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn’t that what the Statute of Westminster did? (Honest question.) I suspect that, especially in the cases of the earlier separations, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anything that actually says it ... too much of Westminster systems and the break-up of the British Empire was tradition, habit, and gradual change. It’s how Australia’s Constitution went from being that of a Colony to that of a fully-fledged, independent nation with hardly a change. But IANAL, and my knowledge is mostly based on Wikip. anyway, so it’s hardly evidence... — Felix the Cassowary 12:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Statute of Westminster ended the ability of the UK parliament to pass legislation unilaterally for the realms but the consent of the UK paraliament was still needed for constitutional changes in the realms. It was not until the Canada Act 1982 that the UK stopped legislating for Canada, the Australia Act 1986 that it stopped legislating for Australia. It's not until these points that we can truly talk of personal union as, until then, you did have constitutional linkage between the UK parliament and those of the realms. I'm unclear as to New Zealand. It's 1986 Constitution Act seems not to have had to go through Westminster but I'm unfamiliar with the contents of the The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act 1947 (which did pass Westminster) and don't know if that Act ended the UK's ability to legislate for NZ. Homey 12:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

On New Zealand:

New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster in order to access the “request and consent” procedures provided by section 4 of the Statute. Having adopted the United Kingdom statute, the General Assembly then passed legislation requesting the grant of full constituent powers. The Constitution Amendment (Request and Consent) Act 1947 requested, and consented to, the United Kingdom Parliament enacting legislation “in the form or to the effect of” the draft bill set out in the schedule to the Act.[131] The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act 1947 (UK) provides that: [132]

It shall be lawful for the Parliament of New Zealand by any Act or Acts of that Parliament to alter, suspend, or repeal, at any time, all or any of the provisions of the New Zealand Constitution Act, 1852; and the New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1857, is hereby repealed. [1] Homey 12:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If that's the limitation, then Australia *still* has constitutional links to the UK: The High Court can be overruled by the House of Lords, but only if they issue a certificate allowing it (which they never will). Almost-impossible-to-change constitution does this kind of a think for you. — Felix the Cassowary 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Felix the Cassowary asked the question, Isn’t [dividing the crown] what the Statute of Westminster did?. The Balfour Declaration, 1926 seems to suggest otherwise:

There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development—we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

[...]

Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our Inter-Imperial Relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence, we require also flexible machinery - machinery which can, from time to time, be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world.

One reading of this is that the crown has already been divided by 1926, but the degree of practical independence is on a course of evolution, i.e. many crowns, but some shared government.

So it's not entirely clear when the crown was divided. Unless we can cite a constitutional authority on the matter, or find a more explicit document, we should probably use safe language like "sometime in the early-to-mid 20th century".

Ben Arnold 23:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The crown was never "divided", that term is used to describe what would happen if various realms adopt different succession rules resulting in different lines of succession. The crown is a shared crown, that is the concept you see used in constitutional law.

Secondly, the Statute of Westminster, while giving dominions equal status to the UK, only ended the ability of the UK Parliament to pass unilateral legislation that impacted the dominions. It was not until 1947 that individual "realms" gained the ability to amend their own constitutions without also having a bill passed through Westminster. New Zealand gained this ability soon after the war, other colonies gained this ability upon becoming independent (India, Pakistan etc), Canada and Australia did not gain this ability until the 1980s. Until there is a situation when the only remaining constitutional link between two countries is a shared sovereign, one cannot speak of there being a "personal union" since there remain other constitutional links bonding the countries other than a shared sovereign. Therefore, while the Statute of Westminster is a step towards there being only a "personal union" it did not accomplish that in and of itself. Homey 00:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I'd argue that the term Queen in Right of New Zealand as used in New Zealand supports the one throne/multiple crowns concept. Regardless I agree that any theory such as this is conjecture and we need some hard evidence or at least authoritative speculation. Ben Arnold 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not "Crown in Right in New Zealand"?Homey 23:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It varies:

Constitution Act 1986 (NZ)

The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time.

Constitution of the Cook Islands

Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand shall be the Head of State of the Cook Islands.

Ben Arnold 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Commonwealth Realm dates

I have been prompted into action by Jfruh removing the POV tag. Since we haven't been able to find supporting evidence for the dates used in the article I have removed them.

I accept that the term commonwealth realm refers to a divided crown. New Zealand has been a realm at least since 1983 when a letters patent reconstructed the office of the Governor-General and the term Realm of New Zealand is used explicitly. Using this as a yardstick, I think we can be fairly certain that by 1990 all "dominions" had become "commonwealth realms", and had a divided crown.

The upshot of this reasoning is that I have removed all the dates from the sections of the article that refer to commonwealth realms. I have also removed any countries that had moved to a local head of state by 1990. This leaves only Mauritius and the current commonwealth realms.

I want to be clear about a few things:

• I am not saying that the dates in the article were wrong. They might be right; I suspect a lot of them are, but we haven't been able to find evidence to support them. They are still in the edit history if we need to get them back.

• I am willing to entertain a stricter line than the line I have drawn. I appreciate that there is still debate over whether the commonwealth realms are a personal union at all. We may need to have that debate before we can move forward.

• My reason for removing the dates and the debatable countries is that it's better to not say something than to say something that's wrong. I'm personally of the opinion that dominion status divided the crown, but I think that with the currently available evidence I can only be confident enough to say that that the crown has been divided in all countries since at least 1990.

Ben Arnold 14:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit to being baffled by this dispute. The countries you removed from the list were independent countries. Everyone recognized them as such. They exchanged ambassadors with other countries, acted on their own and not under the direction of the UK government, etc. Their head of state was the same as the head of state of the UK and other dominions/commonwealth realms. How can this be construed as anything other than a personal union?

I understand that the evolution from the British Empire to a group of independent countries in personal union was complex. Should perhaps past and present Dominions/C.R.s be put in their own section, with a header paragraph discussing some of the intricacies (Statue of Westminster, repatriation of constituions, etc.)? --Jfruh 14:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the Commonwealth Realms the reasons for the dates are quite clearly outlined in each entry. IE in most cases it was "independence" (ie generally in post-WW2 cases of decolonization). For the preWWII "dominions" it's more complex because of the nature of dominion status and thus dates are determined by specific legislation ie the Canada Act 1982, the Australia Act 1986, The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act 1947. What was incorrect was the earlier assumption that all "dominions" became personal unions either sometime in the 1920s or with the Statute of Westminster. Homey 22:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In South Africa's case the British Parliament retained some jurisdicition in regards to constitutional amendments until the Union of South Africa declared itself a republic in the early 1960s so it was never a "personal union". Homey 22:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Jfruh is baffled by my removing "independent" countries. The problem is that the Cook Islands is independent in all senses except that its head of state is the Queen of New Zealand. The Cook Islands is not in personal union with New Zealand, because the title Queen of New Zealand includes the Cook Islands. Similarly Scotland and England are not in personal union because the kingdoms have been united.

In other words, you can have a single realm that contains multiple governments that effectively independent. These are not personal unions. So arguing that a Commonwealth realm or dominion is self-governing is not sufficient to prove that it is in personal union with the United Kingdom. You need better proof.

A good example of proof was the Acts of Union 1707 where the England and Scotland were united. Another good example is an Act that changes the title of the sovereign.

And I have good news in this regard. I have found an article which gives us dates that some titles were granted. I haven't checked thoroughly, but it looks like a seperate title was created for all dominions/realms created after about 1960. It would nice to be able to cite specific legislation for each country, but this is certainly enough support to include these countries in the article. Finding that article also reminded me that there was a similar Royal Titles Act passed in New Zealand in 1953.

So when I have a bit more time I'll edit Personal union, bearing this new evidence in mind. But I will remove any statement that we have not yet substantiated with evidence.

Just to reiterate: being legally self-governing is not enough to be a separate realm. So a statement like "New Zealand has been in personal union since the adoption of the Constitution Amendment Act" will be removed. Why? Given the evidence so far presented it is possible that New Zealand became separate realm any time between 1907 (when it became a dominion) and 1953 (when the Queen's title was officially changed). To identify any specific date we need to cite evidence, otherwise it's just conjecture.

Ben Arnold 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have now made those changes. They are less drastic than my previous changes, although I'm not entirely comfortable with having so many realms included merely because of our assumptions.

Summary of changes:

Australia, Canada, New Zealand

• Replaced date of legislative independence with a reference to their respective 1953 Titles Acts. The rationale is that a country doesn't have to be legislatively independent to be in personal union. The 1953 Acts were all of the form Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen[...]. This is an explicit statement that the United Kingdom and New Zealand are separate realms.
• Noted in each of these that 1953 was the latest possible date that personal union was achieved, and that the status before this is uncertain. It's uncertain to us, and most of the stuff I've read about it makes it sound like it was pretty uncertain at the time.
• Left a reference to the date of legislative independence for clarity and information purposes.

Ceylon

• Removed this entry entirely, as Ceylon was independent before 1953. It's possible that it was in personal union before that, but no one has provided a source so we can't say it.

Pakistan

• Removed this entry because according to our main source, Pakistan never passed a Titles Act. Again it's possible that Pakistan was in personal union by virtue of being a dominion, or some other reason, but because we haven't got a source we can't say it.

Ben Arnold 01:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should discuss this more. The Royal Style and Titles Acts are not constitutional acts per se and as Canada, Australia etc maintained legislative links with the UK following the passage of these Acts these countries were not "personal union" contries yet. IE Canada did not become a personal union country until 1982 when the UK Parliament's ability to legislate in Canadian matters was completely terminated. Homey 15:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not discussing it: you're just reiterating your assertion that personal union is defined by legislative independence. I do not believe that is true, for reasons I have stated a number of times. I made various attempts at a compromise, based on what has been agreed but they have been reverted. So I guess we're at an impasse until you can address the arguments I've made or find some evidence to support your assertion. Ben Arnold 22:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I know where the previous date of 1927 came from. See Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. Looking at the wording it can be seen that the Act essentially separates the United Kingdom, Ireland and the other British Dominions. Thus whereas before the King George V was "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and was styled as the "King in Ireland" and the "King in Canada", etc. after the Act, he was "King of Ireland", "King of Canada", etc (see Irish_Free_State#Constitutional_evolution). According to the 1927 Titles Act article, there was also the Balfour Declaration of 1926 in which it was agreed that "the UK and the Dominions were equal in status and in no way subordinate to each other in the domestic and external affairs, though united by their common allegiance to the Crown". Another wikipedia entry referring to the 1927 Act is the Style of the British Sovereign. Check out the article and scroll down til you see the coins and around there it is stated that "In 1927, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 changed the phrase 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas' was to 'of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominion beyond the Seas.' The 1927 Act was also significant for opening the door to dominions (later Commonwealth Realms) having the right to determine their own style and title for the sovereign, a right which was exercised beginning in 1953.". Thus it can be seen that apart from referring to the UK, Ireland the British Dominions separately (and thus as separate realms)and necessitating a change in how the King was styled (from King in country to King of country), it meant that each dominion could choose the official style of the monarch in its constitution and official documents.

Ben Arnold uses the examples of the Cooks Islands and New Zealand, however he notes that the Title "Queen of New Zealand" is meant to include the Cooks Islands. This is true, and on that basis when the title changed for the various dominions, they were being called separate realms. Essentially the Cooks Islands are united with New Zealand as a realm, but between the various legal documents from 1926 to 1953 (with 1927, 1931 and 1953 being really important), Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa have been considered separate realms. They did not constitute a single realm with multiple governments (otherwise why would Queen Elizabeth II be styled of Queen of country and her other Realms and territories?). Reading the 1953 title for New Zealand (or Australia) we see "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, New Zealand (or Australia) and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen..". Some may read it to be that the UK and NZ (or Australia) form one realm as opposed to everything else, but the title uses a comma (instead of referring to the two countries as "The United Kingdom and New Zealand". Both the UK and NZ (or Australia) are referred to in the same way as the "other realms" and as the Queen of Australia entry notes "When a new Royal Style and Titles Act was passed at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, it explicitly identified the Queen's role in the United Kingdom and her role in Australia separately, with her role as Queen of the United Kingdom listed before her role as Queen of Australia. This format was consistent with the form of the Queen's titles in the other Realms, as had been agreed upon by all the Realm governments in 1953." Thus the styling was not to imply that Australia and the UK were one realm, it was just the protocol agreed upon by all the Commonwealth realms.

The Statute of Westminister granted legislative independence to the dominions. It is true that the British parliament could legislate for the Dominions, but only at the request and with the consent of the Dominions in question. This provision even extended to the requirement of an Act of British parliament for amending parts of the Canadian constitution. If Canada did not want those sections amended, the British parliament could not do so, even it wanted to. If you think about, this could have lead to a situation at any time between 1931 and 1982 in the British Parliament decided enough was enough and passed the equivalent of the Canada Act 1982. However, unless the Canadian parliament requested this Act and approved it, then this theoretical act would have just been so much legalese words on wasted paper and would have had no effect on Canada. Is that not legislative indendence?

Also, if constitutional independence is the criteria, then the Australia Act 1986 is not a clear choice since the Act removed the power of the UK's parliament over the individual Australian states, not Australia itself. So from that perspective it could be argued that while the Commonwealth of Australia has been in personal union since its adoption of the Statute (which was not applied to the State governments), the Australian states have each been in personal union only since 1986. This would then require a separate entry for each Australian state. The enabling legislation for the Australia Act 1986 was done by each of the legislatures of the Austrlian states. According to the entry for Austrlia Act 1986 the "long title of these state acts (such as the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 of New South Wales) were 'An Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation.' Collectively the federal, state and British acts were known as the 'Australia Acts'.". It would seem strange for the Australia Act to refer to Australia as a "sovereign, independent..nation" if the country was not already so. A lot has been made about Australia, Canada and New Zealand "maintaining constitutional links" with the UK after the Statute of Westminister and that only when these last links are removed has personal union been achieved, but seeing as how the role of the monarch is enshrined in their constitutions, then could it not be argued that the very act of having a shared monarch means that all Commonwealth Realms are currently not constitutionally independent of the United Kingdom? Can they ever really be constitutionally separate from each other with the same head of state ("Queen Elizabeth II and her successors")? I wouldn't argue it that way, but it was just a thought.--anon 22:11 March 20, 2006

Yes anon , it would seem strange for the Australia Act to refer to Australia as a " Sovereign , Independant Nation " if the country was not already so . But if you read it carefully the Act is " bringing " the Constitutional arrangements into conformity - with the status of Australia as a Sovereign Nation . Prior to that Act Australia was a British Dominion with " Dominion status " .Prior to the Aust Act all " Australians " were ( by Australian Law ) members of the British Nation and therefore owed their allegiance to the British Crown ( meaning the British State ) The British Crown or State is person-ified at the moment by Queen Elizabeth . Since the Australia Act , Australians do not owe allegiance to the British State ( or Crown ) but owe it to the now separate ( not divided ) Australian Crown or State . British subject status in Australia was abolished 11 months after the Aus Act came into effect . But under Australian Law Queen Elizabeth was given the permission ( assent ) of the Aust Parliament to use the title " Queen of Australia " thus personifying the Australian " Crown " or State . - that is a personal union . Leejon 12 june 06

Well Leejon, you have some convincing points, but it is not as simple as Australia having only Dominion status before 1986 and being independent and sovereign thereafter. First, let’s look at the wording of the title and then a definition or so. The long title of the various state acts were "An Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation." As you said the Act is "bringing the constitutional arrangement into conformity", but "bringing constitutional arrangements" of the States and the Commonwealth into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation is not the same as conferring upon the States and the Commonwealth an independent and sovereign status. So the act is bringing the constitutional arrangements of the various States into line with those of the already sovereign, indepedent and federal nation of the Commmonwealth of Australia. Technically, before and after the Act, Australia was (and is) a Dominion insofar as the term Dominion is used mean "area ruled by a monarch" or “kingdom” (although the term Dominion has been hardly used since the 1950s). And “Dominion status” in no way implies that Australia (or any other Commonwealth Realms such as Canada, New Zealand, Tuvalu, etc.) were not independent dominions at some stage (see Talk:Personal union#Commonwealth Realms debate, Dominion = Kingdom?). Essentially all Dominions have been considered independent upon the adoption of the 1931 Statute of Westminster (which for Australia was in the 1940s, but back-dated to 1939). Various government declarations (Balfour’s 1926) and Statutes and Acts (1927 – 1953) have explicitly recognized the Dominions as being separate and equal to the UK (which they cannot be if they are not independent) and have thus considered these Dominions to be independent.Therefore, as a Dominion is considered a sovereign nation (and there was nothing in the Australia Acts to imply that a Australia as a Dominion wasn’t) then again, the Australia Acts 1986 is not a clear choice of constitutional independence. Australia is composed of the various states, but the various state-governments do not, together, constitute the Federal government. The Federal government itself is located in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) over which the UK parliament had no power – since the ACT and all territories are directly subject to the Federal government constitutionally (and from its inception the ACT was governed by the Federal government until 1988), and it is the Federal government which had been internationally considered constitutionally independent since its adoption of the statute of Westminister.

Leejon, you also rightly point out that the British Crown or State is personified by Queen Elizabeth II, however, Australians have held allegiance to an Australian Crown or State since Australia’s Federal Government adopted a change in the Royal Titles (1953), which meant the King or Queen, was not Monarch in country, but Monarch of country (see earlier points). So Queen Elizabeth II had been able to use the title Queen of Australia long before the Australia Acts (in fact, she could use that Title one year after she began her reign). The change in title in 1973 had no effect on constitutional independence either, since Canada continues to use the 1953 style that Australia abandoned in 1973. Also, after the Balfour declaration (see Monarchy in Canada#Development of shared monarchy) there was no unitary “British Crown”, but just the “Crown”, since after that declaration and between 1926 and 1953 the Crown ceased to be a uniquely British institution (thus Australians could not have held allegiance to the “British Crown” unless they lived and died before the period 1926 - 1953).

British subject status isn’t an entirely clear criteria either since Australians were technically British subjects, for a good few years after the UK itself had abolished the status (and if the UK doesn’t recognize it, then what good is it on a legal basis?). Also, as the article on “British subject” states in the very first sentence: “the term British subject has at different times had different meanings.” From the article itself, it appear that from 1949 the term has been synonymous (in the United Kingdom at least) with “Commonwealth citizen” and it was defined throughout the Commonwealth in much the same way as “Commonwealth citizen” is defined today. Indeed, Canada and New Zealand simply replaced one term with the other in the late 1970s. But it was not the Australia Acts 1986 which abolished “British subject” status, but the Australian Citizenship Amendent Act 1984 (which came into force in 1987) (see http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/Act1.nsf/0/35DEE3B5B666D988CA256F720015BC2D?OpenDocument and click on the HTML link and go to sections 33 and 34) . Prior to that time, the term “British subject” (or “British nationality”) were used only in two sections of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 (long form: An Act relating to British Nationality and Australian Citizenship 1948). The 1984 amendment simply removed reference to “British subject” and “British nationality” from the original act (which can be found at http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth13_doc_1948%20.rtf , see sections 51 and 52). The removal of “British subject” status (coming in an Act in 1984, before the 1986 Acts) was probably done in order to conform with changes in British nationality law that came into effect in 1983 which restricted the definition of a “British subject” to a limited number of persons that had no citizenship at all (Thus Australian citizens were no longer “British subjects” under British law). Before the removal of “British subject” status it would appear that the term was used to define Australian citizens as also being “Commonwealth citizens”. In my searching I have yet to find any Australian legal document which uses the term “Commonwealth citizens” and that is probably because wanted to avoid any confusion between “citizens of the Commonwealth of Nations” and “citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia”, especially since “Commonwealth” refers to “Australia” in the various Australian Acts and constitutional documents. It could well be for this reason, why Australia did not follow Canada and New Zealand in replacing the term “British subjects” with “Commonwealth citizens”. -- anon 15:32 June 15, 2006

Hello Anon , Yes the wording of the preamble is ambiguous and yes Australia prior to the Aus Act did have 99.9 % of the attributes of a Sovereign Nation - but no legislation prior to 1986 had described Australia as a ' Sovereign Independant and Federal Nation ' . The provisions of the Act ( s.1 ) completely terminated the ability of the Westminster Parliament to legislate for Australia even with Australias ' request and consent' which was still possible under the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 . Appeals to the (British) Privy Council were also terminated ( the provisions of the Constitution enabling appeals are now 'spent' ) . The Aust. Act ( S.15 ) also removed the restriction placed on the Australian government by the Statute of Westminster to change the Aus Constitution by means other than those specified within the Constitution ie by referendum . The Statute of Westminster granted an increased level of independance to certain Dominions ( note the capital 'D ' ) but did not grant full Sovereignty - in various ways the big 'D' communities within the Empire were still subject to the jurisdiction of the British State . It was not until the Australia Act came into effect that that jurisdiction was completely terminated . Before the Aust Act Australia was an autonomous region of the British State . The Balfour declaration was made ( under pressure from the more nationalistic dominions )in order to define what a big 'D' dominion was and it clearly states that the (D)ominions were ' autonomous communities' within the Empire . Those words were very carefully chosen and the word Nations was deliberately not used . The (D)ominions were also " and freely associated " as members of the ( British ) Commonwealth of Nations - meaning no jurisdiction applied via membership of the Commonwealth - but it did apply separately as a member of the Empire .

Please note that at the time the Queen was becoming ' of ' Australia the Australian prime minister was making his famous statement that he was " British to the bootstraps " and until the mid 1960s all ' Australians were required to mark their Nationality as 'British' on the official census forms ! Australians travelled on British passports and Australian naval vessels sailed under the British Naval Ensign ! Also the 'status of British subject' was not removed in 1984 from the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 but was deliberately held over until 11 months after the Australia Act came into effect.

Prior to 1931 the (D)ominions had all the attributes of ' Dominion status' but wanted a legal definition - hence the Statute of Westminster was the confirming Act . The Aust Act did the same - it was the final step and the confirming Act . The following are brief extracts from an article by Justice Ronald Sackville , Judge of the Federal Court of Australia titled The innaccessible Constitution - " What then of the authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for Australia ? . Australia could hardly be regarded as independant if the Parliament of another country retains authority , even as a matter of theory only , to legislate for this country .It is now orthodox doctrine that Australia has severed all legislative links with the United Kingdom and that the Parliament of the United Kingdom no longer has authority to legislate for Australia . This is said to have come about no later than the enactment of the Australia Act 1986 ( Cth ) S1 of which denies at least prospectively the efficacy of Statutes enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament insofar as they purport to affect Australia . In consequence , so it is said , the legal Sovereignty of the Imperial government has ceased and ultimate sovereignty now resides in the Australian people ." He goes on to quote justice Callinan as saying that the " magic date " was 3 March 1986 .Leejon 22 June 06

It is true Leejon that "no legislation prior to 1986 had described Australia as a 'Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation'", but there are a number of reasons for this. The first is that the Statute of Westminster described the Dominions as being equal with the United Kingdom (which was already a Sovereign Independent (but not Federal) Nation. Second the Act's title does not describe Australia as being a sovereign, independent and federal nation for the first time. It says "An Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation." Note it says into conformity, not into being. "Conformity" according to the Oxford English Dictionary means "1. compliance with conventions, rules, or laws. 2. compliance with the practices of the Church of England (Brit. chiefly historical). 3. similarity in form or type". Now there is no possible way that the politicians can bring constitutional arrangements into conformity or compliance with Australia's status as a sovereign, independent and federal nation if Australia wasn't already such (it was sovereign and independent according to the 1931 Statute and the 1953 change in the Royal Title and it was already federal according to its 1901 constitution). It is just not possible to be in compliance with something that does not already exist. As for the provisions of the Act (s.1), I'm sure I already outlined that states can still have constitutional linkages and still be independent of one another (for example the Associated Statehood status of Micronesia links it to the USA, but Micronesia is still de jure (and de facto) independent.) So the powers that Westminster retained do not necessarily mean Australia was not independent of Britain. It was just a residual constitutional link and the Aus. Act simply tidied-up the relationship between two independent states. Also note that access to the Privy Council is actually access to the Sovereign in Council (which according to 1927 and 1953 documents is the Sovereign of Australia, or Sovereign of the Bahamas etc.) and the Sovereign then defers the appeal to his/her Judicial Committee (of the Privy Council). So in this respect ever since 1953 the Privy Council has never truly been a "British" court, but simply a royal court (and in addition some of the law lords on the court come from different areas of the Commonwealth, so in that respect it might as well mean that Britain is dependent upon the Commonwealth). Access to the Privy Council ties in well what I just said, since as the final "court" of appeal it demonstrates that sovereign nations can still have constitutional linkages. For example, if the access (or lack thereof) to the Privy Council is a criterion for independence, then the Bahamas (and many other Caribbean and some Pacific states) is still not independent, even though the UK granted it internationally-recognized and legally sound independence in 1973. In addition if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a criterion then the Cooks Islands and Niue are dependencies of the UK and Brunei and the republics of Dominica, Mauritius and Kiribati are still not independent. The Privy Council cannot be used as a criterion since independent states can share a common court of appeal if they so choose (it is their right after all and they can withdraw from the court at any time whereas a truly dependent state cannot). Using the Privy Council as an example means that no state in the world is truly independent since they all share some courts in common like the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. Also what of the proposed Caribbean Court of Justice which is to supposed to eventually replace the Privy Council in many Caribbean states? Does its adoption mean that the states in question are then independent of the UK but not independent of each other?

(S. 15) technically has nothing to do with the relationship between the UK and Australia as it basically a "constitutional" amendment (as any law is in reality including international laws that are adopted) or more accurately "an amendment to the corpus of laws governing the country". Australia did not need the UK Parliament's permission to make this change (and never has in fact since 1931, the reverse being true with the UK parliament requiring the consent of Australia to make changes to laws or make laws that affect Australia). You seem to agree that the Statute granted "an increased level of independence", but what exactly is "Full Sovereignty" and given my points above about Associated States and the Privy Council (not to mention the European Union and United Nations), are there any states that fully sovereign? The European Union can propose laws and measures to be adopted by its member states (which they usually do) and then there is that tricky International Law (including Treaties) which when adopted is an example of a country adopting a proposed law once again. You also say that "..in various ways the big 'D' communities within the Empire were still subject to the jurisdiction of the British State." Actually as I outlined before, there was pretty much only one way that the Dominions (and not necessarily their component states which would only make it two ways) that the Dominions were "still subject to the British state" and that was by their request and consent. They weren't so much "subject" to the British state (which would mean they were subordinate to the UK), but tied to the British state as an equal and even that tie was only by the request and consent of the Dominion in question. As I said before, if the British Parliament had wanted to divest itself of the clause allowing it to make a law for the Dominion without the request and consent, it couldn't do so no matter how hard it tried (therefore the Dominion was certainly not subject to the UK any more France is subject to the European Union - perhaps even less so).

Before the Aus. Act Australia was not an autonomous region of the British State (I'm sure I already covered this) except in the eyes of misinformed Australians. They may have perceived it to be so, but legally it had not been since Australia's adoption of the Statute. Perception is not the same as Law. An autonomous region of the British state would be Northern Ireland (when its government actually functions), Scotland or Wales. Also State is not the same thing as a Country or a Nation. The three words are usually used interchangeably, but that doesn't make such usage correct any more that my spelling correct as "korect" makes that word the official spelling. A Country (all definitions according to the Oxford English Dictionary) is "1. a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." Now it is incorrect to use the word you are defining in its own definition, but in this case, it is not incorrect usage since a nation, country and state are all separate but related entities. A Nation is " a large aggregate of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory." and a State is "2. a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. as well as an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic." So the country is basically the territory, the nation is the people and the state is the government. Thus Australia was (and still is) a country that prior to 1931 - 1953 was part of the British state. Note that the state is considered to be a territory/nation considered as an organized political community under one government. After the Statute was adopted (1942) this sole government was the Australian government which, if it so desired could request and consent to the government of a different state (but a government from the same nation (until 1949). Australia was also a country whose inhabitants prior to the adoption of the (Australian) Nationality and Citizenship Act in 1949 were a part of the British nation. This ties in with and explains another of your points that "The Balfour declaration was made ( under pressure from the more nationalistic dominions )in order to define what a big 'D' dominion was and it clearly states that the (D)ominions were ' autonomous communities' within the Empire. Those words were very carefully chosen and the word Nations was deliberately not used.". The word "Nations" was deliberately not used because there were no separate nations, just separate states governing the people of the single nation (rather like Germany and Austria are separate states of the German Nation) in the various countries.

Please note that the statement of an Australian PM has no legal basis and can be just so much hot air (as many political statements and speeches are -such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement about the Holocaust not being real). Remember after September 11th, when that French newspaper, Le Monde, had a headline of "Nous sommes tous Américains", or "We are all Americans"? That was a statement and it certainly never made all the people of the world into American citizens (or even American nationals - yes there is a difference). Not all Australians were required to mark their nationality as British on the official census forms (since what would be the point of a nationality section on the census?). There were most certainly other nationalities listed, but the reason why most Australians did mark their nationality as "British" is because they were of British-descent. The same thing applies to the American census. Have you ever heard of the American census having "American" as an option for race on the census? "American" is only an option for Ancenstry and even then the only 7.2% of Americans listed their ancestry as "American" (and American nationality by 2000 had been around for over 200 years, whereas Australian nationality in the 1960s had only existed for less than 20 years) (see Maps of American ancestries). Thus what would be the point of most Australians marking their ancestry on a census as "Australian" when quite clearly the only ones that could do were all under 20 (and probably under 4 since for someone to be of clearly of "Australian-descent" at least one of their parents would have to have been of only Australian nationality and no other nationality previously). I'm pretty sure that if the aborigines were allowed to take part in the census at that time they were not required to mark their nationality as "British". The Australian vessels flew both the British Naval ensign and their national flag. This was because of the Admiralty decision that the national flag alone was sufficient to prevent confusion. The (Australian) RAAF had stopped using the (British) RAF ensign since 1948 (before they were even separate nations) to avoid confusion. Of course, since some of the rules and procedures governing the RAN and its Australian vessels predates the Statute of Westminster, then this means that any change to these particular procedures (e.g. from 1909) would have to be approved by the body/organization that originally oversaw these rules (otherwise what would be the point of rules and law and order?). I already dealt with the issue of "British subject status" previously (see the post from June 15, 2006) and it still stands. By the way do you have proof or a reference to show that the Act was deliberately held over until 11 months after the Australia Acts came into effect? The Act itself (which can be found on one of the links I provided on June 15, 2006) says (under section 2) that the Act will come into effect shall come into force 28 days after it receives Royal Assent (which is supposed to be given by the Australian Governor-General acting on behalf of the Queen). So if it was held up deliberately then it was done so entirely by the Australians themselves.

You say that "Prior to 1931 the (D)ominions had all the attributes of ' Dominion status' but wanted a legal definition - hence the Statute of Westminster was the confirming Act. The Aust Act did the same - it was the final step and the confirming Act." This implies that Australia was already an independent state and that the Statute of Westminter confirmed this and the Aus. Act just further confirmed this fact. Hence if Australia was confirmed as being independent in 1942 (when it adopted the statute), how does a second, clearer confirmation affect its already independent status?

Also Justice Sackville's article (The Inaccessible Constitution) is his perception on the issue. Unless the article was "The Inaccessible Constitution Act" or "Declaration" it has no official merit and only reflects the personal beliefs of the Justice. He says that "Australia could hardly be regarded as independent...", but Australia's participation in international affairs and its own affairs says otherwise. Few if any diplomats, when engaged in negotiations with Australian diplomats, would not regard Australia as independent. A big clue to Sackville's personal beliefs are his reference to the "Imperial government". I'll bet good money that he is an Australian republican (nothing wrong with that of cource), since that term would be used by few people except republicans (it certainly hasn't been used by any British official in recent history and certainly not at the time of his writing, whereas in the 1800s such usage would not have been out of place - witness the proposed "Imperial Federation"). I also bet that Justice Callinan is of like mind, but "the magic date" in and of itself could refer to the date for anything. It could be the magic date when Australia moved onto the path of becoming a republic (and note that some persons still don't consider Australia independent unless it is a republic) or the date of true independence or the date when the last residuals links between Westminster and the Australian government were removed, etc. The words (and grammar) in official legal documents (Balfour Declaration, Royal Titles Acts, Statute of Westminster, Australia Acts, etc.) are carefully selected in order to be as unambiguous as possible (in addition these words have specific definitions e.g. nation) and it is the official legal documents which determine the legal status of Australia, not speeches and personal musings. -- anon 15:57 August 06, 2006

I noticed that I forgot to address your point about the passports: "Australians travelled on British passports...". According the article on Australian passport, Australians travelled on "British passports" prior to 1949 and thereafter on Australian passports. This again proves my point about Australia becoming a separate nation in 1949 (having been a separate and independent state of the British nation from 1931/1942 with the adoption of the Statute of Westminister). Australia's separation from Britain was a gradual, evolving process which began [Australia's history as a country, nation and state was gradual starting with] when Australia was formed as a highly autonomous Federal Dominion-colony (and a country) in 1901. Separate statehood was initiated in 1926 by the "Balfour Declaration" and was implied in the "1927 Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927". Australia became a separate, independent state legally in 1942 (but due to back-dating of the adoption 1939 could also be the date used) and a separate nation in 1949 (note that nations do not have to be independent - the Kurdish nation is not independent, yet it is still a nation and Korea has been a nation for an extremely long time, but it did not lose its nationhood when it was annexed by Japan). In 1986 Australia and the UK decided to tidy their constitutional arrangements and remove some of the few remaining constitutional links (just like Canada did in 1982 and New Zealand did in 1986).-- anon 13:47 September 26, 2006

Accuracy tag

Anyway I've tagged the article as accuracy-disputed. I believe the claims in the article about Commonwealth Realms are:

factually inaccurate

It is clear from the example of the Cooks that legislative independence does not create a personal union.

original research

Various editors of the article have compiled the dates based on their own research (and interpretation) of legislation. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. We need independent, verifiable, cited sources for complicated contraversial topics like this.

Note that I do not dispute that the legislation in question caused New Zealand/Canada/wherever to complete the transition to legislative freedom. The dispute is whether this constitutes personal union. Since that legislation does not say that, it is not a sufficient source.

Ben Arnold 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the same goes then for the assertion that the Royal Styles and Titles Act creates a personal union. Do we actually have any authoritiative source that says "Country X was a personal union and became such in Year Y"? If not, perhaps the entire list should be scuttled as original research?Homey 02:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The same does go for the Royal Styles & Titles Acts. At the time I hadn't appreciated that they would be controversial.

Perhaps the list should be scuttled. I'd prefer that we find sources for the points that are in dispute. If our sources disagree with each other then we should state both opinions and attribute them to our sources.

Ben Arnold 05:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a definitive definition of "personal union" that we can use as a guideline?Homey 15:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Error in the Spain section

"1460 to 1864 parts or all of the duchies in personal union with Denmark". I believe this shouldn't be in the "Spain" section (Schleswig-Holstein perhaps?). Could you correct that please?

Commonwealth Realms debate, Dominion = Kingdom?

I notice that apparently what was once an undisputed page is now pasted with warnings about accuracy and that much of this stems from some debate over the minutiae of whether or not "such and such a place" was truly independent until "such and such time" according to "such and such document". What I find strange is that nobody seems to have gone back to what either a Dominion or a Commonwealth Realm is. If you look in wikipedia's Dominion entry you will see that when the term was first adopted it was meant as a ruse and a compromise. The Canadians wanted to call their country "the Kingdom of Canada", but the Americans wouldn't have it (something about monarchy in north America and whatnot), so the term "Dominion" was used (while at the same time informing the Canadian leaders that "Dominion" meant the same thing as "Kingdom" for the purpose of Canada). Now even if we do not take the various Realms to be separate kingdoms (which is what they are if the term Dominion was originally being used by the British as a substitute for Kingdom and then eventually just got applied to all other colonies achieving independence), then we need to take into account the title of the monarchs in the various Realms. If King George VI was called "King of Canada" and Canada is a monarchy and the term Dominion was originally used to mean Kingdom, then doesn't it also mean that upon the formation of the Dominion of Canada, that a constitutionally separate Kingdom was setup? It would have rather been like the 1707 Act of Union in reverse. Besides, the situation for the all the Dominions (whether after formation or upon independence) was quite similar to the England-Scotland situation before 1707. At that time their were two separate parliaments with one monarch. Also, how can this controversy arise when the definitions are in agreement? According to the articles (I added the italics) on Personal Union, Commonwealth Realm and Dominion: "A personal union is a political union of two or more entities that, internationally, are considered separate states, but through established law, share the same head of state" and "Commonwealth Realm is any one of the 16 sovereign states of the Commonwealth that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen and head of state. In each Realm, she acts as the monarch of that state, and is titled accordingly.." and that a "Dominion is a wholly self-governing or virtually self-governing state of the British Empire or British Commonwealth, particularly one which reached that stage of constitutional development in the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as Canada and New Zealand. Prior to attaining Dominion status these states had always been Crown colonies, under direct rule from Britain and/or a self-governing colony, or they have been formed from groups of such colonies. In the early 20th century, the main differences between a Dominion and a self-governing colony were that a Dominion had attained the status of "nationhood", if not unambiguous political independence, from the United Kingdom. By comparison, a self-governing colony controlled its internal affairs, but did not control foreign affairs, defence or international trade. Initially, Dominions conducted their own trade policy, some limited foreign relations and had autonomous armed forces, although the British government claimed and exercised the exclusive power to declare wars. However the independence of the Dominions in foreign policy, including war, was made clear by the passing and ratification of the Statute of Westminster in 1931." So if all these definitions are correct (unless someone wishes to change them) then when the various Dominion ratified the Statute of Westminster and when any Dominions were established thereafter, they were independent. It cannot get clearer than that because the British Empire and Commonwealth evolved so there probably aren't and probably never will be, any articles out there that definitively say "Country X was a personal union and became such in Year Y" and as such, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were in personal union with each other and the United Kingdom the moment they ratified the Statute.

You make a pretty good argument. I guess the assumptions that seem least certain to me are:

• states have to be able to exercise an independent foreign policy to be in personal union
• the Dominions weren't able to exercise an independent foreign policy prior to the Statute of Westmister (New Zealand separately declared war in 1939 but didn't ratify Westminster until 1947).

Ben Arnold 10:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

England and France under Henry VI of England

Why isn't it written yet? De jure, France has been connected to the Crown since Edward III Plantagenet and up until Henry IX Stuart died. The UK has been a repository for exiled Frenchmen for a millenium, with vice versa being the general rule as well. Thank Offa of Mercia and Charlemagne for that. See English claims to the French throne for reasons why Huguenots entered the English colonies; why New France is still around in British North America. The French royal Fleur-de-lis of the Catholic Crown still exists as of 2005 on the Coat of Arms of Canada. 68.110.9.62 04:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Vatican and Holy See

While the Holy See does have a sovereign legal personality, it cannot be considered separate from the Vatican for the purposes of this list, because it is not a state. The Holy See is nothing more than the government of the Vatican City. In that sense, every single country can be divided into two entities: the state per se, and the sovereign government of that state. The Holy See is unique merely in that it not only serves as the government of the Vatican City State, but is also an international religious organization. But in terms of international relations, there is no difference between speaking of the "Holy See" and the "Government of France," save for the fact that the Holy See has its own unique name apart from the name of the state it governs. This list covers personal unions between states, and the Holy See is not a state; it is a sovereign government which rules both the State of the Vatican City and the Roman Catholic Church.--Supersexyspacemonkey 19:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, personal union refers to two seperate geographic entities sharing one head of state - this isn't the case with the Holy See.Homey 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

While the definition of personal union may not apply to the case of the Holy See and the Vatican City, it must not be confused that the Holy See and the Vatican City are two separate sovereign subjects under international law, with the former representing the latter in diplomatic arena. When the Holy See enters into agreement for the Vatican City, it is acting on behalf and in the interest of the State of Vatican City. It is like the case of Switzerland acting on behalf of Liechtenstein before the latter became a member of the United Nations (though there is a slight difference in the sense that the Holy See and the Vatican City share the same sovereign head, the Pope). Let's read the self-explanation made by the Permanent Mission of the Holy See to the UN as follows -

Vatican City is the physical or territorial base of the Holy See, almost a pedestal upon which is posed a much larger and unique independent and sovereign authority/rule: that of the Holy See. The State of Vatican City itself also possesses a personality under international law and, because of such, enters into international agreements. However, it is the Holy See which internationally represents Vatican City State. In fact, when the Holy See enters into agreements for Vatican City State, it uses the formula: "acting on behalf and in the interest of the State of Vatican City. " In October 1957, in order to avoid uncertainty in its relations with the United Nations, it was affirmed that relations are established between the United Nations and the Holy See. And it is the Holy See which is represented by the Delegations accredited by the Secretariat of State to international organizations.

In the Listing of Country Names, published annually by the United Nations, a note is added to the Holy See's entry, stating that - in United Nations documents - the term "Holy See" is to be used except in texts concerning the International Telecommunications Union and the Universal Postal Union, where the term "Vatican City State" is to be used. States, then, do not entertain diplomatic relations with Vatican City State, but with the Holy See.

--DD Ting 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

I think the section on Ireland should be at least significantly altered. It wasn't a personal union with England such as there was with Scotland 1603-1707. The Irish crown was linked in law and not by coincidence of marriage with the English crown and until 1782 Westminster still had power of the Irish Parliament. We can say that there was a personal union 1782-1801, because there was talk of a different form of regency in 1788. 134.226.1.136 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

But in the very outline of what a personal union is (given in the opening paragraphs of the article), nothing is said about marriage being the sole requirement for personal union. In fact it starts out as A personal union is a political union of two or more entities that, internationally, are considered separate states, but through established law, share the same head of state —hence also whatever political actions are vested in the head of state, but no (or very few) others. Until the Act of Union in 1801, Ireland was a de jure separate state. The fact that the Irish crown was linked by law from 1541 actually agrees quite well with part of the definition above: "A personal union is a political union of two or more entities that, internationally, are considered separate states, but through established law, share the same head of state..". Through established law, all Kings of England were also Kings of Ireland. Although the Irish parliament did not have any effective legislative independence, this was more a result of there being a strong King (executive) and weak legislature rather than the Irish parliament being linked and subordinate to the English (and later British) parliament. The most prominent restriction imposed on the parliament (Poyning's Law) was not imposed by the English parliament, but but Sir Poyning who was acting in his capacity as Viceroy/Lord Deputy, and thus a direct representative of the King of Ireland. The Irish parliament in 1782 gained legislative independence, not from Westminister, but from the King. Prior to that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland/Lord Deputy (Viceroy) had as much power as the King invested in the office and was not answerable to the parliament (just like the King). So there were personal unions from 1541-1707 and from 1707-1801.72.27.98.42 06:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice of Removal of Disputed Template

• As in the note I left with User:Ben Arnold a moment back, this article seems to have stablized since November 7th, 2005 when the '{{Disputed-accuracy}}' template was inserted by Ben Arnold (as far as I can figure). Since it no longer shows up in the comments (history) without going back four pages taken fifty changes at a time, I'm 'boldly' removing the template. If it is replaced (with proper short explaination using the word 'dispute') for future text searchers, I suggest a new section here saying what is now in dispute.

Thanks from the uninvolved rest of us. FrankB 23:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My dispute is the same one it always was. We don't know what it means for Commonwealth Realms to be in personal union. We don't even know that they are in personal union. Most personal unions are the result of a single individual succeeding through different laws of succession to different thrones. I'm pretty sure that every Commonwealth Realm in existence defers its laws of succession to those of the UK, so there's only really a single throne. My point is that in order to present one point of view as true we need evidence, and we haven't been able to find any. It's possible that even Constitutional lawyers would be murky about it.

Anyway, my latest attempt at a compromise is to put a list of alternative dates in the article at the Commonwealth Realms section. Ben Arnold 10:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Austria

Austria-Hungary (1867-1918) was by no means a personal union. It had a common army and navy, common foreign service, a common currency, a common budget and common parliamentary bodies (the so called "delegations"). The two parts were not considered separate states. Most scholars use the term "real union" (more than a peronal union and less than a federation) to describe it. --213.157.228.253 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Navarre

Should be something on Navarre and France... AnonMoos 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Union of the Commonwealth Constitutional-Monarchies Citations

A Personal Union can be most clearly defined as the situation in which two or more separate countries nominally recognise the same individual as the Head-of-State of their respective separate countries.

The assumption is made in this section that Commonwealth Realms came into personal union with the United Kingdom at the time they were given complete freedom to legislate for themselves. The editors of Wikipedia have not been able to verify this assumption from an external source. You can help Wikipedia by finding a source for this assumption or by finding a source that specifies a different date.

It is the opinion of this editor that the only consistent standard regarding the date at which each newly independent part of the Commonwealth entered into its respective Personal Union with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland, corresponds to the said confering of Dominion Status.

Other possible dates that personal union could claim to have come about are:

* when colonies were granted Dominion status: Canada in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, South Africa in 1910

Comments

A little information is dangerous, and a large amount of information can easily be misinterpreted, and perverted. Wikipedia is ruled by concensus, (frequently made up of the perversely misinformed).

The subject of Personal Union is one in which that is rarely explored, and frankly is poorly understood by the majority of people. Why? Because it is a very obscure topic, that deals with the evolution from Absolute Monarchy (e.g. France, Russia) to that of Constitutional-Monarchy (e.g. Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

So these 5 references cited below in a nutshell confirm the conclusion that today, the UK, and the 15 other Constitional-Monarchies in the Commonwealth are in fact in a governmental relationship known as "Personal Union" (i.e., Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the individual recognised as the (figure-) Head-of-State of each of those separate countries).

Within the 5 books suggested below, I shall cite some exact places to start reading (yes read it yourself). In Reference [2], Personal Union is explicitly detailed in Chapter XIX. The Negation of Personal Union pp. 418- 435, and Chapter XX. The Diplomatic Representation of the Dominions, pp. 436-454. Similarly, in Reference [4], the Introduction pp. i-xlvii, explains the chronology of evolution of the Inter-Imperial relationships between the Dominions and the UK. In Reference [2], A.B. Keith argues that the Commonwealth is more than a mere Personal Union, and by Reference [4], the astute reader (i.e., me) can discern that A.B. Keith is lamenting the move towards the formation of a figure-head Personal Union (particularly at the urging of the Irish Free State).

References

[1]. Arthur Berriedale Keith, Dominion Autonomy in Practice, Oxford University Press, London, pp. 92, (1929).

[2]. Arthur Berriedale Keith, The Sovereignty of the British Dominions, MacMillan and Co., Limited, London, pp. 524, (1929).

[3]. Edmond-Edouard Buchet, LE "STATUS" DES DOMINIONS BRITANNIQUES EN DROIT CONSTITIONNEL ET EN DROIT INTERNATIONAL, Librairie du Recueil Sirey (Societie Anonyme), 22, rue Souffet, PARIS (Ve), pp. 133, (1928).

[4]. Arthur Berriedale Keith, Speeches and Documents on the British Dominions 1918-1931 From Self-Government to National Sovereignty, Oxford University Press, London. pp. 501, (1931).

[5]. Arthur Berriedale Keith, The Constitutional Law of the British Dominions, MacMillan and Co., Lonsdon, pp. 522, (1933).

70.30.193.143 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The "feudal rank" of Canada at Confederation was hotly debated. It would normally been called a Kingdom, in the sense that Scotaland and England were seperate Kingdoms at one point. This was scraped, however because of the objections of the British Foreign Office. They didn't they the colonies were quite ready for such a grand title, and they were worried the Americans would take offence. So "Dominion" was chosen, but the meaning was esentialy the same. Canada was a seperate realm of the Empire. Kevlar67 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

These references are ridiculously old and relate to the British Empire which does not exist.--Lawe (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The European Union in essence is a Personal Union

Todays' European Union has been termed a "Supra-National Entity". It has an office known as the President of the European Union. A strong arguement can be advanced that the EU is just a Personal Union dressed-up in the new Political Science jargon of the day.

70.30.193.143 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a nice point there fellow anon, but is the President of the European Union recognized as the Head of State of each and every member state of the European Union? If so then the EU truly is a personal union, but seeing as how heads of state and/or heads of government (as in the case of monarchies) can hold the title President of the European Council (since the "Presidency of the EU" is really Presidency of the Council of the European Union and Presidency of the European Council) then this office cannot truly be considered to be that of a Head of State (since at one point that would have made Tony Blair head of state over the Queen).208.138.38.88 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The hierachy of the European Union is clearly that of a Personal Union. The Head-of-State is the President of the European Union. The concept of a rotating President as Head-of-State was borrowed from the independent (former) country of Yugoslavia.

The founding treaty of the European Union, the Maastricht Treaty 1992, was not that bad. It was not too invasive, and it allowed for a common currency (i.e, the Euro, €). However, since 1992, there have been successive treaties that have resulted in the member states giving up a large degree of their national independence (personally I would like to see the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland formally seceed from the EU).

The European Union is a country. Even the CIA factbook refers to the European Union now.

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

The EU is a Personal Union, and its Head-of-State is the President of the European Union. The member states of the EU consent to this Personal Union by remaining signatories of the Maastrict Treaty 1992. Each and every member of the EU consents to having a "rotating President of the EU" as its Head-of-State. Since they have accepted the post-Maastricht Treaties, and they have not seceeded from the EU, "silence is consent".

64.230.10.48 17:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Stating that the EU is a personal union and that it is a country is really contradicting yourself. A personal union per definition consists of at least two countries, so you'd have to choose. Also the CIAWF includes several entities that are certainly not countries (such as "World"), so that's not a good argument, but the EU is definitely more close to a country (that would be a federation or a state union) than it is to a personal union. It is nothing like a personal union. For example, it has lots of institutions, even a parliament. Personal unions have virtually no common institutions (at least I have never heard of the French-Andorran Parliament or the Commonwealth Realms Supreme Court). In any case, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Jao 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jao, the salient point, the key pillar of the hierarchy of the European Union is that its structure is a Personal Union. Its members claim nominal independence, and they are signatories (the Treaty of Maastricht 1992) of a treaty that recognises an individual as their common Head-of-State (i.e., the President of the European Union).

We can sit here, and bicker the merits of the Union of Kalmar 1397 (i.e., United Scandinavia), the Union of the Crowns 1603 (i.e., the United Kingdom of Great Britain), and the Maastricht Treaty 1992 (i.e., the European Union), or we can agree to disagree.

70.30.193.143 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well actually the "President of the European Union" (which I already pointed out is really two posts subsumed into one term) is really Head of an international organization, which in some ways makes the EU similar to (but much more strongly unified than) the current Commonwealth of Nations or even the United Nations. Perhaps the EU as Jao said is closer to a federation and if things continue along their current track we will eventually see the Head of the Organization become Head of State, but as I pointed out before Tony Blair has never been (and never will be as long the monarchy exists) head of state of the United Kingdom (much less France and the rest of the EU).72.27.5.144 04:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The European Union is far, far away from being a personal union, much as I'd like it to be. —Nightstallion (?) 10:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and Norway

It's interesting to note that if the first 59 people in the line of succession to the British Throne all died, the King of Norway would become the King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so there would be a personal union of Norway with the U.K. Angr 10:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And 15 other countries. I wonder if that would make Norway a Commonwealth Realm. --gbambino 14:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Norway would see this as a reason to join the Commonwealth of Nations, and I think membership is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition to be a Commonwealth Realm. Also, this personal union would probably eventually be dissolved because of the different succession rules. It should also be noted that the Norwegian king needs the permission of the Storting to accept a foreign crown, and that he is required to reside within Norway's borders, which could probably become a problem in the UK (see the Norwegian constitution). -- Jao 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then maybe they'd have to leap straight to a new Act of Union, then. Of course the new UK of GB, NI & N would then have to decide whether it wanted to be in the EU or not (probably not since Norway isn't and most Brits wish they weren't!). Angr 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Succession to the British crown is not conditional on the heir's acceptance: by law, the first living eligible person in the queue is the monarch. (Edward VIII did not simply declare his abdication: he made his wish known to Parliament, which passed an act changing the law so that Edward and his descendants were disqualified; only when Edward signed that act did he cease to be king.) So if the Storting refuses, Harold V&I would be king of the Commonwealth Realms in British law though not in Norwegian law! —Tamfang (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, altering the succession rules would mean a new, or amended, Act of Settlement, which would require the involvement and eventual approval of the governments of all 16 Commonwealth Realms (as well as every provincial government within Canada). So, it seems that if the Storting permitted the King of Norway to accept 16 foreign crowns, Norway would be in a personal union with the Commonwealth Realms, though not itself a Realm, and eventually the union would be split when a conflict arose between the Act of Settlement in the Realms and the laws of succession in Norway.

Interesting, but, of course, all complete speculation - I doubt all 59 people in the immediate line of succession to the thrones of the Realms will drop dead simultaneously any time soon! --gbambino 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. But it's interesting to imagine what would happen in a real-life King Ralph-style scenario. Angr 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, of course, British succession law is more similar to Norwegian succession law than it was; but because Harald's grandson Sverre Magnus was born before the Perth Agreement, he precedes his elder sister in the British succession and not in the Norwegian succession. —Tamfang (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Angr, speculatively speaking of course, if the 59 all died and the Storting permitted the King to accept 16 foreign crowns and a new Act of Union created a new UK of GB, NI and N then the great thing is that Norway could still remain outside of the European Union and the rest of the new UK could opt to remain in - just look at Greenland, which is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark of which only the European part (Denmark proper) is actually in the EU!.72.27.29.151 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire and Spain

I suggest that it is problematic to refer to the Holy Roman Empire in personal union with Spain (or vice versa) under Charles V. The Holy Roman Emperor was considered (in theory) to be the political head of all Catholic Christians. The Holy Roman Empire therefore included (in theory) Spain. But Charles V was King of Germany. (Germany is not exactly the same thing as the Holy Roman Empire). So we can say that Germany and Spain were in personal union under Charles V.--Gazzster 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire article says: "At its peak the Holy Roman Empire consisted of present-day Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, Belgium, and the Netherlands as well as large parts of modern Poland, France and Italy." So if the Emperor claimed to be the political leader of all (even Spanish) catholics, then it was just a claim. And mere claims don't affect this list or present-day Spain would be in personal union with Sardinia, Jerusalem etc. (It is of course also true that Charles was simultaneously "King of Germany", although that title meant nothing more than "Emperor-elect", really. Using the term "Germany" for this period would be much more ambiguous than what we have now.) -- Jao 11:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jao, I agree; Germany was an ambiguous entity. Then again, so was the Holy Roman Empire. In practical terms history confines it to the political and geographical entities you mention. But that is because it is easier to deal with from our time. But in historical context, it was defined more broadly as the community of all Christians states, even if the emperor's power did not extend to countries like Spain or England.Indeed, by the time of Charles V it barely extended over Germany, as you know.When Henry VIII broke from Rome, he defined England as an 'empire', deliberately separating it from the universal empire under the presidency of the pope and the emperor. It is not entirely correct to state that the emperor's suzereignty over Spain was a mere claim. It was a legal reality from medieval times that was not explicitly refuted by the Spanish. And from that point of view, Charles V was 'emperor' of Spain. The emperor was accorded precedence over all other Catholic sovereigns. Whether Spain and other countries actually thought that meant anything in practical terms, that is another matter. I see from your knowledge you're interested in the HRE. I am as well. Perhaps we could enjoy a discussion of the Holy Roman Empire page, instead of here. Cheers. --Gazzster 12:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My issue with the HRE and Spain as a personal union is that the HRE was technically an ELECTED position. And that the Emperor didn't rule over the empire. It was an extremely decentralized body whose members fought amongst themselves and considered themselves to be different entities with in a larger unit. Moreover, while Charles V did rule over both Trastámara and Habsburg domains he didn't maintain them together, he purposefully divided his domains between his song and his brother. That being said there is no mention of the Habsburg-Burgundian personal union prior to Charles' birth (Low Countries, Franche-Comté, Burgundy, Austria, etc) and the (still enduring) personal union (in the person of Charles V mother, Juana I la Loca) of the Kingdoms of Aragon, Castile, Navarre, and Aragon's possesions in the Mediterranean, including much of Italy. That's a personal union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And to be really technical, the personal union was much more as heir to the Hapsburg domains, rather than the HRE, which, as has been already stated, was technically an elected position. It just so happened that the heir general for the Habsburgs and HRE were the same person, but the personal union wasn't the person who was King of the Germans or HRE, it was the heir general of the Habsburgs, which was Duke of Austria, King of Bohemia, King of Hungary and probably 2 dozen other titles. If you want to get really, really technical, a number of -those- titles were also, in theory, elected. The Habsburgs were personal union machines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteboar101 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, Whiteboar101. It's really complicated since the emperors of that time weren't the only rulers of the HRE. It was also to a great extent the imperial princes... Concerning the offices of the German king and Roman emperor. Couldn't you as well call it a personal union? From the age of Charlemagne we have emperors from different parts of the former Frankish kingdom: a few from West Francia, some from Italy, later East Francia/Germany. There seems to be no automatism that only the German king had to be crowned emperor until maybe the 11th century. But then again the emperor isn't really an independent office with independent institutions different to the king's ones, only in a Christian context there is a difference in meaning.--MacX85 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

US

I've removed the recently added section on the United States as it was completely unsourced, and even included the weasely worded personal opinion that the insular areas of the US "would in all likelihood be interpreted" as being in personal union. We need a source for such a statement. --G2bambino (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, that would fall under the distinction between personal union and federation (which the Article already covers). The US territories, despite their lack of state status (IE as entities without their own representation in Congress), are still part of the United States of America, which is a federation of 50 states, 1 federal city (Washington the capital), 5 tropical territories, and 3 uninhabited tropical territories (although not inhabited by humans, these islands are managed by the US Parks/Wildlife services and legally part of the country). The fact that the tropical territories recognize the President of the USA as their head of state is because they are part of the USA, not foreign states as some kind of republican personal union would imply, so I support your removal of that material, though I was never aware it had existed in the Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Royal Prussia

• The treaty after war in 1466 stated, that Prussia become part of Polish kingdom
• Every Polish king became automatically ruler of Prussia. The titles like "duke of Masovia, heir of Russia, duke of Prussia" etc were part of his titles
• Polish king in Prussia issued rights as Polish king, not as ruler of Prussia
• Prussia was always considered as part of Polish kingdom by Polish parliament.
• Therefore, there is absolutely nothing which can support the theory that Prussia was something other that autonomous province, integral part of Polish kingdom.

Szopen (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations

Closed per G2bambino's point regarding the redirection of this discussion to Talk:Commonwealth realm.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you read the sources provided, even the 1940's ones, they do not support the notion that the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa were in personal union. Of the four sources provided: None of the court cases use or reference the term. Corbett (1940:p353), argues against the use of "personal union" saying "All that is gained from exercising this tendency on the British Commonwealth is a fallacious orderliness ... the much wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as sui generis" Scott (1944:p48) 'End of Dominion Status' does not use the term "personal union". He says "The British Commonwealth being an association of states sui generis..." That covers it. Even these 60 year old sources don't support this. Just red-herrings. Without any official or authorative reference which states that Commonwealth Nation X and Commonwealth Nation Y are in personal union, the sentence is nothing more than the Wikipedia editor's opinion or belief and therefore should be removed. --Lawe (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Commonwealth of Nations If you read the sources provided, even the 1940's ones, they do not support the notion that the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa were in personal union. Of the four sources provided: None of the court cases use or reference the term. Corbett (1940:p353), argues against the use of "personal union" saying "All that is gained from exercising this tendency on the British Commonwealth is a fallacious orderliness ... the much wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as sui generis" Scott (1944:p48) 'End of Dominion Status' does not use the term "personal union". He says "The British Commonwealth being an association of states sui generis..." That covers it. Even these 60 year old sources don't support this. Just red-herrings. Without any official or authorative reference which states that Commonwealth Nation X and Commonwealth Nation Y are in personal union, the sentence is nothing more than the Wikipedia editor's opinion or belief and therefore should be removed. --Lawe (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC) This is ongoing at Talk:Commonwealth realm. We don't need seven concurrent, identical discussions going on. --G2bambino (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What a mess

I have contributed to this page - but in view of some of what I read here, my contributions my be erroneous. I have not tried to follow all the arguments. But I would like to list some forms of union, and ask which of them qualify as "personal union":

1. Two countries with the same hereditary head of state and the same laws of succession. E.g. England and Scotland in 1650, and possibly the UK and Canada now.
2. Two countries with the same hereditary head of state and different laws of succession. E.g. the UK and Hannover in 1750.
3. Two countries with the same head of state, but appointed by independent processes in the two, e.g. hereditary in one, elective in the other. E.g. Saxony and Poland in 1750.

(1) is a dynastic union (and therefore arguably not a personal union). (2) and (3) I think are clear cases of personal union.

Austria-Hungary (which I am surprised to see is not listed) is more difficult. The Hungarian monarchy was originally elective. In 1527, Ferdinand Habsburg, the hereditary ruler of Austria, was elected King of Hungary, in a disputed election. Thereafter, opinions differed on whether the Hungarian crown had become hereditary in the house of Habsburg. But for at least some of the period 1527-1919, I would expect this to count as a personal union, which ought to be listed. Maproom (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No wonder the Americans are soo consfused about what the Queen does as seen on Yahoo Answers... "Personal Union" of one state to another as currently written??? No!

Queen Elizabeth's role in the realms is similar to how for example in the United States the same-- person can serve on many different Board of Directors for companies at the same time... That is a better analogy.

Example: Carl Icahn (The one that wanted Yahoo! and Microsoft to merge). Carl serves on several different Boards of Directors at the same time. Blockbuster comes to mind and at the same time I think he's also on the Board of Directors for Motorola. A vote by him at Blockbuster has no bearing on Motorola and vice versa. The Queen is similar. She has the role over all realms at the same time but her Governor Generals carry out her dutes while she is not resident in each of those countries. The other important fact is if Q.E. II were to swoop down into one of the realms she presides over one day and actually over-rulled one of the local Parliaments, she would cause a International scandal. Also of merit, one reason why it is not a "Union" is because if the Queen were to turn-down a piece of legislation in one realm, it has absolutly no bearing on anynother realm. The Queen would have to turn-down that piece of legislation separately in each and every realm (following local protocal) whenever each of those Parliament brought that legislation to the floor for debate. CaribDigita (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition

For future reference:

Keeton George W., Western European Federation, The International Law Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Summer, 1948), pp. 214-227 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

"A personal union exists when two or more sovereign independent States as associated by the factor that they possess a common ruler. In all other respects the identities of the two states remain distinct."

Commonwealth realms

I can't access JSTOR, so could someone please quote the relevant passages that describe the Commonwealth realms as being in a "personal union"? Also, aren't there any citations more recent than the 1940s? They were still dominions back then, but things have changed now. ðarkuncoll 13:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a 30,000 word discussion on this point in Talk:Commonwealth Realm. Much of the information in this article has been inserted without checking facts or by providing opinions. There is nothing in my view that supports the notion of Commonwealth Realms being in personal union. I think the whole section should be removed, however a one paragraph compromise has been worked out. --Lawe (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's actually not much that supports the contention that the CR are in personal union, while there is a whole lot that says the opposit. I agreed to a compromise saying there's 'no agreement' because it was the only way to end the dispute. Fixing this article has been on my to-do list fo a bit, but I haven't gotten to it yet. [ roux ] [x] 15:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how the Commonwealth realms are NOT a personal union -- they all have the same head of state, period... —Nightstallion 15:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal union does not exactly mean having the same head of state. The 30,000 word discussion on Talk:Commonwealth Realm goes into the matter in great depth. --Lawe (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This old problem arises primarily because it is not at all clear what a personal union is. It seems to be a historical term. As far as I can tell, it is not a modern usage and has little, if any value as a political term. Even our article, Personal union, doesn't understand the term, littered as it is with strange references, misunderstandings,assumptions and with few references. The importance attached to the term is, as in many concepts, a Wiki exaggeration. Several editors quite sensibly (I feel) recognise the weirdness, and seek to remove or at least minimalise the term with reference to modern monarchies. Most opposition seems to have come from one editor in particular, blocked for a time, who, for the time being at least, as shown no intention of returning to active editing. I don't mean to badmouth him, all that is behind us. Even that editor was, at one point, compelled to concede that using Personal union to refer to the unique relationship of the 16 realms under a common monarch is shaky at best.

I suggest we end this debate once and for all by avoiding references to 'personal union'. The bottom line is, there is no compelling reason to use it. If there was, the references fort doing so would be clear, unambiguous, and screaming out for recognition.--Gazzster (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me why the Commonwealth Realms are not in a personal union? They appear to fit the definition perfectly, I have followed two citations on Wikipedia that were used to support the notion the Commonwealth Realms are not in a personal union, both were books on Google books. The first simply dismissed the notion without explanation, and the second did appear to be about to justify it but Google books cut it off just before! In addition, the 30,000 word discussion on Talk:Commonwealth Realm that Gazzster refers to appears to have been removed since.--90.199.141.16 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If we assume, for the time being, that a personal union is a union between two nations based on their having the same sovereign, then the 16 monarchies could be said analagously to be in personal union I suppose. But it's an odd term and doesn't really fit the way we speak about modern nations. Odd as it may seem to say, they don't really share the same sovereign. This is because the institution of monarchy is legally distinct in every one of these 16 nations, circumscribed by their own constitutional arrangements.It can be said and has been said that the relationship of the realms with Elizabeth II as their sovereign is unique. And that's all that needs to be said.Gazzster (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it true of most personal unions that "the institution of monarchy is legally distinct ... circumscribed by [each state's] own constitutional arrangements"? —Tamfang (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleged personal union

Croatia didn't enter personal union in 1102. Maybe some unreliable sources, written by Croatians claim this, but books of Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press say that there was no union, but Hungarian conquest. The whole text about Croatia's alleged personal union with Hungary is totally false and should be removed. Toroko (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Toroko, please read this, and remember that, there are none Croat historians listed here, maybe some Hungarian:

• Europa Publications Limited, p.271: Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Svezak 4
• Alain Finkielkraut, (pp. 17-18): Dispatches from the Balkan War and other writings
• Imogen Bell, p.173: Central and South-Eastern Europe 2003
• Mitja Velikonja p.78: Religious separation and political intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina
• Piotr Stefan Wandycz, p.159: The price of freedom: a history of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages
• Adrian Webb,Inc NetLibrary, Adrian Webb, p.218: The Routledge companion to Central and Eastern Europe since 1919
• Charles W. Ingrao, p.12: The Habsburg monarchy, 1618-1815
• David Raic, p. 342: Statehood and the law of self-determination
• Font, Marta: Hungarian Kingdom and Croatia in the Middle Age

+ "Croatia (History)". Encarta. & "Croatia (History)". Britannica. & tons of other historical books. --Kebeta (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. Discuss the matter first here, on the talk page. --Kebeta (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Toroko, stop edit-warring. Discuss the matter first here, on the talk page. --Kebeta (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's Toroko message on the talkpage of article Croatian-Hungarian Agreement [2]. Can serious person write something like that? Kubura (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we reach an agreement

There are two versions of text that is being reverted. I think if we discuss it, we can reach an agreement. So, users Toroko and Squash Racket please discuss the problem first here on the talk page, instead blind reverting it in the article. Here are some issues:

• This article is not about Pacta conventa, but about Personal union. Although Pacta conventa as a original document may be disputed, that is not a reason to dispute Personal union. In first version of the text, it is written "The act of union was detailed in disputed document called the Pacta conventa".
• In reverted version we have: 1.) Croatia (questionable) as a title, 2.) According to a theory, for the first theory, 3.) However this theory is very questionable. after the first theory, 4.) According to another theory, for the second theory........... Isn't this all a little redundant?
• In reverted version we have references after second theory that does not cover its text, also they don't deal with the mediaeval relation of Hungary and Croatia, and some of them aren't scientific at all.
• In reverted version the relation between Hungary and Croatia, and the end of Personal union is deleted. Is Croatia still in personal union with Hungary?
• In reverted version "On January 1, 1527, the Croatian nobles at Cetin unanimously elected Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, as their king" is deleted. Why, is this true or false, or just reverted?

Please, before reverting the article, discuss it here, and please answer on these points above. If you (Toroko and Squash Racket) have some questionable points, write them here, and I will be glad to answer them. --Kebeta (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for not reverting it anymore.

Personal union is disputed, because there are English sources claiming that after the conquest Croatia was incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary with considerable autonomy.

There are references for that, so I don't see the point in a lengthy discussion. Both theories are notable. Squash Racket (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the encyclopedias, we don't use tertiary sources when we have enough secondary sources about the subject.

My question: do you know the difference between a passing reference and an extensive analysis? You basically added passing references only. Squash Racket (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Kebeta, Squash Racket, why haven't you told me that DIREKTOR has deleted whole article by "transforming" it into redirect, without asking anyone for that?
I've seen this because I wanted to show you one of my previous posts on this topic about personal union. Then I've noticed that I cannot find my message. And then I've seen this blatant redirect.
Squash Racket, I've seen that you had remarks about the name of the article "Croatia in personal union with Hungary" [3].
That article definitely wasn't covering "History of Croatia between 1102 and 1526". E.g., there were some parts of Croatia that were under the rule of Republic of Venice, some were free like Republic of Dubrovnik...
"Historical relations between Hungary and Croatia" - these are so wide topic. Relations were before 1102 and after 1918. Kubura (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may offer an opinion, the problem is that the term 'personal union' is a relatively modern time. I suspect it is invented by historians to describe certain odd relationships between various countries. It makes more sense in a modern context, when organs of government are distinct from the person of the head of state. But what could it mean in medieval times? There were no organs of government, apart from the church, distinct from the sovereign.The sovereign appointed officers of state. The sovereign decided foreign policy. And in the middle ages, allegiance was paid to the person of the feudal lord, not to the state understood as a distinct entity from the sovereign. So then how could there be the distinction between lord and land, which 'personal union' assumes? If the use of the term for Croatia is contentious, it ought not to be used.--Gazzster (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Squash Racket! I don't wont to add only one side of the story, and I know the difference between a passing reference and an extensive analysis. But user Toroko didn't want to hear nothing about personal union, so I thought to show him references, understand? Just read what he wrote above: "Croatia didn't enter personal union in 1102. Maybe some unreliable sources, written by Croatians claim this,..The whole text about Croatia's alleged personal union with Hungary is totally false and should be removed." So, I showed him non-Croatian references, o.k.? Anyway can you answer on some of my points from above, maybe include some of my remarks into the article? Kebeta (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should only add links to the main articles (Pacta Conventa, History of Croatia), the nature of the union is already explained in the newly added referenced text. Further details don't belong here.

You can't use the 1527 events to prove the independent will of Croatia as many Hungarian nobles too favored him. That rather indicates the inner division of Hungarian nobility and should be explained in other articles.

"However this is disputed" is enough, so we can remove one of the redundant words ("theory").

Merging the whole "personal union article" into "Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)" was a mistake as it emphasizes the separate Croatian kingdom throughout, although this is disputed. I proposed renaming it to "History of Croatia (1091-1526)" which would be more neutral. Squash Racket (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Squash Racket, I agree with you that we don't have to write a doctorate about Hungary-Croatia personal union on this article, but the main article can not be a Pacta Conventa, because it is just one document about a union (possibly a forgery). I also agree with you and user Kubura that merging the whole "personal union article" into "Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)" was a mistake. I tryed to do something about that, but user DIREKTOR was uncheckable. Look here. But, I also think that articles related to Kingdom of Hungary and its kings are one sided. They are written with as few as possible mention of Croats or Croatia, which you will agree, wasn't like that in thear common history. Kebeta (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The other main article should be History of Croatia (1091-1526), but I couldn't link to it as it doesn't exist yet.

Let's not deviate too much from the current topic. (If we mention Croats, we would also mention the history of Slovenes, Serbs, Germans, Jews etc. and those articles would become a mess.) Squash Racket (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Since "personal union article" is deleted, it is best to put a three main articles: "Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)", "Kingdom of Hungary" and "Pacta Conventa". So, a reader can get better picture (if he is interested). Also, I will put Squash Racket text into the Hungary section of this article, and delete (disputed) from title of Croatia section, since Croatia entered other unions, and leave disputed in text. O.k. Regards. Kebeta (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your changes as you might have expected.
"Kingdom of Croatia" as a separate kingdom at these times is more than dubious and is usually not mentioned even by your passing references, so I changed it simply to Croatia.

I remind Kebeta three users (including me) disagree with the "personal union" theory, I just wanted to avoid further revert warring:

If I may offer an opinion, the problem is that the term 'personal union' is a relatively modern time. I suspect it is invented by historians to describe certain odd relationships between various countries. It makes more sense in a modern context, when organs of government are distinct from the person of the head of state. But what could it mean in medieval times? There were no organs of government, apart from the church, distinct from the sovereign.The sovereign appointed officers of state. The sovereign decided foreign policy. And in the middle ages, allegiance was paid to the person of the feudal lord, not to the state understood as a distinct entity from the sovereign. So then how could there be the distinction between lord and land, which 'personal union' assumes? If the use of the term for Croatia is contentious, it ought not to be used.--Gazzster (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The disputed tag remains or we can safely remove the whole thing. Squash Racket (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way.
There was big and long debate between Croatian and Hungarian historians about this topic (18., 19., early 20. century).
That arguing about historic Croatian rights and relations with Hungarian Kingdom have especially bursted in common parliament after 1790 (one period of time, because of decision of Cro. parliament, Cro. had common parlimanet with Hungary, but under some conditions. Common parliament was common Cro-Hun front against Austrian/German policy).
One of arguments "contra Personal union" was that "that document was a forgery". AFAIK, the oldest specimen is not the original document, but a copy from later centuries.
But, one of strongest arguments "pro Personal union" is that many rights that Kingdom of Croatia had during having common dinasty with Hungary is that those rights have Kingdom that is not submitted (while preparing Agreement of 1868, Cro. side argued "we are equal Kingdoms", Hun. side argued "you are subm. side").
Those rights aren't disputed by Hungarian historians (King of Hungary was represented by an officer known as the ban or by their own relatives (sons or brothers), whoe were called dukes. The dukes in particular often acted as independent rulers, appointing bans and bishops, minting their own money, and convoking diets. ...".).
Something like black hole. Not proved by direct facts (the original document), but by indirect facts (Croatian ban, Croatia's own parliament, laws).
Here's [4] (I think SquashRacket has seen this).
Paul Robert Magocsi and his work Historical Atlas of Central Europe, ISBN 0-500-28355-9.
There's a section on the p. 23, Chapter Hungary-Croatia and Venice, 14th-15th centuries.
"...Hungary was able, however, to retain Croatia-Slavonia, which since 1102 had accepted the Hungarian king as its ruler. Croatia had a special status and was never considered among Hungary's "conquered lands", but rather its "annexed lands". Hungarian rulers were also crowned king of "Croatia and Dalmatia", and were represented there by an officer known as the ban or by their own relatives (sons or brothers), whoe were called dukes. The dukes in particular often acted as independent rulers, appointing bans and bishops, minting their own money, and convoking diets. ...".
Paul Robert Magocsi: Historical Atlas of Central Europe, University of Washington Press/University of Toronto Press/Thames & Hudson, 2002, page 23, ISBN 0-500-28355-9. Paul Robert Magocsi is a member of Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada since 1996 [5].
I hope this helps. Kubura (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What you've described is not a personal union. If the ban or duke rules in the name of the King of Hungary/Croatia then it is the king who rules directly. Croatia therefore has no independent ruler.--Gazzster (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"A personal union is the combination by which two or more different states are governed by the same monarch while their boundaries, their laws and their interests remain distinct." Hungary and Croatia were two different states governed by same monarch, while some of their laws and their interests remain distinct. Hungarian king, and later others from Angevin dynasty and Ferdinand I, or Holy Roman Emperor were Croatia's independent rulers. On January 1, 1527, the Croatian nobles at Cetin unanimously elected Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, as their king, and confirmed the succession to him and his heirs. --Kebeta (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above: Since "personal union article" is deleted, it is best to put three main articles: "Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)", "Kingdom of Hungary" and "Pacta Conventa". And second, at that time (start of union), Croatia was a kingdom. And third, in my references there are none Croatian historians. So, you can not write "According to Croatian historians". --Kebeta (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hungary and Croatia were two different states" - no, they were not. Croatia did have autonomy and certain rights, but it wasn't a separate kingdom, that's just imagination.

To put this topic under the title "Kingdom of Croatia" was a mistake and should be corrected (for example by undoing the redirect and move the page to History of Croatia), not link it even from here. Croatian historians believe this, any extensive analysis will show this. Yes, you only added passing references as I had noted above and you said you knew the difference between the two. Apparently that's not the case. Squash Racket (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1.) Why are you deleting three main articles:

Main articles: Kingdom of Croatia (medieval), Kingdom of Hungary, and Pacta conventa (Croatia)

2.) Why are you deleting everything that I write?

3.) A.) Hungarian rulers were also crowned as king of "Croatia and Dalmatia", B.)"Croatia became a kingdom in the 10th century, and in the 1091 Ladislaus I (Laslo I) of Hungary assumed control; the ensuing union with Hungary lasted for 8th centuries. During the union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own assemble, the Sabor, and was legally an independent kingdom." (Encyclopaedia Britannica , 15th edition , vol.3), C.) Coloman was crowned King of Croatia in Biograd in 1102 (Florin Curta: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages) D.) Andrew II declered Croatia and Dalmatia independent, until 1205, (Florin Curta: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages)

4.) Why you always say "Croatian historians believe this", why you don't write "Hungarian historians believe this" ?

5.) King Coloman established the personal union of the Kingdom of Croatia and the Kingdom of Hungary by an agreement called Pacta conventa. Although, the precise time and terms of Pacta Conventa later became a matter of dispute; nonetheless there was at least a non-written agreement that regulated the relations between Hungary and Croatia in approximately the same way, (Font, Marta: Hungarian Kingdom and Croatia in the Middle Age)

6.) I told you before that I was against rederict of article "Croatia in personal union with Hungary"

7.) Please, stop reverting - everything...--Kebeta (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that both references for the definition of personal union, in the first sentence, both come from the nineteenth century. So we are discussing the relationship of medieval Croatia and Hungary in terms of a nineteenth century formula;at a time when both the nation state and the monarchy were realities. The idea of personal union makes sense in this context. But in the middle ages there were no nation states. Peoples owed allegiance not to the statte but to a lord. This was the feudal system.Hungary taken alone was a 'personal union' in that the entire country was united in its allegiance to one king.--Gazzster (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point Gazzster, but if we are to be consistent, then we should delete more than half an article. Since, most of "personal unions" in this article are from medieval period. Anyway, Hungarian-Croatian state existed until the beginning of the 20th century and the Treaty of Trianon. Although, the Battle of Mohács in August 29, 1526, and the death of King Louis II meant the end of Hungarian influence over Croatia, as Central Hungary became a Turkish province. --Kebeta (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Croatia" did not exist in this period, that's why I'm deleting this wrong link. Again: the redirect should be undone and the article moved to "History of Croatia".

I added that Hungarian historians state the other theory, although English authors don't usually point that out.

Just because Hungarian kings assumed the title King of Croatia, Dalmatia etc. these did NOT become separate kingdoms. Kings usually have long titles based on their conquests, to use that as a "proof" for the existence of separate kingdoms is ridiculous. Scientific works simply talk about Kings of Hungary, yes, referring also to the Croatian territories.

Don't repeat the whole Pacta Conventa article here, this disputed section is already a bit long for such an article.

And please don't add Kingdom of Hungary as a main article, we'll cover neither the Pacta Conventa nor the dispute there in detail, it just misleads readers.

The most neutral definition is this:

The actual nature of the relationship is inexplicable in modern terms because it varied from time to time. Sometimes Croatia acted as an independent agent and at other times as a vassal of Hungary. However, Croatia retained a large degree of internal independence. The degree of Croatian autonomy fluctuated throughout the centuries as did its borders.

If you continue to add more Croatian POV, then others add more counterarguments and there's no stop. Squash Racket (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect should be undone, and the article moved in the same article as before (Croatia in personal union with Hungary). Even if "Kingdom of Croatia" did not exist in period after 1102, it existed before that year, so that's why it should be as a main article, along with Kingdom of Hungary. It is ridiculous not to mention Kingdom of Hungary, if Kingdom of Croatia/Croatia was a part of it, in or without "personal union". And, I am not adding Croatian POV, but internationally recognized POV. You, on the other hand are pushing Hungarian POV, by not allowing anything other than your own POV. --Kebeta (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The quality of your answer suggests this debate is over. Squash Racket (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not following you? --Kebeta (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Squash Racket, are you willing to end this mockery, and start discussing? Kebeta (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Croatia" did not exist in this period..." Squash Racket, can you be more specific? What period?
"Just because Hungarian kings assumed the title King of Croatia, Dalmatia etc. these did NOT become separate kingdoms." For some reason, "inexisting" Croatian Diet of "inexisting" kingdom in 1527 separately elected the new king, without asking Hungarian Diet for the opinion. Dinasty of common kings was extinct, so the union of kingdoms united through the person of king was off.
Do you know who and when told whome "Regno regnum non praescribit leges."?
On the other hand, according to your logic, both Croatia and Hungary became Neapolitan Kingdom, since Angevins became their kings.
Or when Jagiellonians became their kings. Were Croatia and Hungary "inexisting" then? Had they became Poland then? Or Lithuania?
"1527 events...rather indicates the inner division of Hungarian nobility?" Was Jelačić's 1848 campaign also inner division of Hungarian nobility? Were those troops that crossed Drava and intervened in Hungary Hungarian troops?
"Kings usually have long titles based on their conquests, to use that as a "proof" for the existence of separate kingdoms is ridiculous." But what is that when certain Kingdom (that lost a King, no heir) chooses the King from another country? And that Kingdom keeps its laws afterwards? Have Croatia and Hungary ceased to exist as Kingdoms when they chose Habsburgs?
Let's put things mathematically.
"Hungary and Croatia were two different states" - no, they were not. Croatia did have autonomy and certain rights, but it wasn't a separate kingdom, that's just imagination." Interesting. Same King, but when someone crossed Drava (or Sava), other laws were in charge. Please, define "separate Kingdom".
Was Croatia independent Kingdom? Please, define "independent".
Kingdom of Croatia" did not exist in this period... Please, define ceasing of existence.
This might help solving the dispute. Kubura (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Here're some maps. None of them were made by Croatians, so we can exclude any Croatian bias:
- [6] - Europe around 1000, Shepherds' Atlas, 1911
- [7] - Map of Mediterranean and European lands anout 1097, Historical Atlas by William Shepherd 1923-1926. 1097, year of beginning of Croatian interregnum, before the Pacta Conventa from 1102. Croatia and Hungary are marked with two colors.
- [8] - Europe around 1190, Shepherds' Atlas, 1911. Hungary and Croatia are one color - meaning one state. But, Croatia is explicitly mentioned (unlike Slovenia, Austria, Montenegro, Belgium, Romania, Slovakia, Albania, Spain). That "Croatia" is not there because it's the territory of nowadays Croatia.
- [9] - Central Europe 919-1125, Shepherds' Atlas, 1911. Croatia and Hungary are marked with two colors; note that map refers to time after 1102
- [10] - Central Europe 1477, Shepherds' Atlas, 1911. Hungary and Croatia are one color - meaning one state. But, for some reason, Croatia is explicitly mentioned (unlike... see above).
Was this helpful? Kubura (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've once said before [11], Hungarian sources (especially from recent two decades) are more pro-Croatian than Western sources. Hungarian sources are more fair and correct and informative towards Croatian history; they speak about Croatia and Croats, even when Western textbooks and encyclopedias don't do so at all.
Here's the page in Hungarian language MEK (Magyar Elektronikus Könyvtár). III. Béla: A magyar birodalom. Magyar történet.
Please see the map [12]. III. Béla birodalma. For those who don't understand Hungarian, birodalom=eng. Empire, ország=eng. country, királyság= eng. Kingdom. Empire of Hungarian King Bela III was consisted of several countries (=Kingdoms, none of them was Republic). Maps shows Empire's borders, and inside it, countryborders. Those countries were: Magyar királyság (Hungarian Kingdom, marked pink), Horvát es Dalmát királyság (Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia, marked green), Ráma királyság (Kingdom of Rama, marked dark violet), Halicsi királyság (Kingdom of Galicia, marked blue).
Compared to maps from Western cartographers, that show those countries in single color (as if it was homogenous country), sometimes without mentioning the members of crown of St. Stephen, Hungarian sources are much more fair and correct (compare to Shepherds's Atlas, which is much better than many Western atlases).
Please, Squash Racket, don't say anymore that "personal union"/different states/separate Kingdoms is "Croatian POV" (who told "K. of Croatia did not exist in this period"?). Kubura (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

References

The Netherlands

The United Provinces do not fit into the definition of a personal union as regards its historical relationship with England, Scotland and Ireland. The United Provinces had no monarch. The estates of each of the provinces were sovereign. The Stadtholder, who was often the same person in most or all of the provinces, was not a monarch, but the cheif executive officer of the estates.So it really makes no sense to talk about the Netherlands, Ierland, Scotland and England being in personal union during the reign of William III of England.--Gazzster (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

LACK OF REFERENCES

I am new to this Page as of today, having hyperlinked from a page that used the term. There is a tremendous amount of apparently accurate information that has been accumulated here - however, with one exception, there are NO references. Croatia has 34 references, the Lead has three. That's it. Thirty-one personal unions, one referenced. The page was flagged in 2011 for lack of citations - and nothing has changed since. Where are the 30 editors who created these 30 unreferenced sections? Why not return and give the source(s), rather than risk deletion? IiKkEe (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The complete Austria section has to be changed

1. The Name 'Austria' generally referes to the today's republic of Austria, existing since 1918. What is meant here, most likely, is the former (arch)duchy of austria, being created in the 12th century. Before that it was a part of the duchy of bavaria(which will lead to my 2nd point). However, hence the headline should be changed to duchy of Austria or habsburg monarchy(depending which unions are being considered )

2. Since the parts of Austria were a Region in the duchy of bavaria this never has been a personal union. rather a federate state(although this isnt tue topic here.

3. Also there is no personal union between the duchy of Austria and the ones of styria, carintha and tyrol. These were reigned by the same house(habsburg) after some time, sharing army etc. and earlier were mostly souvereign territories in the holy roman empire.

4. As the holy roman empire being a pretty unique case similar to a real union, there has not been a classic personal union between it and Austria either. They Shared the imperial diet, had basic law and an imperial court. The imperial circles delievered troops for the army if needed. Austria was actually one of this circles.

5.Austria-Ungary might also be a real union, but there its a bit more difficult.

If no one is against it I might change it soon..193.154.224.14 (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sovereignty of states in personal union

The states in personal union are sovereign states? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Basically yes.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC))

What do you mean "basically"? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean if they decide to run common institutions, you may view it as a part of reducing sovereignty in a way.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC))

Hungary and Croatia

The information in Personal union#Croatia is not found in the sources cited there, and has been tagged accordingly by Santasa99. There are currently eight {{failed verification}} tags in that section, so it cannot possibly be described as "well-sourced". It is also entirely out of proportion compared to the other sections. There are over 6,000 characters about that particular union whereas the other 130 unions listed in the article get a couple of sentences at most and usually even less. It is impossible to write thousands of characters about each of these 130 unions, and the one involving Croatia and Hungary is already the subject of two articles to which this one links. That said, it is entirely unreasonable to have that information repeated in this article, with wrong sources, and out of proportion to the rest of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

My thought exactly. So @Surtsicna:, if your intentions are to deal with it, I am going to stick with you on this one.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I just looked, and it seems better to move article to "List"?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Much of the article consists of a list but since it also defines personal unions, it is not merely a list. I don't have a strong opinion about that, though. Surtsicna (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Me neither, to be honest.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

France and Scotland

I'm not sure this should be listed. Even though the sovereigns of those countries were married to each other (Francis II of France and Mary, Queen of Scots) Scotland did not recognize kingship in right of wife (at least not that I'm aware) thus there was no true personal union. Both parties were sovereign over their home country and consort in the other. Had the marriage produced a son then the two countries would have entered a personal union, but the marriage was childless. Emperor001 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

They did. Francis was not only styled King of Scots' (i.e. King Consort), he was granted the 'crown matrimonial', which meant that in the event of Mary dying, he would keep the crown (something denied her later husband, Lord Darnley)

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

France and Andorra

What about the case of France and Andorra, another modern day example of states in personal union.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No takers?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Simon Bolivar and New Granada, Peru and Bolivia

Simon Bolivar was for a relatively brief period President of all three of these countries separately, but simultaneously, in 1825

Another example of a (republican) personal umionJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)