Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Assessment for WP:CANADA

I have assessed this article as B-class given its high level of detail and organization and of high importance, as it is a topic that I feel is vital to understanding Canada. Having said that, it is in desperate need of in-line citations. If all the editors here fighting about the word "realm" had spent their time producing in-line citations instead, this article probably could have been referenced properly ten times over by now. Cheers, CP 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd Setup

Obviously Canada is bilingual, but why is the same thing written in french and english? This is the english version of wikipedia, so people are expecting to be reading in english. Other countries that speak different languages list the monarch only in english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.222.173 (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In Canada we're generally used to seeing most (official) things written in both English and French wherever we go. That's probably it. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was Realms capitised in 1953, but now Wikipedia makes it lowercase?

In 1953 it was spelled Realms (i.e., it was capitalised),

Royal Styles and Titles 1953 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland re-inserted; usage of Realms instead of British Dominions)

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

"... by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories [Queen], Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ".

Why is it lowercase in 2007, here at Wikipedia?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, Sir, your point is Good and shall point the Way of Goodness and Righteousness before these Heathens, many of whom have little Knowledge of the Manner in which amongst Good Citizens, between and amongst themselves, shall and may Choose to use Capital Letters so as to ensure Respect unto their Betters.

It is Uppercase, perhaps, in 1953, and lowercase, Sir, in 2007, because Times Have Changed.--Gregalton 18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:-D Grant | Talk 03:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that AVD quotes a title, which even now contains more capitalisation than normal text, and doesn't include the phrase "Commonwealth realms" at all. This is such a minor issue - why don't we all stop exaggerating our arguments, or even drop them altogether, and move on to somethign productive? JPD (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominion (again)

At the risk of opening old wounds, can we look at this paragraph again?

'While the term "Dominion", as a title, can still be used to refer to any of the Commonwealth realms other than the United Kingdom, it has been increasingly replaced by the term "realm" since the 1950s. Both terms are unambiguous when used in a Commonwealth context, but, on occasions when it is necessary to refer to these realms collectively in a different context, they may be distinguished from other realms as "Commonwealth realms".'

Is there a supporting citation for the statement in bold?--Gazzster 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is lacking citations. And for an article of this size and importance, there are only two referenced works: one of them, Monarchy and the Constitution, deals primarily with UK constitutional law, not the Commonwealth realms. The other, The Strange Death of Dominion Status seems to contradicts the statement I have put in bold above. Instead it explains that the term dominion was an ambiguous one, which meant different things to different states in a variety of historical, cultural and social contexts. Some states (eg., Canada, South Africa) took dominion status to mean complete independence from Britain, while other states equated it to mean dependence on Britain. So it is debatable, at best, to equate dominion with Commonwealth realm. After all, for many of the presenrt Commonwealth realms, ‘the title 'Dominion' was thought to suggest a "notion of inferiority to the United Kingdom, some historical memory of subordinate status, of adolescence, of the Mother Country's apron strings’ [[1]],Victoria University of Wellington Law Review. And the last time Whitehall used 'dominion' in relation to any of the present Commonwealth realms (except as part of an official title, eg., Dominion of Canada was in 1948. I have edited the paragraph.

To return to a more general point: the lack of citations. If the article were referenced properly in the first place we may not have spent weeks on contentious points.Rather we might need only hve discussed the authority of the references.--Gazzster 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada

I have removed this phrase from the second paragraph of the introduction: , 'although some realms such as the Dominion of Canada have used Dominion in their official title'. I did so because this is contested on the Canada talk page. The discussion there seems to be quite serious. And as the phrase (which I put in myself in good faith) is unreferenced, I thought it wise to ommit it. If correct, it adds nothing to the introduction.--Gazzster 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster. I feel that I get along with you well enough here at Wikipedia, so I will say this ... I personally find your removal of the Dominion reference quite upsetting. But that is just emotion. I will speak my piece on the other talk page. After that, the Wikipedians can decide for themselves. Frankly, I find the suppression of the "Dominion" as revisionist history at its nastiest.

Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though there is nothing wrong with the title as it was used in the past, it being in the introduction didn't really matter either way nowadays anyway. It's best just to keep it said in the historical aspect. That-Vela-Fella 07:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I respect your honesty Armchair. Please note that I am not saying that 'Dominion of Canada' is incorrect. I am saying that it is unreferenced and disputed.--Gazzster 09:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the removed clause was disputed at all, but as That-Vela-Fella says, it doesn't make much difference in this context. JPD (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Title format of Commonwealth realm monarchies

A discussion dealing with deciding on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms is being conducted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty if you are interested. — AjaxSmack 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars (again)

For the time being ('til things are resolved at the Royal Burial Ground), Tharky let G2 have his edit here & G2 let Tharky have his edit at British Royal Family, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Due to a seperate 'edit spat', the article has been locked. Though it's regretful, it had to be done. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate, indeed. I wonder how long it will sit this way before being unlocked at allowed to be corrected. --G2bambino (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of unsourced statements

I notice the following paragraph has been restored:

While the term "Dominion," as a title, can still be used for any of the realms other than the United Kingdom, it has been replaced by use of the word "realm," beginning in the 1950s, so as to reflect the relationship of equality amongst all sixteen countries. Both terms are unambiguous when used in a Commonwealth context, but, on those occasions when it is necessary to refer to these realms collectively in a different context, they may be differentiated from other realms as "Commonwealth realms."

I edited it in the first place because the following assertions are unsourced:

1) 'Dominion can still be used for any of the realms'. This is quite simply incorrect.

2) 'Both terms are unambiguous'. This is also incorrect.

Refer to my sourced comments on this page in Dominion (again).--Gazzster (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this why you reverted my last edit? --G2bambino (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor touch-up request on locked page

Can an admin go in to remove the signature that was accidentally added by Gazzster before the page was locked? I'm sure that it wouldn't constitute an endorsement of any particular view.  ;-) Kelvinc (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lock

As I was the last to edit the page before it was locked, I'd like to clear something up. G2Bambino and myself have discussed the edit on my talk page.I inadvertently reverted the first paragraph. My only gripe however was with the paragraph I have italicised (above), concerning dominion and Commonwealth realm. The first paragraph can be reverted but the contentious paragraph I refer to ought to remain removed. So I don't think the article should remain locked. --Gazzster (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd unlock it, but I'm not an Administrator. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for the unlock.... --G2bambino (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Gazzster's reversion was intentional, there was continued reverting between G2bambino and TharkunColl. I'm reluctant to overturn someone else's protection without indication that this will not continue. JPD (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaah... I understand now. Well, the dispute should be resolved; verifiable cites have been provided for that which he removed. Gazzster mistakenly removed them. --G2bambino (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as Tharky is currently under a Wikiquette review, I think it's safe to unlock the article. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

what wikiquette riview? an ANI? A RfC?  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This review - Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts - GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. "Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors." In no way does such a review suggest that we should give up on communication (however difficult) concerning this dispute. I am in favour of unprotecting the article, but I'm not going to overturn Nat's protection unless Tharkun tells us the reverting won't continue. JPD (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't you asked G2 to stop reverting? TharkunColl (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, both of you would agree to discuss, rather than revert. My comment was not directed specifically at your reverting, but was intended to point out that one person saying "the dispute should be resolved" is not enough. Apparently you do not believe the dispute is resolved - perhaps you could address the claim that the citations justify G2's version. JPD (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that my mistake was the occasion of this. Why not unlock and allow a course of edit, counter-edit and discussion take place?--Gazzster (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether your mistake really was the cause - you'd have to ask Nat, but there definitely wasn't any discussion taking place before the mistake. I definitely wouldn't complain if he unlocked it, but we don't need to wait for unlocking to move on with the discussion. If Tharkun still has a problem with the version that you and G2 are happy with, he should say why. It seems a bit of a storm in a teacup to me. JPD (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On the surface it would seem so. But, underneath, this is an issue of a tendentious editor trolling Wikipedia looking for anything which offends his personal beliefs and then brazenly removing it, whether what he removes is verifiable or not. In other words, this is just one small piece of a larger battle I'm hoping will end sooner rather than later. --G2bambino (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for Thark to answer the question JPD put forward to him... How long shall we let this user hijack this article? --G2bambino (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

==British Royal Family== We've a problem at that page (in which this page links to). An editor there, refuses to respect this pages choice to go with realm, by persisting in using Realm. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Article title format

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Vote Closed!
Wikipedia has articles pertaining to eight of the sixteen monarchies of the Commonwealth realms (seen at this article).

The titles of each are presently in an inconsistent format, being either "Monarchy in X" or "X monarchy." For the sake of consistency, it has been proposed that these articles all be aligned in a regular way through a common title style. Thus, there are seven options:

1. "Monarchy of X", all: Title all articles in the form "Monarchy of X"
2. "Monarchy in X", all: Title all articles in the form "Monarchy in X"
3. "X Monarch", all: Title all articles in the form "X Monarchy"
4. "Monarchy of X", most: The articles are mostly titled "Monarchy of X", with one or two exceptions to be determined individually
5. "Monarchy in X", most: The articles are mostly titled Monarchy in X, with one or two exceptions to be determined individually
6. "X Monarch", most: The articles are mostly titled X Monarchy, with one or two exceptions to be determined individually
7. Individual: Decide the title of each article individually.

Please give your opinion on which way the titles of these eight articles should be set. Choose as many options as you find acceptable.

Survey

1. "Monarchy of X", all

(Title all articles in the form "Monarchy of X".)

1. Support #1. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support #1 Though there is currently no consistency amongst all monarchy articles on Wikipedia, this seems to be the predominant format. There's also no reason why any one or two states should be elevated when equality amongst these countries is established in constitutional law. --G2bambino (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support #1 TerriersFan (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support #1 --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 05:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support #1 --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 17:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support #1 or #2 Wiki consistency Brian | (Talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Support #1. For the sake of consistency --Lholden (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Support #1, 5, or 7. Exception in #5 for British monarchy. That being said, as G2 suggests, the dominant format for monarchies in general seems to be "Monarchy of X", so standardizing them all that way seems fine. Not worrying too much about standardization, given the complete lack of standardization for monarchy articles more broadly, would also be okay. john k (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Support #1 Most logical usage to describe the state of the given nation's institution & goes along the same line as other places like the Republic of ..., etc. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Support #1 or #2 Wiki consistency Brian | (Talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2. "Monarchy in X", all

(Title all articles in the form "Monarchy in X".)

1. Support #1 or #2 Wiki consistency Brian | (Talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support #2 Seems right Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 19:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(Addendum) A title in this format can also accomodate for any monarchies ever in the country, for example Canada. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

3. "X Monarch", all

(Title all articles in the form "X Monarchy".)

4. "Monarchy of X", most

(The articles are mostly titled "Monarchy of X", with one or two exceptions to be determined individually.)

1. Support #4, exception being British monarchy DBD 13:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support #4 or #6 both seem to be okay. If an article covers the whole history of Monarchies in a country, Monarch y in X is a sensible exception, but Monarchy in Canada should contain historic information on the French Monarchy, First Nation monarchies (where applicable) et cetera. WilyD 16:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

5. "Monarchy in X", most

(The articles are mostly titled Monarchy in X, with one or two exceptions to be determined individually.)

1. Support #1, 5, or 7. Exception in #5 for British monarchy. That being said, as G2 suggests, the dominant format for monarchies in general seems to be "Monarchy of X", so standardizing them all that way seems fine. Not worrying too much about standardization, given the complete lack of standardization for monarchy articles more broadly, would also be okay. john k (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

6. "X Monarch", most

(The articles are mostly titled X Monarchy, with one or two exceptions to be determined individually.)

1. Support #4 or #6 both seem to be okay. If an article covers the whole history of Monarchies in a country, Monarch y in X is a sensible exception, but Monarchy in Canada should contain historic information on the French Monarchy, First Nation monarchies (where applicable) et cetera. WilyD 16:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

7. Individual

(Decide the title of each article individually.)

1. Support #7 TharkunColl (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support #1, 5, or 7. Exception in #5 for British monarchy. That being said, as G2 suggests, the dominant format for monarchies in general seems to be "Monarchy of X", so standardizing them all that way seems fine. Not worrying too much about standardization, given the complete lack of standardization for monarchy articles more broadly, would also be okay. john k (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support #7. I don't see any significant benefit of establishing a title consistency here. Certain styles seem to sound better for some nations, but not for others. For example, "Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda" sounds fine; "Antiguan and Barbudian monarchy" sounds nasty. Conversely, "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" is long-winded and unfamiliar to, well, pretty much everyone, compared with the universally known, "British Monarchy". Frankly, it seems like this is simply one more case of editors trying to "fix" things that aren't broken. -- Hux (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

   • Comment I'm not going to say your points are invalid, Hux, but it would seem to me that "British monarchy" would probably redirect to "Monarchy of the United Kingdom," and the lead of the latter article could say something like: "The monarchy of the United Kingdom, commonly known as the British monarchy, is..." This happens all the time all over Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Support--Gazzster (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Concur w/ Hux. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Close of vote
Result: Options #1 and #7 gain most approval; #1 with most. --G2bambino (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A further thought

Though wholly opposed to any change in the title of the article British monarchy, if it were changed it would at least leave room for a completely new article entitled "British monarchy", in which we could describe the functioning of the monarchy in all 16 realms over which it reigns, and how this situation came about. There is currently no such article. TharkunColl (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change the title of British monarchy, please argue on its own talk page. TharkunColl (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted. --G2bambino (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet again I remind you that no vote here is in any way relevant for any other article. If you want to change the title of British monarchy, conduct your poll on its own talk page. Why won't you do this? Are you afraid you might lose? TharkunColl (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever consensus is reached here, it must be respected by all editors on all the articles in question. There should be no tolerance of resistance from anybody, I hope that's understood by everybody. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to ride roughshod over other articles, and it is this that shall not be tolerated. Please do the honourable thing and hold your polls on the pages of the articles you wish to change. TharkunColl (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And if a seperate -vote- at British monarchy was held, and a consensus was reached to 'move', then what? GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl: Given that the British monarchy reigns only in the United Kingdom (as opposed to the Australian monarchy which reigns in Australia, the Jamaican monarchy which reigns in Jamaica, and so on), I don't see how it makes much sense to have an article titled "British monarchy" that describes "the functioning of the monarchy in all 16 realms over which it reigns". All these institutions are separate, irrespective of the fact that the same person heads them all. -- Hux (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were going to be doing approval voting. john k (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait until the (above) polling is completed. What's approval voting? GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ga, I thought I was clear on this. Approval voting is when you vote for every option you approve of. The current format doesn't deny that you can do this, but typically, you have a place for people to sign after every option they are willing to accept. john k (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM allows for multiple page moves; the discussion takes place on one talk page, not multiple. Whatever's decided here affects them all. --G2bambino (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. I mean, all the options would be listed here, and people would vote "yes" under each option that they supported. john k (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't commenting on your approval voting suggestion; I was remarking on Thark's demand that a vote take place at Talk:British monarchy as well as here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition: John, haven't people in essence been doing what you say approval voting is? They've said yes to the one, two, or three versions they approve of. Seems like the same thing to me. --G2bambino (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with G2; how many more polls are we gonna go through? PS- Should the consensus be No to X monarchy (as it appears to be so far), I'm hoping Tharky doesn't cause a 'page movement war' at British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note suggesting to vote for multiple things. In terms of approval voting, having it explicitly set out encourages people to vote for multiple options, but I agree that starting over again would be a pain in the ass. john k (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt to move British monarchy without gaining a consensus at that page will be reverted. TharkunColl (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And if a consensus is reached to change it? What then? GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A consensus to change British monarchy on its own talk page I would of course respect. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That would not be necessary a notice was placed on the British monarchy and WP:RM states that several pages can be moved at once. --Barryob (Edits) (Talk) 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint anyways - we've got Monarchy of the Netherlands and Monarchy of Belgium; why the bellyaching. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. If the title "British monarchy" is freed up, I'll write a new article describing the monarchy's role in all 16 realms. TharkunColl (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand Tharky (seeking clarifcation here) your refusal to change to Monarchy of the United Kingdom (if that's the consensus), is because it would be the same as the other Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What you mean an article like Commonwealth realm ? --Barryob (Edits) (Talk) 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm articles: Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy, Monarchy in Jamaica etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will be a combined article, but without the anti-British POV. It will describe the role of the British monarchy in all 16 realms. TharkunColl (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this right you are going to use the British monarchy title to create an article about the monarchy's role in all 16 realms which is already covered in Commonwealth realm? --Barryob (Edits) (Talk) 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It only has a small part in that article. And the British nature of the monarchy is downplayed or completely censored, no doubt for political and nationalistic reasons. TharkunColl (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that your idea, Tharky? GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is what my idea? TharkunColl (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming this new article 'British monarchy'? GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you change the name of British monarchy then I'll use the name to create a new article. Perhaps, after all, this might be a good thing, as it will emphasise the universal nature of the British monarchy. And, if I may, I'd like to ask - why is anti-British sentiment so popular in countries, i.e. ex-colonies, that were created by the British in the first place? TharkunColl (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit over-reacting - An article gets it's title changed, therefore must create a new article -. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If "British monarchy" ends up getting changed to "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" (a change which I oppose, for what it's worth), then the appropriate thing to do would be to make "British monarchy" a redirect to the newly titled article. Using it for anything else will inevitably mislead readers and reduce the functionality of Wikipedia. Whether it's called "British monarchy" or "Monarchy of the United Kingdom", the scope of that article is the monarchy as it currently exists, which applies solely to the UK, and the history of that monarchy, which includes its influence in the various former colonies and territories. And given that we already have an article - "Commonwealth realm" - which specifically details the nature of the various monarchies headed by QEII, having a another article describing the same thing is clearly redundant and should be removed immediately, whatever its title. This has nothing to do with nationalism and everything to do with usability and accuracy. -- Hux (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fear not, Hux. This new article Tharky proposes to create with the title British monarchy, most likely wouldn't exist for very long. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be pointless in my mind the title should be nothing more than a redirect to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom page and TharkunColl please read WP:TALK before you go on about anti-britishness in ex colonies. --Barryob (Edits) (Talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are probably unaware that I've been called all sorts of anti-British names in the past, ranging from a "John Bully" by GoodDay (it took me some time to work that one out, John Bull is obviously still a popular figure in Canada, though virtually forgotten in the UK), to "Brutish" by G2bambino, an epithet usually applied to the British by the IRA and its sympathisers. TharkunColl (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, whatever so-called "new" article (which will be basically a heavily modified copy of the old) will be CSDed and redirected to whatever title has been decided here.  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  00:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In a posting to G2bambino's page, I referred to Tharky's methods of editing as 'John Bullying' - This was obviously a slight on his Britishness, uttered by my frustrations. I apologies to Tharky & to all other Brits for this statement and will not dispute any punishment deemed appropiate. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When does the current polling close? GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tharkun - would a decision to move British monarchy to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, which is in line with, for instance, Monarchy of the Netherlands, Monarchy of Belgium, and Monarchy of Sweden, really be worth protesting to the extent of the kind of major disruption that you are threatening with the "creating a new British monarchy" idea would create? Monarchy of the United Kingdom seems like a perfectly acceptable title to me. john k (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it's an attempt - and a pretty unsubtle one at that - to make it more difficult to put information about the overseas realms in the article, by deliberately restricting its scope. It is presumably no coincidence that this very idea was suggested just a few days before this sudden drive for conformity began. I believe that we do need an article describing the role of the monarchy in all the realms. If a person searched for "British monarchy", do you think they're more likely to want information just about the UK, or about the British monarchy's worldwide role? Currently, under heavy influence from G2's POV, the articles hardly even mention the other realms. For these reasons, if British monarchy stays where it is, we should add more information on the overseas realms. If, on the other hand, it is moved (i.e. deliberately restricted in scope), then we should use the now-free title "British monarchy" to do as I have just suggested, which will also contain links to all the individual pages. TharkunColl (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If a person searched for "British monarchy", do you think they're more likely to want information just about the UK ? eh yes is is a shared monarchy it is not just the British monarchy, any info relating to lizzy's role worldwide should be dealt with in the Commonwealth realm article or the relevant article about the monarchy in the said country.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 09:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl: I believe that we do need an article describing the role of the monarchy in all the realms. You're operating under a misunderstanding: there is no "role of the monarchy in all the realms". The British monarchy's current role does not extend to any of the other Commonwealth realms. It is concerned solely with the United Kingdom and its dependencies. The problem here is that you are refusing to accept this fact in favor of the belief that the British monarchy reigns over all the Commonwealth realms, a belief that is trivially proven false. There is no rationale for having an article titled "British monarchy", describing that monarchy's role beyond the UK, when it has no such role.

Currently, under heavy influence from G2's POV, the articles hardly even mention the other realms. I fail to see the problem. In order to be accurate and thus acceptable as encyclopedic information, it should "hardly ever mention" the other realms. They are only relevant in a historical context. I'm flummoxed as to how you seem unable to see this. -- Hux (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is merely G2's POV that you are repeating. The Secretary General of the Commonwealth has said himself that the 15 other realms retain the British monarch. TharkunColl (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem 'Tharky', that currently you've no support for your idea. It might be prudent to go along with the apparent growing consensus (change all related articles to Monarchy of X). GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the fact of the existence of the Commonwealth realm monarchies, and the connection of those monarchies to that of the UK, is an appropriate subject of the article whatever its title may be. I'm not sure why there should be very much beyond that. john k (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it seems clear that the title change to "British monarchy," if there is to be one, will not affect the content of the article in the least. Also, as already pointed out by others, Commonwealth realm amply covers the pan-Commonwealth role of the Crown.

Thark's hyperventilating over this is telling, and, frankly, his behaviour is getting beyond tolerable. His biases and associated paranoia are showing through clearly in this very discussion. To get some casual outside opinions on this long standing crusade by this user I opened a Wikiquette alert. Perhaps others might want to state something there, about either him or myself. --G2bambino (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking solely about this 'Wikiquette' problem, it seems to me that User:TharkunColl is just getting worked up because people are misunderstanding him. It seems to me that he is talking about creating an article about all sixteen colonies as a whole, and is unaware of Commonwealth realm already filling this purpose, or is under the impression it fills a different role. Also, I think people seem to be confusing his views. From what I understand, he is saying that he opposes moving to Monarchy of X, but this section is a separate issue; he wants to create an article for all the colonies of Britain as a whole. His opposition to Monarchy of X is not related to this issue. In any case, whether I am correct or not, it seems people are misunderstanding each other. I suggest everyone reads the original post again. Ignoring the mention of the renaming issue, TharkunColl is describing Commonwealth realm. It seems to me that this entire argument is just a misunderstanding. The Watchtower (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tharky can create an article called British monarchy if he wants, but others can slap an AfD on it aswell. The momment an article is created & released onto Wikipedia, it's public domain. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Simplify

I've been invited to share my thoughts here. I'd like to make two suggestions:

1) Delete this article. The list of Commonwealth realms is already in Commonwealth realm. Even the title of the article is a superfluity: Commonwealth realm monarchies. 'Realm' and 'monarchy' - they're almost the same, aren't they? I do respectfully suggest that there is a tendency to proliferate articles related to the Windsor monarchy. It can be confusing and leads to strange disputes like this one.It is just not necessary.

2) About the format of the title of Commonwealth realm related articles; we should not impose conformity merely for the sake of conformity. The titles will need to be different from article to article. Each article will have its own particular needs.--Gazzster (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

After so much discussions over those topics, the chances of your suggestions being adopted, are slim. But, IMHO your ideas are intriguing. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Gazzster, this page emerged out of a list that was at Commonwealth realm; I think if you go through the talk archives there you'll see how this came about. In the end, I just wanted to see where one could access a central list of realm monarchies - the institutions, not the countries, which are already listed at Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I take your word for it. I won't go through the archives, though. I do feel though that the article is unecessary. Why is it necessary to create another article because of a nuance between 'institutions' and 'countries'? Personally I think we should simply merge articles on the monarchies of the respective nations into articles about the governments. For example, Australian Monarchy would simply become a section of Government of Australia. The exception of course should be the UK Monarchy. We in Wikipedia seem to be the only human beings in the world who are hung up about these things. If you run a Google search, most of the hits for Commonwealth realm come from Wikipedia! I have yet to see Australian or Jamaican, or Canadian Monarchy in any other encyclopedia. Neither Commonwealth realm. Wikipedia ought to be user friendly. If users wish to know about the status of the monarchy in a country, they will firstly go to the article about that country. And when I see seemingly interminable exchanges like this present one (and yes, I have done my fair share) on this and other pages, I wonder if it's really worth it? Does anyone agree?--Gazzster (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging articles would make them much too long. Why not, also, merge British monarchy into Her Majesty's Government? We obviously have more space and resources than any other encyclopaedia, so I don't see comparisons with others as being apt. --G2bambino (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who may be unaware, G2bambino has also written separate articles for the monarchy in each of the Canadian provinces (see, for example, Monarchy in Newfoundland and Labrador). Isn't this going just a bit too far? TharkunColl (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All articles are subject to Afd's. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have just then had a look at Australian Government, and there is a section on the monarchy in Australia. It is concise yet comprehensive. Australian Monarchy repeats this information unecessarily. We may have more space than any other encyclopedia (more resources- debateable- it depends on the resourcefulness, and sometimes, the integrity, of the writer?) but must we do do something simply because we can do it? We write articles because we believe they will be useful. Is an article really useful if it replicates material from a more relevant article? --Gazzster (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're doing fair justice to those non-UK articles. There is a brief overview of the monarchies on related government pages, but the detail is hashed out on an article dedicated to the subject. That is the standard procedure on Wikipedia. Perhaps with articles like Belizian monarchy there isn't much in the governmental role of the monarchy that isn't covered in the Belizian government article, but there's still added info on cultural, militaristic, financial, historical, and other information at the former; and if there isn't, there could be. There's no reason why short articles like those couldn't be filled out to a state like British monarchy and Canadian monarchy. In fact, additions to the Australian monarchy article were somewhere - though now pushed farther back - on my list of tasks to complete. --G2bambino (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the existance of these articles, you've every right to tag them with Afds. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that, GoodDay.--Gazzster (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, G2, you're quite possibly right. But I think we need to be frugal about this.--Gazzster (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but careful, too. --G2bambino (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am indifferent to Gazzster's proposal of deleting all these articles and merging them into the articles on the government. It does seem as though there's probably not too much information which needs to be dealt with in its own article (except, obviously, for the monarchy in the UK itself). I do think that there is absolutely no reason for this article to exist. A table in Commonwealth relam can easily link to both the articles on the country and the articles on the monarchy specifically, if that's the issue. john k (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that this article is not needed. I am also thinking that the articles on Monarchy in each of the Canadian terriorites are not needed either. This seems to be a gross waste of space, should we also have articles on Monarchy in Queensland or Monarchy in New South Wales. We need to be very careful about having lots of articles, to suit certain editors POV, which all seem to repeat the same information. As is said about by Gazzster, other encyclopedias don't have these sort of articles, and they don't have them for a good reason. I personally would be for the merging of all Monarchy in... articles to the Government page (expect British monarchy). Details like when royals visited those countries should be deleted, in my mind it is trivial.--UpDown (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Queensland! Good one, I hadn't thought of that! Yes, I'm afraid this topic is just so overdone, nuanced, spliced, overanalysed.--Gazzster (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I must agree. The Monarchies in Canadian provinces articles should be deleted. Afterall, there's no Monarchy in England, Monarchy in Scotland articles etc; Sorry G2. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's established that as the provinces are co-sovereign there is within Canada ten provincial crowns - read the articles for explanation. I've done my best to concentrate that which would be repeated across individual articles into one, and I'm sure it'll be noted that Monarchy in the Canadian provinces is indeed one which focuses specifically on the topic; i.e. it is repeated nowhere, is cited, and therefore valid enough to exist. The deletion of verifiable facts that don't suit some peoples POV won't be tolerated, but reorganization is certainly always an option. --G2bambino (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Won't be tolerated by whom? Those articles are just too trivial to warrant a separate existence - anything worth saving could simply be added to the articles on the provincial governments. TharkunColl (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Say what you will, but cited and verifiable info is not personal opinion or interpretation and thus stands firm as valid content. Contrary to what you seem to believe, it can't be arbitrarily removed because it offends someone's beliefs. I'll repeat myself, though: reorganization is always an option. --G2bambino (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't true. I could write an article about my pet cat that could be completely true. But those articles are pointless. Sometimes too much info can obscure facts, you know. You might like nothing more than reading and writing monarchycruft, but it doesn't mean that anybody else shares your obsession. TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not unless some outside, reliable source spoke about your poor cat.

As I said, ask for what you want, but I'm not making up what I wrote above, and another thing to remember is that these articles are now part of various Wikiprojects, which would have to be notified of any major change or deletion. --G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

By flooding Wikipedia with trivial and pointless articles about the monarchy in Canada, you are doing your countrymen a terrible disservice. You are giving the impression they are all ardent monarchists. TharkunColl (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As it deals with Canada, why not take this dispute to Wikipedia: WikiProject Canada, see what the view is there. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is "Commonwealth realm monarchies", it's just as good a place to hold the discussion (i.e. it was good enough for the previous debate). TharkunColl (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, as the dispute is about just one Commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you mentioned Scotland and England, and someone mentioned Queensland. Might as well keep it here now. TharkunColl (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Contacted the WikiProject for their opinons on this dispute. Since we're not going there, I've invited them here. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

England and Scotland are not comparable to the States and territories of Australia and the Provinces and territories of Canada as Candad and Australia are both Federations the UK is not. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --G2bambino (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Any info worth keeping can go in the articles relating to the government of the provinces. TharkunColl (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any articles on the governments of the provinces. Didn't bother to check what there is and what there isn't, did you? --G2bambino (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there? What's this then Legislative Assembly of Ontario? TharkunColl (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

An article on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I.e., precisely what you said didn't exist? Any useful info on the role of the crown can go right there. TharkunColl (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said didn't exist. --G2bambino (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, be pedantic if you will. We could still, nevertheless, put info on the role of the crown in that article. TharkunColl (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely a good Englishman like yourself knows the difference between a legislature and a crown. --G2bambino (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Queen is an integral part of the legislature - the Queen in Parliament. TharkunColl (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not contrary to anything I just said. Anyway, there's a difference between being a part of something and actually being something. You wouldn't, after all, merge the British monarchy article into the one on Westminster, would you?

It isn't just me you have to convince, though. As I already said, there's both the Canadian WikiProject and all the relevant provincial WikiProjects to sway before major changes are made. It's probably not impossible, and restructuring could be of benefit - I don't know - but there's a larger scope of organization to consider here. --G2bambino (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian WikiProject would have prominance over the provicinal counter parts. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Queen maintains a representative in Scotland to perform royal duties connected with the Scottish parliament (often Princess Anne). TharkunColl (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on Canada. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good we're talking about this. I don't want to say that all the realm related articles are wrong. Only that they would appear to be too many, confusing, distracting and unecessary. And I am certainly not suggesting that all the material from the articles (written by dedicated Wikipedians) be deleted. But it could augment material in other articles. Purely as a basis for further discussion, could I suggest the following articles remain?

British Monarchy (or whatever we're going to call it) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (of course) Commonwealth realm

and perhaps add an article explaining specifically the concept of the shared monarchy, with appropriate links.

Articles related to the monarchies of specific realms (other than the UK) could augment the pertinent sections in the government articles of those realms. --Gazzster (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

add an article explaining specifically the concept of the shared monarchy It already exists: Commonwealth realm

Articles related to the monarchies of specific realms (other than the UK) could augment the pertinent sections in the government articles of those realms. You'd first have to convince people why the UK should have an article but the other countries not. Also, you'd have a hell of a time cramming Canadian monarchy into Government of Canada, not to mention the other articles. --G2bambino (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the UK actually has a monarchy, and doesn't just borrow someone else's. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, tell it to the government of Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also have small sections in British monarchy describing the role of the crown in the other realms. TharkunColl (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd have to agree that the British monarchy is an institution unique and important enough to keep its own article. Other monarchies, while being constitutionally independent, are historically dependent on the British monarchy. Sections in British monarchy referring to the role of the Crown in other realms is, I think, reasonable, as long as the constitutional independence of the other monarchies is made clear. Such sections should not be long, so as to replicate material from other articles unecessarily. In fact all that would necessary would be an introduction to a link. --Gazzster (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

History has little to do with it, importance is subjective. And again, you underestimate the scope of articles such as Canadian monarchy and Australian monarchy if you think they can be turned into mere subsectios, not to mention the fact that the other monarchies aren't "under" the British monarchy. --G2bambino (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

History has a lot to do with it, you just tell yourself that as it suits your POV. You really need to start adopting a more NPOV approach to these things.--UpDown (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We've no consensus (yet) to delete those Canadian provincial monarchy articles. Also, here's a question - If the UK became a republic, what would happen to the 15 other realms? GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This question has already been dealt with - legally: nothing. Other than that, everything else is speculative. --G2bambino (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

G2, I have not said the other monarchies are 'under' the British monarchy. I defend the concept of their independence strenuously, as you know. But you can hardly deny that the British monarchy is related to the others (especially as they will probably always have the same sovereign as the UK). And from a user friendly POV, links in British Monarchy would be very handy. --Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere is the relationship denied. Is that the point, though? You'd be very much muddying, if not flat out misrepresenting, the independence of the other countries if you tried to - though it's physically impossible to do so, anyway - lump them all into an article entitled "British monarchy." As for links, they're already there. --G2bambino (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent me. I did not propose to 'lump them all into an article entitled "British monarchy."' Go back to what I actually wrote. If the links are already there, there's no problem, is there? --Gazzster (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I quote you from yesterday: "Sections in British monarchy referring to the role of the Crown in other realms is, I think, reasonable, as long as the constitutional independence of the other monarchies is made clear." I'm sorry if I did not get what you were trying to say, but to me that expresses a desire to reduce non-UK realms' monarchies to mere subsections of British monarchy. This isn't exactly what you earlier proposed, but, I understand that one can change one's mind. --G2bambino (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I also said that sections of government articles would deal comprehensively with monarchy. But given the significance of the British Monarchy it is not unreasonable to have small sections referring to her role in other realms. I said these references need be no longer than an introduction to a link. This could hardly be seen as reducing 'non-UK realms' monarchies to mere subsections of British monarchy.'You say those links are already there. So no need to edit British Monarchy in this regard. Again, please read what I actually wrote. --Gazzster (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Queen maintains a representative in Scotland to perform royal duties connected with the Scottish parliament (often Princess Anne) what ? Princess Anne has sweet FA to do witht the Scottish Parliament any role played by the crown is by the Lizzy as her position as Queen of the UK. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Strike's one as a pro-English view, don't it? GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Me pro english ? haha you must be joking. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean you, Barry (sorry). GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I knew the discussion was heated, but I didn't think it would take a turn towards the lunatic. Delete all the non-British monarchy articles and turn them into sections in other articles and footnotes on the British (read: one some like most) monarchy page? Wow.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the articles should be merged & redirect, these for instance Monarchy in the Cook Islands, Monarchy in the Solomon Islands. Also the articles on Monarchy in the Canadian provinces should be merged. They are just repeating information to suit POV of certain editors. Please look also at List of Canadian monarchs, another unnecessary article.--UpDown (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, List of Canadian monarchs is a good example of unecessary proliferation. In fact, this proliferation frequently borders on the absurd.--Gazzster (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess it's time to start tagging those Commonwealth realm articles (in question) with Merge tags. As for the Canadian provincial monarchy articles? Those need to be tagged with Afds. It's time us editors take matter into our own hands -- Tharky and G2? need to take a long Wiki-break; they have some Wikipedia: Ownership issues, to straighten out. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Do as you please, but don't think people just have to take your word for it. In fact, you'll have to convince a lot more people than me that any of this is necessarily a good idea. Good luck. --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with letting the Wiki community decide. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I have placed a deletion tag on this article. I propose its deletion because

1) It is, in effect, only a list, which is, in any case, a replication of the list in Commonwealth realm.

2) It is not useful; it does not serve any obvious function. It seems to be there for the benefit of editors, not other users.

3) It is not necessary to create a new article from a nuance between a Commonwealth realm and the monarchy which reigns over such a realm. The nuance is so subtle as to make a separate article a superfluituy.--Gazzster (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What shall we do with the (above) poll that's appears to be still open? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine nothing; it closes in two days, and I doubt the fate of this page will be decided before then. Speaking of that, though, shouldn't a discussion page for this be set up at AfD, per the template's instructions? --G2bambino (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Further: This list isn't replicated anywhere; point 2 is invalid. --G2bambino (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I'll do that soon today.--Gazzster (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. --G2bambino (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When is the 'AFD' gonna be completed - where's the opening nomination? GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the poll has now closed I have completed the afd nomination see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth realm monarchies --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll results

One day to go for the Poll, currently a consensus for all articles moving to Monarchy in X. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For and against appear to be split pretty evenly. That's not a consensus, so no change is called for. TharkunColl (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

9-5, looks good to me (somehow, I knew you'd protest). Anyways, we'll see tommorrow, what happens. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

9-5 is not a consensus. And the true figures are a great deal closer than that, if you add up the votes and comments in the other options. TharkunColl (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The poll results - barring any major change over the next 24 hours - show that two options are favoured. We'll have to decide which two of those to go with; currently #1 is more popular than #7, but, we'll have to see. --G2bambino (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean (if current trend continues), we'll have a second Poll on Options #1 & #7? That makes sense. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There have already been at least two inconclusive polls. It is unreasonable to go on conducting them until you get the answer you want. If no consensus is reached (as is currently the case), then no change is made. TharkunColl (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know you want ge the answer you want, in a 'final poll' over #1 & #7? GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that you have already conducted two polls, both of which have been inconclusive. One should have been enough. There is no consensus. TharkunColl (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't fall into his trap, GoodDay. Let's just let due process take it's course. We'll come back to this tomorrow. --G2bambino (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

'Til tommorrow, then. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So you intend to hold a third poll, because the first two didn't produce the answer you wanted? TharkunColl (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Google popularity poll (advanced google search):

• Monarchy of United Kingdom - 32,600 hits
• Monarchy in United Kingdom - 64,800 hits
• British monarchy - 493,000 hits -- Bill Reid | Talk 20:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the 9 votes are for "Monarchy of", not "Monarchy in". Second of all, I think that, given that both Option #1 and Option #7 have shown significant support, a second round of the poll between those two options would be appropriate. john k (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That would therefore be the third poll on this subject (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty). Are we to have poll after poll until such time that enough people tire of them that a consensus is reached by default? TharkunColl (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - What is clear, synthesising the results, is that there is a clear consensus for moving all realms to Monarchy of X except for the British. We should move all the rest now and then have a poll, if required, on the British. We don't need to get into a debate about why the British should be a special case simply accept, pragmatically, that enough editors think it is, and move on. TerriersFan (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't see that at all. One person suggests "British monarchy" be the odd one out; just, his vote was copied three times over when User:Lonewolf BC reorganized the votes. One other thinks "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" seems "long winded," but not that the UK article should be treated differently, in that sense. One definite and one maybe for keeping "British monarchy" as is hardly seems a consensus. --G2bambino (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with JK and G2, let's have a poll on options #1 & #7. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Barryob has started moving all the articles, save for the British one. I think it's poor form to do this before the poll has officially closed, and before any decision was really reached. --G2bambino (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no energey to 'revert' those moves, even though the moves go against Option #7. Have no fear, I think there's an editor out there, who'll eventually revert them (within the next few hours). GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. No one should have gone round changing anything, as no consensus had been reached. TharkunColl (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this is all about arguing about how many angels can dance on a pinhead.--Gazzster (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've already had two polls and definitely shouldn't have another. The matter is now finished, as far as I'm concerned. No consensus exists, so no change is justified. TharkunColl (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll closed

After the requisite five day period, the poll on moving/renaming the Commonwealth realm articles is closed. The result clearly shows strong support for option #1 with 10 supports, however, a good showing for option #7 with five. Also to be considered, though, is that one person supported both options.

To my mind, this shows a pretty clear consensus to go with option #1, with double the support than the next runner up. Thus, another poll between these two options seems needless. What do others think? --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If a 10-5 result isn't a consensus? I don't know what is? GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word "consensus" then. This page might be of use, as well - Wikipedia:Consensus. The main point to stress here is that a consensus is not just a simple majority. TharkunColl (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

10-5 is a simple majority?? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is simply a majority. It is not a consensus. TharkunColl (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not what you previously said. You said a simple majority wasn't a consensus - Now you say 10-5 is nott a simple majority?? Is 10-5 a simple majority OR not? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "simple majority" vs. "absolute majority"? When there are only two options (as in the formula 10-5), there is no difference between a simple majority and an absolute majority. In any case, I was merely intending to say that something that is simply a majority is not a consensus. TharkunColl (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait until the others give ther views on what's a consensus (since you and I don't agree). Yikes!! A poll on the poll results?? GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Another poll is definitely not necessary! Those who are confused, or are under the mistaken belief that "consensus" means "majority", should simply read the Wikipedia policy page I linked to above. TharkunColl (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We've a two-thirds (2/3) majority, that's a super-majority ain't it? GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

While a poll result is not a consensus, the tally here strongly shows what the majority favours. There's two things to consider here, though: 1) a consensus establishes a solution acceptable to the vast majority; as WP:CON says, one or two stubborn dissenters cannot override consensus; 2) the options between #1 and #7 which would be considered a compromise of the two were actually those that received the least support. GoodDay is correct, though: let's see what others have to say. --G2bambino (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What's a consensus?

IMHO, 10-5 in favour of moving all articles to Monarchy of X is a consensus, but others have questioned this. What's it gonna be folks? GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As the two extremes are the two most supported options, there could be said that there's a polarity of views. But, that's rather irrelevant; the views don't necessarily matter, just what is accepted by most as satisfactory, whether it is fully aligned with their view or not. So, the litmus test lies in this: how many other people, besides Thark, are strongly opposed to the alignment of the articles? Already double - double - those who favoured no uniformity favoured uniformity. Of that minority opposed, Thark is, so far, the sole, continual dissenter. He alone cannot stand in the way of making a move that the majority either wishes for or doesn't care strongly about. --G2bambino (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - all the articles should be moved to Monarchy of X; I'm baffled by Tharky's resistance. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He's stated on his talk page that he disagrees with moving British monarchy, but won't stand in the way of it actually being done. That said, having read through WP:RM and WP:CON, it seems to me that because it was through discussion that the options we voted on were formed, the poll was simply a way to find which one(s) users saw as having the most merit, which is exactly what a consensus is based on. I say we move ahead with the shifting; people will still be allowed to open another RM if they so wish. --G2bambino (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, move all the pages to Monarchy of X. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved (I think) all pages to Monarchy of X - If I've missed any, please change them. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you have deliberately flouted Wikipedia policy on consensus. And I can only think of a very small number of reasons why you would want to change British monarchy to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. So be it then. TharkunColl (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Going back on your word? Very well. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because of your offensive remarks about my creation of a new article, and also because I specifically asked you not to take my statement as a change of vote. TharkunColl (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have put yourself into a position, where I can no longer defend you. I wish you luck - when your peers review your recent actions. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

British monarchy

At some point (I can't be bothered right now), I'm going to write a completely now article entitled British monarchy that will describe the monarchy's role in all 16 realms, and link to the separate articles that have now been established. TharkunColl (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You have every right to do so (create an article); just like others have a right to tag it with an AfD. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I tire of your bias. Take it somewhere else. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, go ahead an create it (you have that right). GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your attitude extremely offensive. TharkunColl (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinon of me is regrettable (my loss). However, I'm not seeking popularity. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PS- I see you've reverted the page again. Regrettfully, you may have put yourself into a situation, where I can't defend you. Hopefully, your peers will be gracious in there judgment. Remember - no hard feelings (from me). GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall continue to fight until I am extinguished. That is the only honourable course of action. TharkunColl (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I disagree with your recent actions; I admire your desire to defend your principles. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thark has gone beyond the bounds of good grace; instead of registering a request for the page to be moved, he has obviously decided to take on a lone crusade so as to impose his personal desires. Perhaps he will be treated like the martyr he believes himself to be. --G2bambino (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And where was your request to move the page? I don't remember that, at all. TharkunColl (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Two notices were posted at British monarchy notifying users of the proposed move: the first on the article's talk page and another right at the head of the article itself; in case you missed it. --G2bambino (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In agreent with G2, your actions (though ment well) are disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You and he will win, of course - since I've got to go to bed soon, and in the morning I'll be banned. I hope you'll remember, in the future, that it's not a good idea to ride roughshod over people's sensibilities, especially for the sake of a mindless, pointless conformity. That never did anyone any good. Bye. TharkunColl (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported for breach of 3RR. --G2bambino (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. TharkunColl (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And I hope you understand 'OWNERSHIP' of these articles can't be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a shit any more. TharkunColl (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That too is regretful (since you've been around for so long). GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I was driven out. TharkunColl (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop it now, chaps. Bygone be bygones, etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been stopped. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for explanation of dates in table

The table has "dates" - could there be some explanation of what these dates mean? In simple terms - in practice, I think I know what the dates are supposed to mean, but surely an explanation of this should be in the table or in a footnote.--Gregalton (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Nat added a footnote, date of ratification of Statute of Westminster. Since the UK parliament adopted this statute at that time, modified date to correspond. Thanks.--Gregalton (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Modified it to say when it was enacted by the realms (formerly dominions) early on & for those that got simply independence afterwards. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am returning the date for the UK. The footnote clearly states that the date is the enactment of the Statute of Westminster or independence, the date does apply - Westminster was enacted in 1931 by the UK parliament. If someone wishes to argue why it does not apply, please do so rather than reverting.--Gregalton (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend putting the UK creation date aswell 1801, just to show it existed as a realm (albeit the British realm) before the others. Having both dates there, would show the UK ceased to be the head of a British Empire & became a Commonwealth realm (the UK became one of the boys) in 1931. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually 1949 would be the accurate date; when the Republic of Ireland was formed (thus severing it's final ties to the UK). GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the footnote is date of enactment of Statute of Westminster, so this is the accurate date. Unless we change the meaning of the date.--Gregalton (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this article deals with the momment the UK became a Commonwealth ream, 1931 can stay. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(Mostly in response to Gregalton):
That's just a case of ambiguity in the footnote. The dates represent when each country became fully independent within the Commonwealth while keeping the British monarch (as legally transformed into a national monarch of its own) for its head of state -- in other words, when it became what is now commonly termed a "Commonwealth realm". This whole concept of "since when" does not really apply to Britain, which was an independent kingdom beforehand. That is why the table said "n/a", for Britain, when it was first made (October '06)and until this July 14, when a passing editor change that to "original realm", I assume by way of explaining why "n/a" -- "not applicable because it is the original realm". Before the information was made into a table, there was instead a list wherein Britain was undated while the others had "since...[year]".
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - n/a for Britain. john k (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live with this current variant, but since UK parliament did enact SoW, the date does apply. Please note that the table/date does not read "since when" anywhere, hence my original request - and that would likely be ambiguous also, since they were arguably realms/dominions/whatever before with slightly different status. Simplest would be to avoid the question of what "since when" means and limit future discussion/argument about the nuances of "realminess" by having fact that cannot be disputed. Would anyone object to having 1931 in the box, but with a footnote saying that, as realm from which others gained independence, not applicable to UK internal governance? This would clarify that UK also enacted Westminster and should be unassailable internal logic.--Gregalton (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better to stick with the very long-standing consensus, stable for years, that the concept of having become a realm does not rightly apply to the UK, and to amend the footnote to accord with that consensus. I don't know whether the footnote was written with mistaken understanding, or merely ambiguously. However, it failed to capture the long-standing intent, in this particular regard.
I'm unsure what you're driving at by "Please note...", but my point in referring to the history of the article is that "since when..." was, and is, the intent, which intent had unfortunately become somewhat obscured so that you -- and I'm not blaming you for this -- where unsure what the "Date" column was meant to represent.
Although it was the UK parliament which enacted the Statute of Westminster, that statute applied to the "dominions" of the British Empire, not to the governance of the home country (except insofar as that the UK parliament relinquished most of its legislative powers over the dominions).
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Article organization

Can we please stop the edit warring & bring the dispute herer? Can we do that? GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am courageously abstaining from having any opinion on whether there should be two tables or one (until there's some reason), but GoodDay is right that reversions are not constructive. Take it to the talk page. That is, here.--Gregalton (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That would apply to the first revert as well as those thereafter, I imagine.

I don't have my heart set on tables, whether one or two; my thinking is only that the dabs at the head of each monarchy article now direct readers here for more information on the other realm monarchies, as opposed to the now defunct, but dedicated Commonwealth realm monarchies. For their ease of navigation, it would seemingly be better to have a distinct section that lists the other monarchy articles, thereby fulfilling the purpose of the dabs elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said by edit-summary, there is no good reason to split into two tables what was set out just fine in a single table -- and no reason at all for doing so which is internal to this article and the best presentation of its material. Splitting the table into two for the external reason of wishing to have a dedicated "monarchies only" section for those dablinks is wrongheaded for the same reason that having the lately deleted "Commonwealth realms monarchies" article was wrongheaded. Just link to the table that is there; the information is right there, within it. (For that matter, it might be better to just link to the article as a whole, for sake of context, though I can see that both ways.)
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I also concur that the one table is more than suited enough to contain the info needed to a viewer quickly & easily rather than split up. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll or Survey

Hello Loner & G2, please discuss your squabble here. Though I've never heard of this type of argument (as it concerns with wordings in the talk-page). GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground & others

I see no problem with linking British Royal Family or anything British royal/monarchy etc to this article's section. What do other think? GoodDay 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that was the resolution reached at Talk:Royal Burial Ground for that and other similar examples where the Royal Family is being looked at in an international context; not necessarily in every occurance of the words "British Royal Family," though. Also, keep in mind I've only started a section here as per discussion at Talk:RBG; it may (probably) needs further work. --G2bambino 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem & I've now pleaded with Loner to hold off & discuss. GoodDay 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A link to "British Royal Family" should lead to "British Royal Family", not somewhere else; having it lead to a section of "Commonwealth realm" makes no sense and is a disservice to readers.
The agreement at "Royal Burial Ground" (RBG) was to ensure that both "British Royal Family" and "Commonwealth realm" adequately explained the shared monarchy thing, and to take the issue there (i.e. to this article and to "British Royal Family"). The thinking, evidently, was that in that way links from other articles to "Commonwealth realm" or (as in the case of RBG) to "British Royal Family" would be problem-free in that aspect. Articles such as RBG would thus not need to be troubled any further.
-- Lonewolf BC 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, glad you've decided to discuss here. Now, let the fur fly boys. GoodDay 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The decision was to take the issue here, not to British Royal Family, so as to create a section covering the shared aspects of the Royal Family.

Regardless of that, the linking is a non-issue; links are piped all over Wikipedia to wherever the appropriate source of further information is found; the section here clearly explains that the shared royal family is commonly called the "British Royal Family." British Royal Family is obviously not an appropriate place to find such data as it - and the dab at the head obviously tells us this - focuses on the Royal Family within the context of the United Kingdom, not the international context.

RBG, and other articles, will thus be troubled only as long as lone editors are resistant against commonly reached decisions on how to progress. --G2bambino 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with pipe-linking the section in question to articles that require it (articles that have international content). GoodDay 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Howabout a compromise (please see edit) - British Royal Family, it might work. GoodDay 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the general understanding was that both British Royal Family and Commonwealth realm could have discussions of this stuff, so that articles like Royal Burial Ground can link to British Royal Family, which is obviously the natural place to link it. The extent of each article's discussion of these issues was left up in the air, and I know G2 thinks most of it should go here, and not at British Royal Family, but there was certainly no consensus on that. john k 23:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is to be the case, then British Royal Family will have to be extensively re-written; it currently focuses almost exclusively on the family in its British context, with near-nothing mentioned about the international positions and the reason why it's inaccurately called the British Royal Family in that scope. --G2bambino 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What about my double pipe link idea (above)? GoodDay 23:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for it. Royal Burial Ground has nothing directly to do with the Commonwealth realms, and there's no reason for a link to that article that I can see. If everyone else agrees to it, though, I won't stand in the way. john k 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The members of the Royal Family that belongs to the Commonwealth realms don't have anything to do with the Commonwealth realms? Are you serious? --G2bambino 16:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the British monarch also rules Canada and Tuvalu, and that members of the British royal family occasionally perform duties relating to Canada (and perhaps very rarely perform duties relating to Tuvalu) is almost wholly irrelevant to an article about a cemetery where members of said family are buried. john k 16:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove that, please. --G2bambino 16:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What am I supposed to prove? How can anything I said in my last comment possibly be "proven"? Clearly, I was expressing my opinion as to the relevance of particular material, and opinion cannot be "proven". I can try to elaborate on my position, if you'd like, but I doubt that would be useful. But my basic feeling is that the monarchy in the Commonwealth realms is not particularly important in most discussions of things relating to British royalty, and that we shouldn't go out of our way to link to discussion of that issue whenever possible. If you are so blinded by your monomania that you can't see that, further explication is not going to help very much. john k 16:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, it's interesting that, after asserting, yet again, your opinion that the monarchy's relations to other countries is of little importance, you mention monomania. Whereas one person has conceded that the term "British Royal Family" should remain in most articles because it is the one most commonly applied, you seemingly continue to balk at even linking that term to anywhere that doesn't assert the primacy of the United Kingdom over all other countries. To continue to push that renders the whole preceding discussion at Talk:Royal Burial Ground useless, and puts us squarely back where we started. Thus, we need to again decide who's POV is actually supported, and I asked you to shore up yours - which you put forward as though it was fact - with evidence.

You see, what happens at Royal Burial Ground may seem trivial, but, in reality, it has somehow become the testing ground for the resolution to something that has been begging for clarification for some time now. What's done there will, hopefully, apply to a number of other articles where the Royal Family is being considered in its international - not purely British - context. --G2bambino 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah come on guys, give my double piped link a chance. GoodDay 17:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of it, GD; the prhase "British Royal Family" goes together as a whole, but your links take readers to two completely different ends. --G2bambino 17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's suppose to - it's a compromise between linking to British Royal Family and Commonwealth realm. Though admittedly, it would be confusing to less familiar readers. Oh well, it was an attempt to break the logjam. GoodDay 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is readers we should be looking out for, not trying to reconcile editors, and it's a bad idea for readers. The obvious thing to do for readers is to link British royal family to British royal family. And I really don't care about asserting the primacy of the UK. I can't imagine why I would care about that. What I care about is not using an obsession with the equality of the realms as an excuse to do very unfriendly things to the reader like having a link over text saying "British royal family" that doesn't go to "British royal family." The supposed problem which this proposal "solves" is of such minor importance that it is very much not worth it. john k 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Royal Burial Ground, leave it linked to British Royal Family, as for non-UK commonwealth realm pages? link to their respective Monarchy of X articles. GoodDay 22:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, John, stop trying to denigrate my motives as unfriendly because they may go against your personal views. I don't know exactly what you think, of course, but your arguments on talk pages from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Monarchy of Canada seem to demonstrate that the equality of the realms either doesn't exist or, if it does, doesn't matter. Calling a desire to make a valid concept clear to readers an "obsession" adds further credibility to the suspicion.

Readers are exactly the focus of my efforts. Directing them to an article that focuses on the Royal Family in the context of the United Kingdom from an article or section that focuses on the family in it's pan-national context it what does them a disservice - it muddies the issue at best, downright misrepresents it at worst. As I said already, and a point that has so far been ignored, the section in the article here on the Royal Family clearly states that the group is most commonly referred to as the "British Royal Family" (and even links there, as it is). As it does that, I can't see how readers would be confused by the linking. However, if you absolutely insist that all links go directly to the article British Royal Family, then that article will have to be extensively altered so as to not simply focus on the family in the UK. --G2bambino 02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, my feeling is that the equality of the realms, for the most part, doesn't matter, except in very specific contexts. My feeling is that linking to an article that is specifically about the royal family, as opposed to a section of an article which specifically focuses on the monarchy in a very specific context, is the right thing to do in cases where the article does not specifically relate to the commonwealth realms. john k 07:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, hidden within your comment seems to be an agreement with what I'm saying: specific contexts dictate the endpoint of a link. I suppose it now comes down to where you feel an aricle relates to the Commonwealth realms and where it does not. --G2bambino 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that would seem to be the major issue between us. I think that, say, something talking about a member of the royal family actually acting on behalf of one of the commonwealth realms "relates to the Commonwealth realms." But I don't think instances much beyond that qualify. john k 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, acting on behalf of one of the realms, other than the UK or Canada. But, what of where they're acting on behalf of no one realm in particular? --G2bambino 22:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, we should stick with the general fact that they live in the UK, that they hold specific titles only in the UK, etc. etc. etc. Bringing the Commonwealth Realms into it is completely unnecessary. john k 07:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Then here's where you and I part ways; where they live, their titles, etc. have little to do with the matter outside of the United Kingdom itself. So what if they live in the UK and have titles there? That doesn't make them any less the royal family of fifteen other countries. Thus, where the royal family is being mentioned in no specific national context, why then arbitrarily apply a national context? --G2bambino 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely the Royal Burial Ground is within the UK itself? Beyond that, I don't think that it is "arbitrary" to consider them to be, by default, the British royal family. There are numerous reasons, both historical and current, to do so. john k 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, but were the people buried there - which is what this discussion focuses on, not geography - representing the United Kingdom when they were interred? Beyond that, of course it is arbitrary to consider them to be, "by default," the British Royal Family; historical reasoning doesn't matter in a modern scope, and contemporary reasoning would dictate that such a default would be, in fact, wrong. When not in a specific context they are the royal family of all realms all of the time. So, again, where the royal family is being mentioned in no specific national context, why then arbitrarily apply a national context? --G2bambino 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking an observation from Wikipedia: Lamest edit wars -- Has anyone asked the bodies in the RBG, what nationality they are? GoodDay 17:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen! Why must it be necessary to link every Royal Family article to the Commonwealth realms? In my opinion, it's just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. It's pushing the 'equality of the realms' thing to pointless extremes. And the Royal Burial Ground? It ranks just below Mating Habits of Gastropods in the list of important articles. And Jeez, if you wanna be really pedantic- it's not the Royal Burial Ground for nations who gained independence from Britain after 1953, is it? No monarch of say, Jamaica is buried there. So maybe we should make some new articles: Royal UK Burial Grounds, Royal Australian Burial Grounds, etc. --Gazzster 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever, once, said "every Royal Family article." --G2bambino 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what I mean. --Gazzster 07:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know what you mean, actually. If you read through the above discussion you'll see that John and I are talking very much about specific contexts; quite the opposite to "every Royal Family article." --G2bambino 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Most commonon usage (British) -VS- Legal accuracy (all Commonwealth realms) OR as I prefer UK, first among equals VS All are equal. Why not (again) use British for predominatly British articles & link to Commonwealth realm for non-British commonwealth realm articles? GoodDay 15:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are other issues besides "most common usage" in favor of viewing them as, in absence of other contexts, British. In terms of the royal family, rather than the monarch, there remains some question if it is "legally accurate" to consider them the royal family for all of the commonwealth realms. john k 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing struggle (I can't even remember when/where it all began), is there any solutions out there, to end it? Could we have a survey/poll to end these struggles once and for all? GoodDay 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

John, royal families are not exclusively defined by laws; generally, the family of a monarch is the royal family. If EIIR is the monarch of all of the Commonwealth realms, then her family is the royal family of all of the Commonwealth realms. This is simple logic, and the reality of practice - i.e. that, say, the Princess Royal goes to Jamaica at the invitation of the Jamaican government, the trip is paid for by the Jamaican government, and Anne is representing the Queen as Queen of Jamaica - demonstrates its validity.

GD, I think you misunderstand what we're discussing here. Common usage has been decided on. It is now context that is being hammered out. --G2bambino 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That Anne might represent the Queen in her capacity as Queen of Jamaica does not mean that Anne is a member of a Jamaican royal family, any more than the Governor-General of Jamaica is a member of the Jamaican royal family. The only difference is that the Princess Royal is a daughter of the sovereign of Jamaica, while the governor-general is (at least these days) not related. But to say that being related to the sovereign performing duties for the sovereign=member of a royal family of a country is unwarranted - it is an original synthesis, and as such is OR. john k 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we then leave the RBG article alone? Leave British Royal Family linked to British Royal Family, please? GoodDay 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever for? --G2bambino 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cause the majority of editors here prefer it that way, for starters. Also, if you change it again? Lonewolf BC will re-appear & revert it (by the way, where's Loner?). GoodDay 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the "majority of editors" prefer it that way? And besides, what does that, or Loner, even matter?

Let's not confound the discussion with unnecessary sidetracks. We have to decide on a common tactic to adopt in all these situations where the royal family is being discussed in a non-national context. --G2bambino 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to you all before - Link the 'commonwealth realm section' to non-UK commonwealth realm articles only. Yes, that idea does seperate the UK realm articles - but that's the best I can offer, under the circumstances. GoodDay 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but what do you mean by "non-UK Commonwealth realm articles"? Are you talking geographically or jurisdictionally? For instance, the Queen and many members of the Royal Family dedicated the Canadian War Memorial in London, in the presence of the Canadian PM and other ministers. The royals were therefore clearly acting as the Canadian Royal Family, but in the United Kingdom.

If by "non-UK Commonwealth realm articles" you mean those in which the royal family is being discussed either a) in association with a realm that is not either the UK or Canada, or b) in association with no one particular country, then, yes, I agree with you; link to the section here. --G2bambino 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Geography is my preference (as nobody can argue the country they're in), if the Queen is making a dedication to the CWM in the UK? link her to British. If she's making a dedication to the CWM in Canada? link to 'Commonwealth realm' OR better yet Monarchy of Canada. Now, as for your a & b questions - singling out Canada & UK is unacceptable/singling UK is acceptable. When dealing with UK alone we link British, other Commonwealth realms? we link to their versions: Canada to Monarchy of Canada, Australia to Monarchy of Australia etc. GoodDay 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your answer is very confusing. "A" and "b" are not choices, they are the two possible situations where we would not link to British Royal Family.

I would love to link to each monarchy/royal family article where appropriate. But, there exists circumstances that disallow this: 1) there aren't monarchy articles for all the realms; 2) none but Canada and the UK have a section/article on the royal family. That is exactly why I felt this article should hold a general section that applied to all those realms that currently lack a dedicated, nation-specific article or section on the royal family acting within that country's jurisdiction, or no particular jurisdiction. --G2bambino 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore above answer - Link the 'Commonwealth realm section' to any Commonwealth realm related article accept the UK. The United Kingdom rightly/wrongly has to be given 'ever so slightly' special treatment. GoodDay 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost. Link to the section here from any article or section of an article that speaks about the royal family in any context except those of the UK or Canada, as each of those two realms presently have their own article or section of an article that can be linked to. --G2bambino 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - would the 14 other realms get links to their royal family when such sections are created? GoodDay 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine yes; if such sections could be created. --G2bambino 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Then it's acceptable. GoodDay 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - in the case of the burial ground at least, we are talking about a link concerning a family, their lives (and deaths). There can be all sorts of crazy arguments about how articles concerning that family should be named, and how information about them should be included in this page and the controversially titles "Monarchy of X" articles, but this sort of link should go to an article that is about the family, not simply the constitutional role of the family in one or more of the realms. Any issues of equality should be dealt with well enough within that article, as well as in other places. We shouldn't split it up to emphasise the distinct realms at the expense of presenting the information well. JPD (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If British Royal Family is to be the destination of links in either a non-UK, non-Canadian, non-national conxtext, then that's fine if the article itself is to be extensively reworked, as it currently focuses only on the context of the UK. --G2bambino 19:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article, we have sections on a) who is a member of the royal family; b) the civil list, of which no equivalent exists in any other commonwealth realms; c) the public role and image of the royal family, which necessarily focuses on the country where they have, by far, the largest public role, but could certainly stand to have some discussion of the realms - currently there's one sentence and a link; d) styles and titles and peerages, which, again, only exist in the UK. I fail to see how extensive rewriting is necessary - basically, most stuff that a British royal family article would cover has mostly to do with the UK. john k 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to the RBG article - if the opening line is gonna be British Royal Family then that's the article it should linked to. The only way that can change, would be if the line is changed to Royal Family (or Families) of the Commonwealth realms (and that might be original research). Using this kind of re-direct British Royal Family can cause confusion to non-familiar readers (who would be expecting to be taken to 'British Royal Family'). GoodDay 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said: okay, let's link to British Royal Family, but, that article will need some hefty reworking so that it doesn't just focus on the UK context. --G2bambino 21:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, I would suggest, original research to posit that the Royal Burial Grounds in the UK are the official RBGs for the Commonwealth realms. It may seem obvious that they are. However, just as we cannot link the royal residences to the Commonwealth realms because they are on UK sovereign soil, we cannot link the RBG to the sovereign soil of another nation. In fact, the only thing about the Windsor monarchy than can be linked constitutionally to the CRs is the person of the monarch herself. And I'll repeat that it is extraordinarily unecessary. It opens a Pandora's box. Why not also link Royal Residences, Westminster Abbey, Queen's Private Secretary and the Royal Corgis?--Gazzster 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Gazz, I can agree with your observations about possible original research. But, if we stick so closely to the rules in this case, then the whole Royal Burial Ground article will have to be deleted as it is not supported by a single source.

How about, for the meantime, we forget about Royal Burial Ground specifically, and concentrate more on what to do in general when a case like this arises. --G2bambino 21:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That an article does not currently cite sources does not mean that it constitutes original research. It should be trivial to find sources for basic information about the Royal Burial Ground, surely? That means that the article itself is simply an example of an article which currently doesn't have citations, not an indication of OR. On the other hand, it seems likely that there is no published information about the RBG and the Commonwealth Realms, which would make it OR. john k 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Rethinking this: Not necessarily. There are sources that affirm that the royal family whose former members are interred in the RBG is not solely British. Hence, "British Royal Family" in that context is the shared royal family that is most commonly called the "British Royal Family." The question remains: where does "British Royal Family" link to from that context? --G2bambino 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But this is original synthesis - you are combining what to different sources say to say something else which neither of them says. That's OR. Now, it's true that "original synthesis" becomes soggy around the edges - any kind of paraphrase will involve some kind of original synthesis, most likely. But I think this is a fairly clear case of it, and a good example of why it's generally forbidden. john k 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you're left with only one choice: go with only that which is directly cited. This means, for instance, the article on Prince Andrew, Duke of York will have to say that he is a member of the British Royal Family and Canadian Royal Family, as we only have cites to prove those two assertions correct. While technically true, and verifiable, it is also rather misleading in it's limited scope. My wish is to remove any of the ambiguity. --G2bambino (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

:Are there any members of the English Royal Family, Scottish Royal Family, Irish Royal Family buried there? GoodDay 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Sounds good to me. --Gazzster 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. GoodDay 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

GoodDay's comments

As for the above mentioning of how to handle the Prince Andrew article for example? I recommend leaving his article linked to British Royal Family (at least until the Royal Family section is completed - all 16 versions). Even then, I'm not sure if we can sell it (commonwealth realm Royal Family links) GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, GD, I don't know what you mean by 16 versions of a royal family section. What I'm proposing is a link like this: British Royal Family; wherein the link's wording uses the common terminology but links to the nationally non-specific section here (which then explains the use of the common terminology). Either that or a direct link to a revamped British Royal Family; though I prefer to leave the article "British Royal Family" as is and go with the former proposal. I could be convinced otherwise, though. --G2bambino (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant we should wait until the Commonwealth realm section (in question) is completed, before we start linking to it. That's assuming it's accepted as a link. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For royal biographies concerning the Commonwealth realms (like Prince Andrew), those links should remain British. Trying to push for the Commonwealth link in those situations, might be going too far. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Effigy on coins and banknotes?

For example, her effigy usually appears on coins and banknotes...

This I know to be the case in the United Kingdom and in Canada. This I also know not to be the case in Barbados and in my native land of Jamaica.

There are sixteen Commonwealth realms. Do more than eight of these have the Queen's effigy on coins and banknotes? As I have said, I know of two that do and two that don't. What of the other twelve? Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, Liz's face appears on the reverse of every coin, but only on the five dollar banknote.--Gazzster (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears only on the Canadian $20 dollar note if memory serves. All coins though - except that when I was last there I found a quarter with George VI on it, which couldn't happen in the UK as all coins have been either withdrawn or resized since then. TharkunColl (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Four more (and one republic) with the Queen on the coins. NZ too, making eight, but not PNG. It is probably fair to say her effigy "usually appears on coins", but this is another example of why sweeping statements about Commonwealth realms should always be taken with a grain of salt. JPD (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That's because of the attempt to put 16 sovereign nations with different customs, languages, religions and ways of governing themselves into one 'fits all' box. But I wont go on about that again. By the way, it's 2008 here in Aussie, so happy new year! (Yes, I know- I don't have a life - on Wikipedia on New Years morning!)--Gazzster (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

?? Yet, Gazzster, weren't you the one who earlier said all the Commonwealth realm monarchy articles should be lumped into one, save for the British monarchy?

I agree about the need to be careful with sweeping statements, but those can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Nice to communicate through time, though. How is the future, Gazz? (Still 12.5 hours to go here in Toronto.) --G2bambino (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You got me there, I did say that. I suppose I'd rather that Commonwealth realm wasn't used at all. But in the interests of good will and the New Year, I will refrain! I was called out to work, so I didn't notice the year in. Oh well!--Gazzster (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to the topic here, she has been or still is on many of the currencies (banknotes mainly) in the nations mentioned on this link: http://www.pjsymes.com.au/qe2/default.htm (may have another better source to add to the article here?). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

Public Perceptions - Debate on the Monarchy - Paragraph two The first sentence is clumsy and run-on. Consider revising? AghastAmok (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Queen's Title

The list of titles in the table seems tedious and repetitive. Is it necessary to present it in this manner? Papua New Guinea is the only nation of which she is not the queen 'by god's grace'. Is this an accidental omission?--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There are more differences than that. --G2bambino (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m no expert, but shouldn’t “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith” be “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”? Lodonian (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No.. It becomes simpler if you imagine her title written thus:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God,

(of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

and of Her other Realms and Territories,)

Queen.

Head of the Commonwealth,

Defender of the Faith.

It's an archaic phrasing to put the titles that way round, but it is indeed correct. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 04:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition

If the group is defined as having in common a particular individual as Head of State then the article should tell us what happens when that reign terminates, by death or abdication. Is it defined or implied that all members of the Commonwealth Realm share the monarch of the United Kingdom ? If it is not defined then that should be explicit. Reg nim (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is defined. Read "The Crown and the Commonwealth" --Lholden (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Free State/Ireland - a Separate Realm?

The current Monarchy in Ireland article states: "It was five years before the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 revived the title King of Ireland as a separate position to the British crown"

Was the King acting on the authority of the Irish Free State (later Ireland) government acting in "a separate position to the British crown"? To my knowledge there was no Act of the Oireachtas declaring the King, "King of Ireland". - On my, admittedly unresearched reading, the 1927 Act merely restyled the UK monarch's title and in no way created "a separate position" for the Free State. On my reading separate monarchs for each Realm was a later development (1950s) although the restyling of the UK monarch's title was a precursor. Am I wrong on this? Does any one have any legal knowledge on this matter?

On very much a realted point, the Commonwealth realm article describes Irish Free State/ Ireland as a commonwealth realm. Ireland severed all links with the monarchy in 1949. Similarly to the above, on my reading up to 1949 Ireland's status, strictly speaking, never exceeded that of a Dominion. Am I right or wrong on this. If it was never a Commonwealth Realm, some changes will flow from this. Considered views would be welcome. Thanks. Redking7 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can give you an answer. My guess is the IFS (Irish Free State) was a Commonwealth realm, as its Head of State was a monarch -George V, Edward VIII, George VI-. I'm not certain though - I'm no very good at the legal stuff. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to the Irish! Trust them to be different.'Dominion' has no constitutional definition. Neither does 'Commonwealth realm', (which is by and large a Wiki invention). Ireland is just what it is: Ireland!--Gazzster (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution for the IFS makes interesting reading. Article 2: Article 2.

'All powers of government and all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial, in Ireland are derived from the people of Ireland, and the same shall be exercised in the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) through the organisations established by or under, and in accord with, this Constitution'. So even the power of the King came from the will of the people. So it might be valid to describe the IFS as a sort of crowned republic.--Gazzster (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That gets too much into the subtlties surrounding the definition of "republic"; by some, any constitutional monarchy is a republic (and that puts a spanner in the works of many republican arguments against monarchy!). I find myself with GoodDay on this one: after 1931 Ireland was as much an independent kingdom as any of the other realms (regard Edward VIII being King of Ireland and George VI being king of all the other realms for one day in 1936). However, it wasn't until around 1950 that the term Commonwealth realm started to come into use, so, as Ireland was already by that point a republic, could it have been classed as a Commonwealth realm before that? --G2bambino (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to classify Ireland. It suffices to describe it.--Gazzster (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What was stated above was true in terms of Ireland (& even India for that matter) to being called realms. So rather than changing the subtopic entitled "Former Commonwealth realms" (which most listed in it became), I only added in the word dominions alongside with realms above the table in there to eliminate any confusion in relation to the said nations. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User: That-Vela-Fella and have made a few further consequential changes. Redking7 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago

Hi,

Trinidad and Tobago, if I'm not mistaken, is also a member of the commonwealth realm. Tried to edit the page but I could not add it to the table.

Could this be amended please?

Thanks trini1977Trini1977 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Trinidad and Tobago is a republic, and therefore cannot be a Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite correct, T&T is a Commonwealth republic. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though that term is a neologism... but, I digress. --G2bambino (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As was "Commonwealth realm" to start with. --Lholden (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All terms are neologisms to start with. The only thing is, Wikipedia isn't supposed to create them, which it didn't in the case of Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It did to some extent, for it makes an infrequently and informally used term into a full-blown organisational tool.--Gazzster (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

With its own Project name, no less.--Gazzster (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Organizational tool is one thing. Neologisms are completely another. --G2bambino (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note Trinidad and Tobago is mentioned in the section on Former Commonwealth realms/dominions. T&T ceased to be a Commonwealth realm in 1976 as per the article: President of Trinidad and Tobago--Matilda ^talk 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, we have the Wikipedia article Commonwealth republic. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

I have added a sub sub section on Chronology. It is still a work in progress and hence I have tagged as incomplete list. However, I think it will progress faster with several editors working on it and of course all of wikipedia is a work in progress but this one has some glaring ommissions to be filled. I think it a useful sub sub section but happy for others to disagree / discuss. --Matilda ^talk 06:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago you asked me to comment on this. I've given it some thought and, frankly, couldn't see the point. It seems to cover events that occurred long before any notion of a Commonwealth realm, and events associated distinctly with one country or another, as opposed to the realms in general. Accordingly, I've deleted it. No hard feelings, I hope. --G2bambino (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings though as per my reverting edit summary I would have preferred discussion before removal. I think then it is a matter of the scope of the chronology. Events before the existence of the Commonwealth demonstrate why the scope of the Commonwealth is as it is but if you prefer it can be reformatted to exclude events before the Commonwealth was formed - I disagree the section should be removed.--Matilda ^talk 02:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was merely following WP:BOLD. That said, I think the first thing to establish is the actual purpose of the section. The "History" section already outlines the chronological events associated with the emergence and development of the Commonwealth realms. Why, then, do we need to repeat it again, only in a different format? If you feel the "History" section is incomplete, why not just add there whatever is missing? --G2bambino (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of info issue - the chronology presents the info much clearer than the history - that seems to be a if its in a block of not very quick to grab facts - take the piccies and graphical layout and put it into a 1913 enyc style block of grey text? - so I would reverse the above users proposition - take the history out and use the chronology SatuSuro 02:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That goes against the manual of style. --G2bambino (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

heheh - so can WP:BOLD viz 6 lines up - no worries - I never saw anything in MOS to say lets go back to more text when there is an opportunity to have photos or graphical layout though - cheers SatuSuro 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that. But it does say: "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." Is there some reason the "History" section doesn't read clearly using plain paragraphs? --G2bambino (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok your point is quite valid - I am just interested to see what I thought of as a well constructed chronology almost went to the bin - please keep up your good work! SatuSuro 03:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Debate on the Monarchy

The section 'Debate on the Monarchy' reads like commentary. There are no citations for any of the statements. Prominence is given to the monarchist position while the republican arguments are simplified. If one was to write a political commentary (which isn't our role), we might state that a great many republicans argue against the monarchy on the grounds that their countries ought to have a native head of state; or that the royal role is symbolic anyway (so why cant a native fulfil that symbolic role). There are also constitutional arguments which will vary according to each nation. I don't want to get into these things. I want to demonstrate that there are multiple republic positions. Just as there are multiple monarchist positions.

But to return to my first observation: it is commentary, and should really be deleted. Any other thoughts?--Gazzster (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete the commentary. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, for all its supposed monarchist bias, the section was originally given life by a republican. Regardless, I don't see much merit in it; links to Republicanism in Australia, Monarchism in Canada, and the like, should suffice. --G2bambino (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the section, and I'm a republican. I think the section needs more information around the debate on the succession law, if anything. --Lholden (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, guys.--Gazzster (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change dab link on Commonwealth realm articles

At the moment it reads: "This article is about the monarchy of the United Kingdom, one of sixteen that share a common monarch; for information about this constitutional relationship, the other Commonwealth realm monarchies, and other relevant articles, see Commonwealth realm; for information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II." In my humble opinion this is far too long, I think something along the lines of "X is a commonwealth realm. For the common monarch, see Elizabeth II. For the contitutional relationship, see Commonwealth realm. What are your views?--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree User:Cameron. I don't think the term Commonwealth realm should be used at all on the DAB page. It has no legal meaning. Canada or the UK or Barbados do not call themselves the "Commonwealth Realm of Canada" etc. either. Your suggestion would lead to yet more emphasis being placed on this contested term of dubious validity. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Contested term? Its use is cited, multiply. I think you're confusing Commonwealth realm with Commonwealth kingdom and Commonwealth republic. The dabs were put at the top of each article essentially because of the shared nature of the Crown, and to allow readers to quickly realise the article they were looking at might not be the one they wanted. I now wonder if they should all just say: "This article is about the monarchy of X; for information on the monarchies of the other countries in personal union with X, see Commonwealth realm." --G2bambino (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I support your wording User:G2bambino. It is a definite improvement. It doesn't call countries "Commonwealth realms". As for "Commonwealth realm" being a contested term - the fact that there are bodies or persons who use it does not mean that it is not a dubious or contested term. The fact remains it has no legal meaning and no country calls itself the "Commonwealth Realm of X" etc. Any one can start using a term. That "use" could then be cited for further use but that does not mean it is an appropriate or valid term. We need to be careful how we use such terms but I think the wording you have suggested is fine. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Term's definition and use

Well, I'm glad you like my proposal. However, I do continue to not understand your issue with the term Commonwealth realm; I think the fact that nobody - beyond Wikipedia - contests it shows that it is not a contested term, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. A term doesn't need to have legal meaning or officiality to be recognised as existent; after all, we have an article on Fuzzy measure theory. --G2bambino (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not be contested beyond Wikipedia. Lack of presented evidence to the contrary is no proof that it is not contested. Internet sites (not always the most reliable sources)do use the term. But it has no legal or constitutional meaning. Where it is used beyond this institution, it seems to be an informal term of convenience. In that context, it could be argued that Wikipedia actually gives the term a life that has little relation to the political use of the term. And in this sense Wikipedia onvents the term, so to speak. And some users might feel they can legitimately contest the term. I think that's what Redking may be implying.--Gazzster (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Sources say the Commonwealth realms are "countries within the Commonwealth [that] have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs." In what way, then, does Wikipedia give the term a life beyond this definition? Only a deviation from this meaning could be legitimately contested. --G2bambino (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the way I have intimated. You quote from that particular royal website. And there are some other non-Wiki Net -based sources. I have searched in vain for a scholarly treatment of the term on paper or on the Net. No other encyclopedia or dictionary I have come across uses the term. But if one runs a Google search a plethora of references does indeed appear. But a second glance reveals that most of the references link directly to Wikipedia. Many that don't still cite Wikipedia as sources. Which to mwe, begs the question: how much has Wikipedia inflated the term and, as I say, given it a life unjustified by its actual use in politics and culture? As Redking and others have said, CR has no legal oer constitutional definition: it is not part of the title of any of the nations who share Elizabeth as their Queen. I feel that Wikipedia attempts to give the term a dignity and context it does not have. I find this somewhat disturbing, since Wikipedia is often sourced, Q.E.D. One of the criticisms of Wikipedia is that it unwittingly manipulates and sometimes manufactures truth. It is not scholarly; it is populist.--Gazzster (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You have intimated that the term is over-used in Wikipedia, not that its meaning has been distorted by Wikipedia. Those are two completely separate issues. --G2bambino (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be drifting again! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with what User:Gazzster has said. User:G2bambino: - it has been well put by User:Gazzster that the significance and meaning of the 'term' has been distorted by Wikipedia. Redking7 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The significance, perhaps. The meaning, certainly not. And neither of you have provided any contrete examples for either, so the case has hardly been "well put." --G2bambino (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The points are subtle, I grant you. I think the hypothetical scenario put in the section below illustrates however that CR is an informal term of convenience. 'Commonwealth realm' means, on the face of it, a realm that is in the Commonwealth. But it is not a very precise or descriptive term. One would think it would include monarchies with indigenous dynasties that are within the Commonwealth. It does not seem to however. And 'Commonwealth' does nothing to describe them. The concept rests on the notion of a number of realms sharing the British monarch as their own. Their being in the Commonwealth is incidental to that concept, as demonstrated by the hypothetical scenario of such a realm leaving the Commonwealth. So even the literal meaning of the term is ambiguous.--Gazzster (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino: Firstly "significance" and "meaning" overlap. Secondly: Here's a concrete example (easily found!) where the Commonwealth realm term's meaning is distorted. Its an example from the above posting by User: Cameron. He propsed this statement for a DAB page: "X is a Commonwealth realm. For the common monarch, see Elizabeth II. For the contitutional relationship, see Commonwealth realm." Intended or not, this totally distorted the significance and meaning of the Commonwealth realm term. It implied that the CR term had a constitutional and legal meaning and significance. It does not. It also completely overstated the significance of the term (thereby further distorting its meaning) by asserting that "CR" was the primary status and best way to describe a sovereign country and the very first thing a reader should read about the country on the DAB page. Redking7 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but we're not going with that proposal, so the example is rendered invalid. --G2bambino (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless our overall use of the term givers the impression of a legal dignity it does not possess.--Gazzster (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was asking for an example of that; none has been so far provided. --G2bambino (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)\

My third posting back points out problems with the term. And the reams of discussion we have had over the last months and more surely indicates how some users have tried to squeeze more out of the term than it can give. I'd call that distorting meaning as well. Apologies to all for my last edit: I did not read the paragraph well enough. --Gazzster (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's been lots of vague references to some users using the term in some ways in some places. I'm not really sure I see what you're seeing, or, at least as much of it. So, I'm asking for concrete examples. Are there any? --G2bambino (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As you say, during the course of discussions there has been many interpretations of what the term specifically means. You will remember the famous R vs r debate, which was a candidate for Wikipedia:lamest edit wars. Broadly, some wanted to formalise the term, while others didn't. (Interestingly, the first source for the term on this page does not capitalise). Then there was the suggestion that the UK, as the source and hub, as it were, of the other monarchies, could not be a CR. There was the assertion that CR and Dominion are interchangeable terms. None of these made it to edit, but they may very well have, for the following reason: CR is, as the article acknowledges, an informal term. As such, it is a fertile ground for discussion. But as soon as we start to categorise by an informal term, we open the floodgates to all kinds of assertions and speculations. And that is why CR-related articles are so often battlegrounds - there is very little set in concrete. So to answer you, it's not so much a matter of specific examples, but of a mire of hypotheses and interpretations.--Gazzster (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. But, as always, sources are the ultimate foundation for what we put here. The "R" vs. "r" thing (sad as it was) brought forth sources that showed both versions in use; it was eventually established from sources that the UK is itself a Commonwealth realm; Dominion to realm... I think there were sources that talked about the shift in the 1950s, I don't fully remember right now. Anyway, as long as we stick to that, we're fine. Anyone trying to put in personal creative interpretations would have them removed just as it would be for any other topic. Why does this one attract a particular amount of attack? I'm not sure; perhaps because it can overlap with people's personal political leanings or nationalist feelings. But it's certainly not the only subject on Wikipedia to do so. --G2bambino (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten there were souces for R too. And you're right; political and nationalist sentiment plays a part too, as it does in many articles. As far as I'm concerned though, I do love discussing these things. There are often some very interesting discussions and we explore a bunch of cool topics.--Gazzster (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly learned a thing or two. --G2bambino (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can a "Commonwealth realm" leave the Commonwealth?

Another conundrum! It is said there are 16 "Commonwealth realms".... It hasn't happened, but as I understand it, one or more of the "Commonwealth realms" could voluntarily leave the "Commonwealth" but keep the Queen. Presumably, such a "Rebel Realm" might decide to restyle HM's style and title to drop "Head of the Commonwealth" bit. What would we call that kind of "Rebel Realm"? It would still be one of HM's "relams" but not in the "Commonwealth". I think this highlights the independent nature between (1) being a realm; and (2) being a member of the Commonwealth. I think it further higlights the many shortcommings of the dubious "Commonwealth realm" tag. Am I wrong on any of this? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting scenario! I suppose it could happen. I would think it unlikely. But yes, I agree with you that such a scenario makes comment on the usefulness of the term 'Commonwealth realm'. As G2 says, the term is used sometimes, but not, I suggest, in any legal sense. Wikipedia uses it as an organisational tool. That might have its conveniences, but we should be careful not to treat it as an official, legal term, as some users try to do. I'd say, deal with the problem of a monarchy in personal union with the United Kingdom leaving the Commonwealth if and when it happens. The trend seems to be for such countries to become republics so I doubt we'll be faced with the conundrum.--Gazzster (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it may have almost happened with Fiji in 1987, before the second coup overthrew the monarchy.--Lholden (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The scenario might show why "Commonwealth realm" is not the best term ever, and if it occurred, a different term may start being used (or it may not - names sometimes stick, and even now "Commonwealth realm" doesn't mean simply "a realm in the Commonwealth"). That doesn't change the fact that it is the term that is used, when such a term is necessary. Whether or not it is defined by a law is really irrelevant. Of course, it was only used in limited contexts before we picked up on it, and it would be fair to say that Wikipedia overuses the term, but that doesn't mean that there is anythign dubious about the term itself. Where such a term is actuallly needed, it should be ok to use it. We definitely can't use an alternative until it is commonly used elsewhere. JPD (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing essentially wrong with using the term Commonwealth realm as long as it is not used to define the classification of the particular country . In the first sentence of the article the correct classification is used ie: ' Sovereign states '. It would be a little clearer though if the word 'states ' was replaced with 'Nations'. 'states within the Commonwealth' tends to imply that there is some sort legal jurisdiction via the Commonwealth but of course each Sovereign Nation within the Commonwealth is a member ' in free association ' ie no legal jurisdiction exists . The term 'realm' is a description of the relationship of a country to a Monarch it does not describe that countries 'political' status or degree of Sovereignty . Commonwealth realm describes a Sovereign Nation that is a member of the Commonwealth [ in free association ] and also has a relationship with a particular Monarch . I also note that in the first paragraph of the article it states that the term Dominion was never officialy revoked - that depends in what context you are using that word - if you are using the term in its 'relationship' sense ie 'one of the Kings dominions' it could still be valid [ or you could use realm ]. But if it is used in the political sense ie ' Dominion ' 'British Dominion ' or 'Dominion status ' .[ which meant ' autonomous community within the British Empire '] then at least for Australia it was formally revoked by the Australia Acts in 1986 . ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lejon (talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A Commonwealth realm can leave the Commonwealth. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. I think they are only called Commonwealth realms for want of a better name. I propose the Realms of Elizabethonia, any takers? = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, after giving it some thought, I don't believe a country with the Queen as its head of state could leave the Commonwealth, because it's essentially a question of definition. No country with the Queen ever has to join the Commonwealth - it just is a member - but if it becomes a republic it has to submit an application. This was the precedent set by India which essentially created two classes of Commonwealth member - though this distinction is now ignored or played down. However... what do we make of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1970? TharkunColl (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Must disagree with you there Tharky. The Commonwealth is a free association. Membership implies no constitutional relationship with the UK and confers no constitutional obligations. So a nation whose monarch is Elizabeth II could leave any time it wished. But, as I say, it is likely to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.--Gazzster (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What I was getting at really was not so much a question of a nations's freedom to do what it likes, as that of a definition. A definition can change (as when India set a precedent allowing republics to join), but currently the definition of Commonwealth realm has never been changed. If, say, the Australian govt. announced that it was leaving the Commonwealth, but wished to retain the Queen (a most unlikely scenerio, of course, and the exact opposite is far more likely), then a new precedent would be set. But so far, no such precedent exists. And nor is it likely to. TharkunColl (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see! A realm leaving the Commonwealth would by that very act destroy the concept. I agree. The scenario shows how deficient the term is as a description.--Gazzster (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about the scenario where "a realm leaves the Commonwealth but remains a realm" (for shorthand, I will call this the "Rebel Realm Scenario"). I agree that this scenario further highlights the many inadequacies of the "Commonwealth realm" term - a term which should only be used as a shorthand in very limited circumstances. However, I don't agree that the Rebel Realm Scenario would "destroy the concept [of a Commonwealth realm]". It is simply that the "Rebel Realm" would no longer fit neatly into the "Commonwealth realm" category...and categorisation enthusiasts would need to "make up" another category for the Rebel Realm(s), just as the "Commonwealth realm" term was made up. Some would likely try to give that new term for "Rebel Realms" airs and graces it would not have - just as some have tried to do so with the "Commonwealth realm" term.

In answer to the quesetion at the top of this discussion: A "Commonwealth realm" can leave the Commonwealth and remain a realm. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just curious - What's the purpose of this discussion? Isn't it a purely crystal ball subject? GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is useful to explore the usefulness of the term Commonwealth realm.--Gazzster (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: In particular, this discussion highlights the many limitations of the "Commonwealth realm" term and why its use in many contexts would be inappropriate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The New Map

I'd just like to ask why a new map has been placed at the top of the page. There was nothing wrong with the old one and the subtle pink colour was much more attractive than this blue. Also, surely a pink would be far more appropriate to colour a map of the Commonwealth Realms rather than a blue which does not seem to have much if any connection between these nations and HM Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.165.47 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from blue being the dominant colour in the flag of the UK, and appearing in most of the flags of the Commonwealth... PrinceOfCanada (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good to break out of the traditional way of doing things. There's no compelling reason for it to be red or blue. It could be yellow with purple spots.--Gazzster (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's blue, pink, saffron or lilac with green stripes, there are actually useful edits to be made elsewhere. The colour don't matter.--Gazzster (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I personally prefer the blue, mostly for aesthetic reasons, but it's hardly important one way or the other. My point about blue being the dominant colour was just a refutation of "does not seem to have much if any connection..." PrinceOfCanada (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I only changed it because of the colour! --Cameron (T|C) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is just getting silly.. some anonymous doofus has switched it back again. WTF. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal Union

Personal Union is an archaic term. If you disagree, please provide an official or authorative reference which states that commonwealth nation X and commonwealth nation Y are in personal union. The reference should be at least post-Empire. --Lawe (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You may have a point. 'Personal union' is generally used for particular examples in a historical context. For example: Britain and Hanover; Denmark and Norway; Austria and Hungary. And true,the term is not common nowadays. But if we don't use the term, what, if any, expression could replace it? I think 'shared monarchy', which is a term used sometimes, could answer the purpose. --Gazzster (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

see the refs 2 and 3 in our article Personal union. --Cameron (T|C) 11:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cameron. I'll be reverting it back now. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to myself but then I thought I'd justify it here first. Thanks Prince. --Cameron (T|C) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawe has come here because he originally took issue with the use of "personal union" at Republicanism in Australia. He's still keeping up the crusade there, and elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

'Personal crusade' may be too strong a term. I see it as testing the term, and not necessarily the concept, which is a healthy thing to do.A few sources does not an unassailable fortress make. His remark about it being an archaic term does indeed have some merit.--Gazzster (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, come now; it takes a lot of editing of my comments to be left with the words "personal" and "crusade" together. I only used the term "crusade" in regards to his efforts; it's just a word to describe a wide reaching effort to achieve a singular goal. Further, "testing the term" and purging it from a number of articles for the sole reason that one personally finds it "archaic" are two completely different things. --G2bambino (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Of course I have a point.

Personal crusade? No When the article about Australian republic (for which the modern movement commenced in 1990) is described using feudal terminology, there is a problem. G2bambino is reframing the article using material from the norepublic.com.au website or using Canadian references. This language is only used by people with a personal affection for the Queen. It is not used by defenders of the constitutional monarchy.

Archaic? Yes 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)

Uhh.. no. 'Personal union' is defined as the situation in which two (or more) distinct countries share the same Head of State. Do the various nations of the Commonwealth Realms have the same Head of State? Why yes in fact they do. What other possible meaningful term describes this specific situation? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think possibility the term rather than the concept is being objected to. He has shown authoritive objections to the term.--Gazzster (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"PERSONAL UNION, or dynastic union, is the combination by which two different states are governed by the same prince, while their boundaries, their laws and their interests remain distinct." From here: http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/YPDBooks/Lalor/llCy821.html, which is reference #1 in the article on Personal Union. Oh, but Lawe has argued that out by refusing to accept references from before a certain date. There's a word for attacking something and then not letting people use a perfectly valid defence for it, but it escapes me at the moment. Oh well, I've cited it so he can stop complaining now. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Again: he's not denying the concept. He's challenging the use of the term, the exact phrase, in reference to the realms of Liz2--Gazzster (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference did not use the phrase, nor tie to a realm. Lawe has shown scholarly objections to the term specifically referred to the realms.--Gazzster (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am capable of reading what you wrote. That would be why I provided the definition of the term, which quite precisely describes Elizabeth's position. If there is a better term for it, please do provide it with a citation. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, we still seem to be at cross-purposes. I dare say the definition is not objectional at all. What seems to be considered objectional is it precise use as a way to describe the realms. Again, the concept is fine: the use is challenged. Lawe, could you use your sources to explain why the use of the term is objected to? I think that would be very helpful.--Gazzster (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference you (Prince) cite does not mention the realms at all. And in fact, says this:

Personal union, it seems to us, is practicable only when the two countries form a unit vis-a-vis of foreign states. But it is not sufficient that the two countries be represented by one and the same diplomatic agent; it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions

.(emphases mine)

This is clearly not the case here.--Gazzster (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oy gevalt. Okay, let's try it this way:

"PERSONAL UNION, or dynastic union, is:

the combination by which two different states

16, but close enough.

are governed by the same prince

Queen.. same difference.

while their boundaries, their laws and their interests remain distinct."

I count 16 countries with separate boundaries, laws, and interests. The fact that the Commonwealth Realms are not specifically mentioned in the reference is supremely irrelevant; it is the concept that matters. So, yes, the precise usage here is in fact correct. I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a term that is 1) better, 2) widely understood, 3) in use, 4) meaningful. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Let us leave it to to the historians to debate the term - not to readapt it to a modern purpose only in Wikipedia. My specific issue is its application to the modern Commmonwealth of Nations. Where is the evidence? Read Corbett who argues against it's use[2]. The other sources provided don't even use it. Scott agrees the Commonwealth is sui generis [3]. These are G2bambino's total sources.

If I were to offer an explanation it is that the UK and Australia were not 'distinct' nations brought together in union, but parts of a unified Empire separating. I'd suggest that is what these 1940's writers were trying to explain. I am certainly cannot support Canadian monarchist user:G2bambino that in the intro of Australian Republicanism article, there is a push to alter relations with Canada or NZ! --Lawe (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Associations of states are traditionally classified in the literature of international law under exist heads: federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vassalage, protectorate ... The categories themselves are so imperfect as scarecely to merit the care taken to keep them inviolate."(Corbett, 1940:348) That was 1940! The world does not consider these classifications as inviolate any more. Finally, if what Prince says is so simple, I am sure it would be no trouble to find one authorative source rather than conducting original research. --129.78.64.101 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC) --Lawe (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fair comment, isn't it Prince?--Gazzster (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

After all, if we're going to describe the realms as in a state of 'personal union', it is encumbant on us to produce a reference that does so.--Gazzster (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We have the references that do so. Please. As for Lawe's claims, they're all well and good, but a) the web source only allows the reading of the first page of the entire work; b) it pertains to 1940, when each realm still had its constitution firmly under the control of the UK parliament; c) it talks about all the possessions of the British Crown throughout history; and d) it does not outright reject the application of the term "personal union" to those countries of the Commonwealth that share a monarchy. I've since moved the titbit of information, reworded for accuracy, to Commonwealth realm, where it applies to the historical coverage of the topic. In the meantime, if people would like to present what they believe to be an applicable, but modern term, I'm all ears... --G2bambino (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This text is up to date and could be helpful --Lawe (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC): http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/150757/head_of_the_commonwealth

Hmmm. I think this interesting question needs a lot of sourcing and discussion. My spider senses are tingling! I can feel a mighty discourse coming. Wonderful!--Gazzster (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I work at a university, JSTOR allows us the rights to look at the whole text, although I thought it was public. If you can only read the first page, how do you know whether it outright rejects? Having read the whole text, it does not support the term. I would guess nobody bothers to give classifying names to these relationships any more. The Commonwealth Secretariat (or moreso Buck Palace) would be diplomatically foolish to distinguish between members by their Head of State arrangements. --Lawe (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is you who says there is an outright rejection of the term. Also, it was Buck House itself that inspired the use of the term Commonwealth realms here in the first place. --G2bambino (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a Wiki phenomenon that concepts get labels assigned to them and are made 'canonical' for no other reason than there is no proper term assigned otherwise. This seems to be the case here with 'personal union'. It's interesting to note the number of Googled sites on the subject that reference Wikipedia or directly quote it. But that may be because Google has commercial interests with Wikipedia. Or maybe it owns it? I don't know.--Gazzster (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gazz, that is the crux of the issue: what other term do we use? There may be few references for the use of the label "personal union" in conjunction with "Commonwealth realms" (like most other information associated with this shared monarchy situation), but that doesn't mean it isn't applicable. If we have a sourced definition of "personal union" and it matches the arrangement of the realms under the Crown, then, well... the arrangement under the Crown is a personal union. If the shoe fits... as they say. --G2bambino (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They say if the shoe fits, then it is original research. Please verify your information by providing a reputable source stating that the commonwealth realms are in personal union. --Lawe (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide an alternative. Did you not read the fourteen other requests for you to do so? --G2bambino (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of the air? I'm not going to make things up. But I can fix the text. --Lawe (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of somewhere would be nice. In the meantime, without providing an alternative, you'll just have to settle for your "archaic" term. Old words are not invalid words. --G2bambino (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? Please read the Wikipedia policy on text being verifiable. It is absolutely necessary for you to back up your claims. There is no requirement for an alternative claim. If you want to show certain nations are in personal union, please submit your thesis to a reputable peer reviewed journal and have it published. --Lawe (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, actually there is. If you wish to replace it with a different term, that term must also be cited and verifiable. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, two sources now explicitly use the term "personal union." Others support it's use in this context. --G2bambino (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference must be connected to the article. There are no references supporting it's use in this context, which is "commonwealth realm". The one reference that does consider this argues it should not be used (Corbett 1940). Where is your one source that does otherwise? --Lawe (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawe, please look up the term rules lawyer. You're arguing that because the source-- even though it describes to a T the situation whereby EIIR is multiply Queen of many countries--does not explicitly say 'Commonwealth realm' that it is therefore wrong? You do understand how silly that is, yes? It argeus that if any term is ever used, the term must have been specificlly used in reference to that very specific thing, rather than the more logical situation which is to use the term when it clearly defines the situation. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest it is impolite to make such a personal remark. You should take up this line of argument with Corbett. It is only your perspective which makes it appear so clear. Comparative politics is never clear. That is why the verifiability rule is there. --Lawe (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawe, I notice that you are carefully ignoring my points. To wit: 1) if you are going to replace with another term, that must be equally verifiable--indeed, must be shown to be the better term; 2) you are arguing that terms may only be used if they have described a very narrow and specific situation, as opposed to the logical usage--imagine how many millions of citations across WP would need to be changed to fit your narrow interpretation; 3) The term may be 'archaic' in your personal POV, but it is nevertheless quite accurate, and there is no better term to replace it. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Replacement term? Corbett and Scott both conclude the Commonwealth is sui generis as of the 1940's. Why can you not accept this conclusion? There is nothing further written about it since then. Is the system so difficult to explain, that you need to use a phrase about old kings inheriting different kingdoms? The verifiability policy is the only thing clear here. --Lawe (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing the Commonwealth here. --G2bambino (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult to explain, and the term 'personal union' is actually the simpler--and correct--explanation of the situation. The Commonwealth Realms are individual countries that are united ceremonially in a single person. I fail to see why you are so dismissive of this. Your POV is fine, but it is POV, and thus has no place in a WP article. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I've searched through previous discussions on this matter, and collected the various sources that were found:

• [4] "As a matter of legal theory, Australia and Britain have separate crowns, even though they are occupied by the same person; the two countries have a personal union of crowns analogous to that of England and Scotland from 1603 to 1707 and of Great Britain and Hanover from 1714 to 1837." (This link is now dead; anyone know how to recover it?)
• [5] Scott, F.R.; The American Journal of International Law: The End of Dominion Status; vol. 38, no. 1; January 1944; pg. 34-49. "The common kinship within the British group today establishes a form of personal union, the members of which are legally capable of following different international policies even in time of war."
• [6] Lalor, John Joseph, ed., various authors; Cyclopaedia of Political Science; New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co.; 1899. "Personal union, or dynastic union, is the combination by which two different states are governed by the same prince, while their boundaries, their laws and their interests remain distinct."
• Zines; The High Court and the Constitution, 4th ed., as referenced in [7] High Court of Australia: Sue v. Hill; S179/1998 and B49/1998; June 23, 1999). "The Queen as monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is in a position resembling that of the King of Scotland and of England between 1603 and 1707 when two independent countries had a common sovereign."
  • [8] Encyclopaedia Britannica: England: Birth of the British Empire. "England and Scotland, having the same ruler, were now bound together in a personal union, but for another century they had separate parliaments."
  • [9] Parliament of the United Kingdom: James' British dream. "James was not content with just a personal 'union of the crowns'. He wanted a complete or 'perfect' union that brought the two kingdoms into a single, enlarged and unified state."
• [10] Corbett, P.E.; The University of Toronto Law Journal: The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law; vol. 3, no. 2; 1940; pg, 348-359; 10.2307/824318. "Associations of states are traditionally classified in the literature of international law under six heads: federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vassalage, protectorate. From time to time the evolving relations between the more or less autonomous political communities under the British crown have been uneasily battened down by different jurists in almost all of these categories, only to break out, after brief intervals of calm, in inelegant excrescences that reduce the anxious classifiers to despair."

Lawe asserts that the final one (Corbett) argues against the use of "personal union" in relation to any jurisdiction under the shared Crown. I find this line of reasoning suspect; firstly, Corbett does not specifically say the term cannot be used to describe the Commonwealth realms, and, secondly, this same cite could be used as reason to remove the term "confederation" from Canadian articles, "federation" from Austrlian articles, "protectorate" from British protectorate articles, and so forth. It may not affirm that the Commonwealth realms are in personal union, but nor does it say they can not be. --G2bambino (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty definitive to me. Especially this point: "Corbett does not specifically say the term cannot be used to describe the Commonwealth realms" Can we put this debate to rest, now? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid not chaps. As I noted before, Corbhett goes on to write this:

Personal union, it seems to us, is practicable only when the two countries form a unit vis-a-vis of foreign states. But it is not sufficient that the two countries be represented by one and the same diplomatic agent; it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions

(ephase mine)

So it is apparent that Corbett doesn't agree that realms of E2 can be described as in personal union with each other.--Gazzster (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1) That doesn't address the other references, so.. yeah, time to put this to bed, and 2) see G2b's points about 'federation' and so on, so.. yeah, time to put this to bed. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so, mate. It hasn't been resolved. Only the first two of G2's reference connect the term with the realms. The rest don't at all. They only define personal union. Noone has a problem with the definition, as we've discussed. But even the first two references are opinions, not legal definitions or judgements in respect of a particular realm or realms.And as such they may very well have the same value as Corbett's (implied) opinion that the realms should not be described as being in personal union. You and G2 are saying that in the absence of any other term, what term should we use, given the absence of references? That's not a positive argument for using a term. What could answer that by saying that since constitutional jurists have managed to survive without using the term at all, there is no compelling reason why we should do so. So there is still a pretty big question mark.--Gazzster (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gazzster, Corbett does not say anything of the kind. You're quoting from the Lalor cite.

Besides that little slip up, even if you look at the Corbett cite, there's absolutely zero evidence that he says "personal union" cannot be applied to the Commownealth realms; not even an implication. On the other hand, two sources do explicitly use the term in relation to the realms, and a third, a ruling by the High Court of Australia, describes the realms as being like Scotland and England between 1603 and 1707; that relationship was a personal union. So, really, the argument that "personal union" is invalid here is very, very weak. We haven't even seen a viable alternative from anyone. --G2bambino (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I doff my cap on that point. Apologies, G2, Lawe and Prince. The High Court says that the relationship is similar,or like, the union between Scotland and England. Did it use the actual phrase? I don't know. I suspect if it did, it would be quoted. Courts are generally loath to use exact terminologies when they do not exactly fit. Which is why, I suspect, the High Court did not use the phrase (I am not familar with the case). I imagine it was safer to compare the relationship with a personal union, rather than identify it so. There are aspects of the England/Scotland relationship that do not compare. For example, the realms of E2 do not have a joint army, nor a common foreign policy. And the assumption that 'personal union' fits, rests on the notion of a trim, exact, one-size-fits-all definition. The High Court was wary about defining it, so it wouold seem. And Lalor, for one, whiom I quoted out of turn, seems to have an interpretation of the phrase dufferent from the one understoody by Prince and yourself.--Gazzster (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the High Court didn't explicitly use the term "personal union"; the segment in question is quoted above. They did say there were some possible differences between the Scottish/English union of the crowns, but only in relation to the case being judged; i.e. whether or not a subject of the king in one country could be considered a foreigner in the other. There was no mention of a common army or foreign policy, which didn't exist in the historical example we're talking about; there were two governments, two armies. Nor was there any citing of differences resting in the one monarch/multiple countries situation.

I don't think the goal here is to make any dove-tailed fit; but a fit there is, none-the-less. We have two sources that use the term specifically in relation to the realms (and a few secondary sources), but, would it be of any use trying to formulate a sentence that says something along the lines of: the relationship between the realms is like a personal union, or, has been described as a personal union? It doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me; but... --G2bambino (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be safe and wise.--Gazzster (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent compromise, gents. Well done. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Today, I read more about this academic debate in the 1940's, about the future of the Commonwealth. From what I learnt, I have crystallised my view (and I am well aware that my argument has no weight as to the article's text) that the relationship between realms (eg Canada-NZ) is no different than between members in general (eg Malta-NZ) and the key organisation is the Commonwealth and there is a recognised Head of the Commonwealth. As to the compromise I am very happy that it has been acheived, and I am happy to take a step back and support it. --Lawe (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On one level, you're right; as members of the Commonwealth of Nations the relationship between Canada and NZ is no different than the relationship between Canada and Malta. However, it's obvious that the relationship between Canada and NZ is different that that with Malta in that the two countries share the same person as their respective head of state. That is all a personal union is. --G2bambino (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gazzster, I removed your footnote for the time being as I don't see anything to support the claim that "personal union" is "mostly" used in a historical context, or that there are any authors who argue that the term does not apply to the realms. Am I missing something? --G2bambino (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tha's fair enough. That's really my interpretation, I suppose. ----

Common dablink

This dablink appears on Monarchy of the United Kingdom with a comment above it saying to discuss changes here because it's common to other articles:

This article is about the monarchy of the United Kingdom; for information on the monarchies of the other countries in personal union with the United Kingdom, see Commonwealth realm.

This dablink breaks a couple of guidelines of dablinks, of which I would normally fix the first two on sight:

• It links to an article that isn't being disambiguated (Personal union).
• The format is different from other dablink templates. In particular it is different from {{otheruses4}}, the most common. In fact, there seems to be no reason why it shouldn't use {{otheruses4}}.
• It states the obvious: the article's title is "Monarchy of the United Kingdom", so it would be pretty bizarre if the subject of the article wasn't the monarchy of the United Kingdom.

I understand that the purpose of this is to bring to people's attention the fact that the monarchy of the UK, while consisting of the same people as that of the other Commonwealth realms, is nonetheless separate from them. But I don't think a dablink is the right place to do that - it should instead be mentioned in the lead section, and Monarchy of the United Kingdom does exactly that. I imagine exactly the same arguments apply to other articles as well (certainly the above criticisms do). Hairy Dude (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly the discussions that led to the present dablink, the editors were aware of the shortcomings you point to. However, it was obviously decided that they were acceptable in the given circumstances. I also recall that someone else not too long ago proposed a very simple dablink, but I can't now find where that was. I do remember that the dab was originally planned for Monarchy of the United Kingdom, as it was where unkowing users in non-UK Commonwealth realms might immiediately go thinking that the UK monarch reigned in their country. However, as you're right that the lead already explains the shared nature of the Crown, the dab may not be necessary. I wonder what others think of that. --G2bambino (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the dab is not necessary --Lawe (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion; it would have been nice, though, if you'd come here before you altered all the dablinks to suit your personal view. Can we have more input on this before reaching a decision? User:Cameron suggested taking it to WP:COMMONWEALTH; but, wherever it is, get it done before changing the dabs again. --G2bambino (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi G2bambino - I'll consider highly the advice about wikipedia etiquette from someone who has been twice blocked this month? Nobody has disagreed with this suggestion for 3 months ... including you! Cameron can remind himself that the dablink says discussion is on this page. --Lawe (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A change to one article is one thing; a change to multiple articles is all-together different. As you well know, there are more editors involved in this than just you, I, and the above, who hasn't been heard from since. --G2bambino (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's really no need for throwing accusations around. I'm fine with discussing it here, it's really not a problem (it was merely a suggestion to keep the discussion central). I don't think this discussion can be counted as consensus; Hairy Dude raised concerns and G2 addressed those concerns. Even if the discussion stays as it is its 2 vs 2 (sounds like some kind of match, doesn't it! ;)). I'd call that pretty much no consensus. --Cameron* 19:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed:

Sixteen separate countries share the monarchy detailed here. For a list of these countries, please see Commonwealth realm.

No presentism, no bias, utterly NPOV, details the facts in a dry tone, no needless repetition. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But do they really share a monarchy? --Cameron* 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They certainly share the same website: http://www.royal.gov.uk :> --Lawe (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My screen says "welcome to the official website of the British monarchy. ;) --Cameron* 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

On www.royal.gov.ca, my screen says "The page cannot be displayed" :> --Lawe (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Commonwealth realms don't share the same monarchy (office); but, they do share the same monarch (person). GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the first decision to reach is whether a dab is needed or not; that's where this particular discussion started. I'm almost convinced by Dude's argument, but could be swayed back. What is it others think about doing away with the dab all together? --G2bambino (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A little dab won't do ya? Sure, remove away. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm dissappointed in you G2! ;) Surely the link between the commonwealth realms is an extremely important one, worthy of a dablink? Since the link between these counties is unique, I would deem the hightlighting of the CR article very important. This constitutional "arrangement" is probably unprecedented and, in my opinion, deserves a dablink. --Cameron* 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, absolutely. But, as Dude pointed out, this arrangement is outlined in the lead of each article already, which makes the dab rather redundant, no? --G2bambino (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody please, help me choose? I'm coming down with the worry warts (that Papa Smurf suffered from). GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OKay: The same monarch is shared between sixteen separate countries. For a list of these countries, please see Commonwealth realm. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection, Cameron's first proposal from the first incarnation of this debate is far superior: "X is a commonwealth realm. For the common monarch, see Elizabeth II. For the contitutional relationship, see Commonwealth realm. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically the only connection is that one person is the Head of State. The practical connection is through the Commonwealth. This is all conveyed in the introduction. Hence no need for a dablink. --Lawe (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we take a poll on whether or not to have a dablink? --G2bambino (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be an idea. This whole thing is so chaotic. --Cameron* 08:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Ceylon became the last newly independent colony to be entitled a Dominion"

Simply not true... There was a Dominion of Kenya, a Dominion of Nigeria, not to mention that the Dominion of Belize is sill the legal title of that country. -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's Constitution just calls it 'Belize' , as does the government website .--Gazzster (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd, as I have seen that used several times. Regardless, the other two were in use. As was Dominion of Fiji [11]. -MichiganCharms (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one for Nigeria - [12] -MichiganCharms (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking into this to see which nation was the "last one to be called a Dominion on independence", it was Fiji. I made the adjustment to reflect that, including a source to back it up on the years. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Money Paid to the Queen

This is a simple comment but important. I don't see anywhere in the article discussed the money that each country pays to the Queen. I know for a fact that some of each Australian's taxes go straight to the monarchy. Anyone know more details? 98.203.169.76 (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Anonymous

In each country, every tax and fee imposed by the government is money to the Queen, and some of those revenues are used to pay for her expenses as head of state. This point is already covered in the article, where it states: "As the Crown within these countries is a legally separate entity, official activities of the Royal Family are funded in these countries individually, through the ordinary legislative budgeting process." --G2bambino (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's no conspiracy, she really doesn't get much...--Cameron* 09:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"I know for a fact that some of each Australian's taxes go straight to the monarchy." Really? I'd sure like to see that evidence! --Lholden (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming bulk of the Queen's expenses are paid for by British taxpayers alone. ðarkuncoll 11:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In Australia the Crown is, in effect, the Governor-General. The Governor-General is paid for by Australian taxpayers. --Gazzster (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the only money that actually goes to the Queen is for her expenses on state visits. ðarkuncoll 11:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. But some commonwealth realm goverments contributed to some coronation gifts. --Cameron* 12:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And there's nothing odd in that as a) she was coronated as Queen of those countries, and b) foreign states offered gifts as well.

As I said, the expenses that come from tax dollars are those that cover the Queen's head of state duties, or when a member of the Royal Family is acting on behalf of whatever state. No different to when the president of some country does his job, and the First Lady goes around on the garden party, lecture cicuit. --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, they probably get her on the cheap, subsidised by British taxpayers. ðarkuncoll 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To them she's even more of a bargain! --Cameron* 15:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Not at all. --G2bambino (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If she's only there for a few days every other year or so, they certainly don't have to pay her a permanent salary, like they would if she lived there. ðarkuncoll 15:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Queen isn't paid a salary, from anywhere. --G2bambino (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The civil list is a salary in all but name. ðarkuncoll 16:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that and the income from the Duchy of Lancaster make up the bulk of her "salary". --Cameron* 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Civil List isn't a salary; she doesn't put any of that cash into her personal fortunes, as one would do with a salary. The Civil List just covers the expenses of the job. --G2bambino (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Duchy of Lancaster income is personally owned, though. --Cameron* 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the Dutchy part of the Crown Estate? --G2bambino (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it remains separate. --Cameron* 16:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. --G2bambino (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

But it cannot be alienated. ðarkuncoll 16:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

True but surely that is a bonus? Who would want some funny little side branch of the royal family inheriting such a powerful corporation and leaving the royal family impoverished? : ) --Cameron* 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[de-indent]She probably has investments and things, and apparently owns half of Colorado, but any rich person would blur the distinction like this in their personal income. ðarkuncoll 16:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If she does, she must have some very crafty accountants; her expenses are under the scrutiny of parliament - all her parliaments. --G2bambino (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a secret or anything. She just owns lots of land all over the place. ðarkuncoll 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, her personal holdings aren't much of a secret (though she's entitled to the same financial privacy as any other individual). But, as we were saying, the personal property is not the same as the Civil List, which is a tiny part of the income off the Crown Estate, which itself is property of the Crown, and cannot be sold by the monarch in a personal capacity. --G2bambino (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know she owned land in the US. Does anyone have sources?--Cameron* 16:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I just remember reading it somewhere, not sure where. It's not a surprise though - if you've got the cash, you can buy land anywhere as investments. ðarkuncoll 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean it was odd of them to do so. It was merely the first time that foreign countries participated in the coronation costs. Don't me wrong...I'm all for the creation of separate crowns (ie a Candian crown). --Cameron* 15:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Did they actually contribute to the cost of the coronation? That's different to sending gifts. ðarkuncoll 15:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well no, I meant coronation regalia, really. --Cameron* 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The coronation itself must have been a staggeringly expensive affair - a cost that Britain in 1953 could ill-afford, with rationing still in place and us totally dependent on American aid after the war. ðarkuncoll 15:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably one of the reasons why all other European monarchies have stopped having coronations! --Cameron* 16:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, elaborate ones anyway. But you do point to the fact that a coronation isn't necessary to make a sovereign; it's just a ceremony. --G2bambino (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Elaborate ones? To my knowledge all have stopped except UK. Inaugrations are still by some countries. --Cameron* 16:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[de-indent]It appears that Norway still has a pared-down coronation ceremony. --G2bambino (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. --Cameron* 16:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right, though, that most just now have a swearing-in, of sorts. Very bureaucratic, if you ask me. --G2bambino (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And very boring! --Cameron* 16:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian taxpayers dollars going to the Queen. When will my country become a republic & enter the 21st century? Charlie, please have an investiture, when the time comes? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, where in hell do you think your tax dollars will go in a republic? Do you think the President of Canada will pay for all his expenses out of pocket? Please. Always as if republics are the evolutionary pinnacle of governance, and now free, to boot! --G2bambino (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it will be us Brits who will have to pay for it. ðarkuncoll 17:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We always do... = ) --Cameron* 17:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Who forces you to? --G2bambino (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The law. But I think I speak for both Tharkun and I when I say: It is a few pence well spent! I for one, would willingly pay more...--Cameron* 20:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's any law requiring a coronation for a British monarch. There certainly isn't one in Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's never been one in Canada. I don't think there's any statute law in the UK, but it's probably one of those unwritten rules that cannot reasonably be ignored. ðarkuncoll 20:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there hasn't. Perhaps because we don't require one. --G2bambino (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all, if the UK and the other 14 realms, paid all the expenses. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

But, erm, no Canadian taxpayer money goes to the Queen. Some taxpayer money is spent on the office of the Governor General, but those costs would be incurred whether we were a republic (perish the thought) or a monarchy. The only time Canadian taxpayers actually pay anything for the Queen is when she makes an official visit. And in those cases I'm pretty certain that the costs are somewhat split between Canada and the UK. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the British government tend to use royal visits abroad (whether to Commonwealth realms or otherwise) as an instrument of foreign policy, I imagine they stump up at least part of the bill. ðarkuncoll 21:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I imagine you'd be wrong. --G2bambino (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to ask them. ðarkuncoll 21:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But, seeing as the country the Queen is "visiting" foots the bill for transportation, security, accomodation, and all preparations, I'd be very surprised to see that the British taxpayer pays for anything. The Queen even gets a Canadian personal secretary, Equerry-in-Waiting, physician, dental surgeon, and nurse when she's here. Do Ladies-in-Waiting get a salary? --G2bambino (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Don't they tend to be aristos doing it to advance their social standing? ðarkuncoll 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

HM's ladies-in-waiting are indeed unpaid. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I figured. So, then, what exactly would the British government pay for when the Queen is doing something for Canada (or Australia, or Jamaica, or...). --G2bambino (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I would imagine they pay for the flight over (if it's on BA; I guess if she flies AC or military over here it would be borne by the Canadian government), as well as her personal security detail. Canada would of course provide security, but I have it on good authority that her personal team travels with her anywhere she goes. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 02:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, actually she flies over, and back, on the Canadian Forces Royal Flight, and her personal security, along with that of the Duke of Edinburgh, is overseen by a chosen officer of the RCMP. If she had any more security, it would have to be at her own personal expense. The only "British team" I could think might go along with her is some of her household staff, but, again, the costs associated with them coming along as part of the royal party would be covered by Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, as I said, if she flies military I would assume it was paid for by Canada. As for security.. I can only go on what I have been told by someone who is in a position to know. I haven't asked whether the specific costs are governmental or personal, but the bottom line of what I have been told is that there are a couple of security officers who are assigned to her at all times, at home and abroad. No, I can't provide a citation. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

True enough, you did. I can't say who else is around the Queen, security wise, other than the RCMP officers. From personal experience, though, I know the other royals, like her children, only have RCMP contingents. --G2bambino (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So when she goes to Canada, she is flown over there, and back, at Canadian expense? Would the Fijians do this if she went there, or the Belizians if she went there? (Though I don't know if she ever has.) ðarkuncoll 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's right; for Canada, anyway. No idea how other countries do it. --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Brits keep all the receipts and get reimbursed later. I imagine all this stuff is sorted out by British and Commonwealth nation diplomats.--Gazzster (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The New Zealand Government pays for everything when HM comes down here. I understand the Royals have to pay if they go to republics within the Commonwealth (as Fiji is) however. --Lholden (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As they should too.--Gazzster (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "the Royals" would pay, unless they were going on vacation. Whatever government directed them to go there would cover the costs, as it would be a state visit. --G2bambino (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting advice

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15