Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth realm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ertemplin (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 2 October 2009 (Undid revision 317551279 by Ertemplin (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dablink... again, sorry.

Given all of the above, the dablink should probably be changed to something like:

This article is about the monarchy of $country; for information on the other countries which share the same monarchy, see Commonwealth realm.

Short, sweet, to the point, does not present anything unduly, does not use a term which we all now know isn't particularly relevant. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 05:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is OK by me --Lawe (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else have any comment on this rewording? [ roux ] [x] 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only this: I've no comment. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made --Lawe (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this uses exactly the same wording as {{otheruses4}} but with nonstandard punctuation, I took the liberty of standardising it by using the template on Monarchy of the United Kingdom. I'll try to do the others as well; apologies if I miss any. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realms listed at Monarchies of Europe

Commonwealth realms are being listed at the article Monarchies in Europe. I tried to remove the content but to no avail. Interested users may like to take part in the discussion on the talk page. --Cameron* 16:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female succession and future split of lines of succession between realms

I seem to recall that the UK recently proposed that females should have equal right of succession to males (Guardian article). If this happens in the UK, and similar laws are not passed in the other realms, and William has a daughter as his first child, am I right in thinking that there will be a different monarch in the other realms compared to the UK? If so, we need to mention this in the article. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm i remember reading about that in the news recently aswell. Im sure if that did happen then the other Commonwealth realms would follow suit sometime in the future. I doubt if any of the other countries would do anything until after the Queen dies though, because im sure Canada / Australia will hold referendums on becoming republics and probably win it after the Queen does die. I agree with the equal rights for male / females, the bit i dont understand is allowing a catholic to become monarch. How an earth could a catholic become the head of the Church of England. If the UK act is passed then it would be worth a mention on this page about the legal implications for the other commonwealth realms. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under current rules, the monarch could be anything he liked - Atheist, Satanist, or whatever - except a Catholic. As to which of those would make a better head of the Church of England, I'll reserve judgement. And as for making the succession non-sexist, though it keeps popping up from time to time, in reality the British government are hardly ever likely to propose such a thing, precisely because the other realms would have to follow suit (or be lumbered with a live-in monarch they don't want), and they'd be just as likely to go the whole way and declare a republic, thus diminishing British influence in the world. ðarkuncoll 16:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless the (1701) Act of Settlement has been repealed:- "That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established;" Not only can they not be Catholic (or atheist, satanist or whatever), they can't be Presbyterian, Methodist or other reformed. They must join the Anglican church, with all rules for membership which that entails. Odd, granted, since the Established Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, and she's head of it too...
Incidentally, there is an error in the text, which probably should be corrected. "as no realm other than the UK has an established church" - the UK does not have an established church. It has either none or two, depending on how you look at it. ENGLAND has the Church of England as its established church, and Scotland has the Church of Scotland. Northern Ireland and Wales don't have established churches, either individually or as part of the United Kingdom. I don't have time to find references, so will not edit, but would heartily recommend that someone do so.
I think Canada would remain a monarchy...Australia probably wouldn't be so lucky. Extending the religious exclusion to all non-Anglican religions would probably be the best solution to the problem. Equal succession is probably the way forward though. --Cameron* 16:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite likely, equal-gender succession will come about, if the UK public raises enough of a stink about it. As for a Catholic monarch? Charles wants to be Head of the faiths. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is a rumour. I can't valid sources. On his website he denies wanting a multifaith coronation. --Cameron* 17:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an high-profile interview Prince Charles did with David Dimbleby a few years ago, he said he wanted to be "Defender of Faith", rather than "Defender of the Faith". This was also the occasion when Dimbleby said to him, "You're going to be King of England", and Charles responded by saying, "And Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." He did not, however, mention Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. ðarkuncoll 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That was not an error of omission by Charles. Some people constantly mention "England" forgetting that the United Kingdom is the realm, not England, and yhe realm includes Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Charles was being inclusive and germane, by correcting Dimbleby and including the other countries in that realm.Gary Joseph (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tharky! I rather think he would like to be divested of the 'colonies'. Strikes me as somewhat republican for a future head of state(will be an interesting reign- considering that he's said he wants to be a mover and a shaker).--Gazzster (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he ever gets to be king. The Queen Mother lived to be over a hundred. ðarkuncoll 15:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to taped conversation between Charles & Camilla, in the early 1990's; I believe Charles wished to be something else. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignity

The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy,[6] the succession, and the Queen herself. ... The United Kingdom no longer holds any legislative power over any country besides itself ...

How can Canada be sovereign, when the Queen effectively can veto a no-confidence vote against the prime minister? Canadian Parliament suspended until late January --AndersFeder (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she could (I honestly don't know the extent of her constitutional powers in Canada) she would do so as Queen of Canada, not as Queen of the UK.And even so, she would be bound to accept Mr Harper's advice except where that would be clearly impossible.--Gazzster (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article states it isn't really a "British institution" but...

It currently states: "The monarchy is therefore no longer an exclusively British institution, although it may often be called British for historical reasons, for convenience, or for political purposes." but isn't it British solely? For the simple fact that if Britain decided tomorrow to abolish the Monarchy it would be highly unlikely that any of the other Realms would still retain having HM Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state for much longer. For example does anyone think it would be likely that if Britain switched to a republic that Australia would move the entire Royal family to Australia to continue their institution of the Monarchy? If Britain removed the Monarchy it would be likely that the rest of the realms would make provisions to also remove it. However any other realm leaving this arangement would have little to no bearing on the the others. Britain holds the key for all the rest of the realms IMHO. CaribDigita (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have conveniently summed up your paragraph in a single, final letter: 'O' for opinion. Please provide evidence that practicalities would make such a situation infeasible. Constitutionally, it is certainly no longer a British institution.
On a side note, were the United Kingdom to abolish the monarchy, Canada could well continue with the monarchy. It has sufficient residences (particularly Rideau Hall), and the monarchy is a very important cultural symbol of identity when compared to the Big Bad Wolf below the 49th parallel. Such a situation would lead to the monarchy being far less Canadocentric (I'm sure that's not a word: nothing revolves around Canada) than it is currently Anglocentric. The first paragraph is fact; the second paragraph is IMHO. Bastin 07:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not correct. The Constitution of Australia refers to "Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors". If Britain became a republic, then the President of Britain would be her legal successor, and would exercise the role of the Queen of Australia. Australia would still be de jure a monarchy, but one with a monarch elected by the people of Britain. I agree though that such a move would light a fire under the republican movement in Australia, but any change would still require a referendum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, incorrect entirely: basing, as you are, your argument on the world before 1926. Were the monarchy abolished tomorrow in the UK, the monarch of Australia would still be Elizabeth II. Victoria's heir and successor in Australia (which is to what the Constitution refers) is Elizabeth II. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 makes it plainly clear that the titles of Queen of Australia and Queen of the United Kingdom are separate and equal. Bastin 17:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I am basing my argument on the world as of this week. The UK parliament is currently considering the ''Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown'' (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill (2009) http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-024.pdf which amends the Act of Succession (1700) and repeals the Royal Marriages Act (1772) in order to remove religious and sexual discrimination from the order of succession. The background paper states that the Statute of Westminster "does not appear to require assent to be sought from other Commonwealth nations, just for them to have been consulted." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the Monarch question. To my mind I think this could cause a mini constitutional crisis. Within some realms the orders of independence states there "shall be an office of the Governor-General". However if the Monarch is residing locally in a realm the Head of State's authority likely would be resumed. This is similar to situation of the Monarch entering a Parliament, the Monarch's presence trumps the resident authority of a Ceremonial mace (in the realms that recognise having a Ceremonial mace in Parliament.)
Concerning the new gender (a.k.a Primogeniture) and religion act in the UK. That would be interesting too as well to this same situation. Now if each of the parliaments & Constitutions of the Realms were separate, then technically wouldn't each of the Realms need to pass this same rule about Primogeniture and religion? Otherwise the rest would have to continue recognising males going forward since that is the legislation they inherited at the time of independence or the like? CaribDigita (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in Australia. While the Australia Act (1986) says that "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth", the Constitution provides that the states are united in "one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". So there is no conflict; the UK can indeed change the succession. (The Prime Minister was consulted by his British counterpart on arrival in the UK on 28 March, so that aspect has now been taken care of.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A president is never a successor to a monarch. If the monarchy were abolished in Britain, I see no reason that it couldn't continue in, say Canada (User:Miesianiacal would certainly put up a good fight)! Rideau Hall or Hatley Castle would certainly be suitable residences...--Cameron* 13:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, the Australian Constitution refers to "... Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom" (s.2). The UK would not cease to be a sovereign state, but since the monarchy has been abolished, there are no heirs or successors. That is pretty much the point of abolishing a monarchy. The UK presidency would be a completely different and incommensurate institution. The only common element would be that both institutions contain a head of state, but that doesn't mean that the first president was the heir of the last monarch. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, a republic that supplants a monarchy becomes its legal successor under the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties so that territorial claims and treaty obligations remain in effect, and the citizens do not become stateless. The People's Republic of China, for example, regards itself as the legal successor of the Qing Dynasty. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eminence noir in the picture

The picture of the Queen and her 15 viceroys contains an image that has aroused my curiosity. It appears to be the silhouette of a tall person, and is separating Peter Hollingworth (Australia) and Filoimea Telito (Tuvalu). They’re both standing in the back row (last 2 on the right), but this tall dark image seems to be standing slightly forward of them. What/who is it? -- JackofOz (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This photo right? ( [1] ) I just checked it out.... At first it started to look to me like a bust on a pedestal. But then (not to make any jokes) it started to look like Darth vader from the neck-down to me.... I can't tell. I could try to email the GG in Barbados and see if I can get any info back. CaribDigita (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a little detective work. It is a bust. The photo was taken in the Grand Reception Room at Windsor Castle, in front of the room's fireplace. If you see this picture at this link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/List%20Images/Royal%20Residences/Windsor%20Castle/8000069%20GRR%20(Mark%20Fiennes)%20A4(388x488).jpg , you will see the area [on the right side of the frame] at a different angle, with the bust. Gary Joseph (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! If not an investigator at least someone who knows what to do in order not to get caught. It took a few minutes to figure out, although finding a photograph of that room in Windsor Castle with a good angle took the bulk of that time. BestGary Joseph (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small fix. Belize and the Bahamas have larger land areas than Jamaica.

Jamaica is more populous than Belize and The Bahamas, however Belize and The Bahamas posses larger geographic land areas than Jamaica does. CaribDigita (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening note about the United Kingdom

I've no problem with TharkunColl's edit, but perhaps he should've seeked consensus first. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sought (lol). ðarkuncoll 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, should've sought. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this is even a common term. Do you have any other reliable sources to show that this term is actually used and moreover that it's used outside the UK? Is Australia an overseas realm? Surely the UK is overseas to Australia? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, why stop there? Why not also say that they are also known as the "other realms" [2], if all we need is a use of the phrase in a reliable source to say that they are "also known as" this or that. Furthermore, given that this is an article about the Commonwealth realms, of which the UK is one, not the non-UK realms, I fail to see why this even needs a mention in the opening sentence. The opener should define the term, not define something that the term does not mean. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the edit is based on the question -- Is the UK the central realm or is it one of 16 equally. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that 'overseas realm' depends on where you're standing. A kiwi happily grazing his sheep in the Antipodes might call the UK an 'overseas realm' if he had the inclination to do so of course.The point of the Commonwealth is that it is an association of equal states. So to say that the Commonwealth realms are the UK and the 'overseas realms' is to immediate assume some sort of relationship with the UK where the UK is the senior partner.To be honest, the whole article should consined to the recycle bin. It has caused more angst than Darth Vader in an asthma attack.--Gazzster (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's one main difference though. In the UK they don't have a Governor General, in the UK the Sovereign performs all the functions as the Head of State. In places where the Sovereign is not residing all the time, the Governor-General takes over some of the Sovereign's duties. It can be argued she is closer to the UK government than the other realms. I could be wrong, but to put it to a test does the Sovereign have an active role in the day to day running of NZ? The UK does have Counselors of State however they can't dissolve Parliament or anything like that. CaribDigita (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen does indeed have an active role in running the UK, and the prime minister sees her every week. Furthermore Prince Charles is apparently notorious for contacting government ministers all the time with one impractical scheme after another. ðarkuncoll 12:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of which, of course, is relevant to the topic at hand. I've moved the statement to a more apt location in the article, though RHPF is right to question whether the use of the term overseas realm is worthy of mention at all; as he asks: why not then also say the other relams can be referred to as other realms? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "overseas" is written in lower case (unlike "Overseas Territories" to refer to the British Overseas Territories). Therefore it appears to me that "overseas" is simply being used to distinguish the realms that are overseas from the realms that are not. There is no special term "Overseas Realm". The usage of the reference to make the claim in the article is highly dubious. It actually only supports the claim that the non-UK Commonwealth realms are overseas from the perspective of the UK. Which is a truism. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the claim altogether, as it constitutes synthesis. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is'nt ' Commonwealth realm ' a synthesis ? Lejon (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

explaining is good; grammar illogic is bad; substituting personal taste for consensus is naughty

  1. someone seems to be having conniptions over the addition of nine words in the introduction followed by a grammatical clarification.
  2. adding the nine word phrase "(itself an intergovernmental organisation of fifty-three independent member states)" after "Commonwealth of Nations" does not interfere with the intro's flow and adds a needed explanation and distinction between "commonwealth realm" and "commonwealth of nations".
  3. provides needed information.
  4. adding wiki cross-refs for a reader's further information add to the article's value and clarity.
  5. the phrase "These countries have a combined area totalling..."
    1. is inelegant (why not "dese countries" or "these there countries" if you insist on using the vernacular)
    2. is grammatically illogical. in the paragraph, "these" refers to plural subjects, not the singular "commonwealth realm"
    3. is grammatically illogical. in the paragraph, "these" refers to the most recently listed subject. in this case, "these" relates to just mentioned "commonwealth of nations", not the previously mentioned (and grammatically separated) "commonwealth realm"
  6. the phrase "The Commonwealth realms have a combined area totalling..."
    1. is not nearly as inelegant
    2. is grammatically logical, clarifying the ambiguity of "these countries"
    3. is proper usage
    4. does not relate to the just mentioned "commonwealth of nations"
    5. helps educate the reader in appropriate nomenclature
    6. helps distinguish between "Commonwealth realms" and the usage of "Commonwealth" as a shorthand for "Commonwealth of Nations" (see article para. 2)
  7. you should seek consensus before erasing a good faith effort and substituting your personal, shrunken down, grammatically inaccurate, word smithing. blind pride of authorship is a wiki sin.

-- diremarc (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it you, perhaps, who's having the conniptions? As I noted in my edit summary, the additional information on the Commonwealth of Nations is just tangential information that adds complexity to an already complex subject; if people want to know what the Commonwealth of Nations is, they can simply click on the link and read Commonwealth of Nations. Futher, "these countries", by my reading, clearly means the Commonwealth realms; the most recently listed subject is "16 sovereign states... that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch." And repeating "Commonwealth realm" twice in two short sentences is hardly elegant. We can agree, however, that substituting your personal taste for consensus is indeed naughty; as the present version is the long-standing one, and as it is you who desires a change, it is you who should seek the consensus. --Miesianiacal (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is a conniption?--Gazzster (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you stated: "Futher[sic], "these countries", by my reading, clearly means[sic] the Commonwealth realms; the most recently listed subject is "16 sovereign states... that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch."" This is misleading and arguably a lie. you omitted from the quotation the most important phrase. it is a cheap trick to falsely alter original material to support your argument. the full quotation (with part of the disputed sentence) reads:

"A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch.[1] These countries have a combined area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims)..."
(previously omitted section emphasized)
it is a bit confusing when accurately quoted. you omitted "within the Commonwealth of Nations" - the heart of this disagreement. this is quite unseemly when the discussion revolves around what exactly are "these countries". this is troubling when the paragraph is easily quoted correctly. of course, by your "reading", the phrase "Commonwealth of Nations" magically vanishes and there is no ambiguity about which countries these countries are (even that is confusing) (a "Do do that voodoo that you do so well" kind of thing). however, the fair minded do not blank out when reading prepositional phrases that eviscerate their point. the closest reference to "these countries", that logically relate to "these countries", is the Commonwealth of Nations. critically altering the actual language of the intro to support your argument is a confession, of sorts, of being grammatically challenged. confusing your tenses (see those [sic]s?) confirms this. When you used subterfuge to make your point, you conceded that point.

also, i did not suggest using "commonwealth realm" in the second sentence, as you misstated. i suggest using "The Commonwealth realms" (plural s) so that readers understand what "these countries" the sentence refers to; and to educate readers that the plural is not commonwealths.


-- diremarc (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


p.s. -- conniptions are hissy fits; as evidenced by needing to misquote to misprove a point.

No, it was not a cheap trick; it was a method to get at the heart of the sentence. I'll remind you at this point to familiarise, or re-familiarise, yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realms

do you lurk by the pc? you allowed the revision less then five minutes to form a consensus before you reverted it to another grammatical errors and a typo.

changing the intro to "A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch,[1] snd [sic] combined have a area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims) and a population of 132 million;" makes even less sense and contains a typo. why not leave it as "A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch.[1] The Commonwealth realms have a combined have a area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims) and a population of 132 million;" for at least a week (and certainly longer than your rather hasty five minute reaction time)? that way, someone other than you can choose, and your your personality will be removed from the process. your "improvement" has the same problems as the orginal, plus a misspelling. consensus seekingly yours,

-- diremarc (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of moving to make personal attacks so hastily that you hypocritically make a series of your own grammatical mistakes, you might take some time to develop a more collegial attitude. You see, bulldozing your version of things over that which has stood without complaint from any contributing editors, save yourself, for some time now is neither polite nor within WP guidelines. You are trying to override a consensus, and though you have made your case, I, for one, don't agree with it and think you are making a poorer version of what exists (existed?). As my latest attempt to make some sort of compromise between your version and mine didn't meet your one-sided standards, and you continue to respond with derisive commentary, I suggest you seek further assistance in the dispute resolution process. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would the following be suitable to you?:
A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch. Together, the realms have a combined area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims), and a population of 132 million; all but about 2 million live in the six most populous states, namely the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica.
As I find it clunky and unnecessary to repeat Commonwealth realm twice in two successive sentences, this at least cuts the repeated words down to just realm. I don't love it, but am willing to live with it if you are. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a request for a third opinion which mentioned that one editor had removed and/or changed comments posted by another editor on this talk page.

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." — Athaenara ✉ 09:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a false accusation; the other editor mistook the removal of excessive headers as removal of commentary. --Miesianiacal (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I would agree with the comment saying that repeating the same phrase in two consecutive sentences does seem unnecessary. All in all, I would favour the suggestion given by Miesianiacal a few days ago, but with one tiny nit-picky amendment:

A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch. Together, the realms have a combined area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims), and a population of 132 million; all but about two million live in the six most populous states, namely the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica.

According to the MoS, it's generally better to spell out numbers smaller than ten, especially when it's followed by a spelled-out number (six). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sentence should be struck. It's a factoid. The size and population of the realms (let alone their Antarctic claims!) is of no relevance to the article as a whole, and it's distracting in the lede, which should just be about introducing the topic. The detailed explanation of why Papua was not entirely a British colony should also be removed from the lede -- it's too low-level and not relevant to introducing the topic. --86.167.123.174 (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shared Monarchy

The remarks I added about the Commonwealth Realms having a "shared monarchy" have been reverted by Miesianiacal with the comment that the person (the Queen) is shared. Not the monarchy. I don't entirely agree. The fact that all Commonwealth realms have the same head of state is not a coincidence in the same way it would be in a classic personal union (like the one that existed between Hanover and Greatbritain / UK between 1714 and 1837), where it was two different countries sharing a monarch because of the coincidence of two different systems of succesion leading to a number of persons inheriting both functions for a while. I think that this distinction between a coincidental personal union and the arrangement that leads to the existence of the Commonwealth realms should be expressed in the opening paragraph of the article. Perhaps the term "shared monarchy" can be replaced, but I don't think it's just the person that is being shared. It is an Institution that is being shared. And that Institution is the Crown of the Commonwealth realms, vested in a single person and operating in sixteen seperate judicial contexts (being the different sovereign states that are Commonwealth realms). Also another partial revert concerns the fact that the Royal title for each Commonwalth realm follows a single pattern. To put it simply "Queen of Realm X and all the other ones". This arrangement is also not a coincidence but an important aspect of the nature of the subject at hand. The terms used in all the realms basically mean the same. They're just expressed in different ways. I'll have to think about how to put this into better words. The way it is put now, seems to indicate that the whole arrangement is just an afterthought. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a tricky situation. In a sense, the Crown is unified across the realms. However, in another sense, there are 16 separate monarchies, each under the control of one realm alone. There is an attempt to explain this in the Relationship of the realms section, but it seems best to avoid vagueries - i.e. which monarchy is being shared? - in the lead and stick to something tangible - the person of the Queen. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. Perhaps the whole arrangement is deliberately obscure. Still that should not make us afraid of giving information, although caution is nessecary. I'm still thinking of a better wording. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Word "Queen"

Should not the word "Queen" appear in this line: "...by the Grace of God, QUEEN of the United Kingdom...?" Or is there some supersubtle reason this title was not mentioned here, as in all the previous entries? Xophorus (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word is there, it's just not in the place one would expect from one's experience with modern English word order. It seems like it's been this way since 1714—maybe because George I was German? I've never seen it explained though. —JAO • T • C 10:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also officially done in a similar way for Canada too. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and war at the same time

Under the main text, note #5 states that "In 1939, the Union of South Africa and Canada, (...), declared war on Nazi Germany some days after the United Kingdom had done so, meaning that King George VI, as king of all three countries, was both at war and at peace with Germany." I had some trouble sorting this out. In the end, it seems to me that what the text means to say is that, for some days, King George VI had been (rather than was) both at war and at peace with Germany. Is this really the case? If my deduction is correct, I propose a change of wording for clarity. SrAtoz (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deduction correct, point valid. Perhaps some simpler construction, on the lines of "For the week between the United Kingdom's declaration of war on Nazi Germany (3 September 1939) and Canada's (10 September 1939), George VI was simultaneously at war and at peace with Germany"? Of course, the ambiguous Irish situation complicates that entire note, too. —JAO • T • C 15:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just edited the note paragraph with a longer text than that suggested by JAO above, so as to (1) make all dates explicit, (2) have them in chronological order and (3) bring the George VI statement in a separate sentence, which goes to show that it is the deduction of a logical consequence and not an additional, independent fact. SrAtoz (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Invasion of Grenada works as well. The Queen was the Head of State at the time of the Grenada invasion. The United Kingdom and United States were formally at peace with one another, the Queen was also Head of State of other nations involved in the invasion force (Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean bloc). So, while Barbados was in-favour of the Invasion, Jamaica for instance was strongly against the invasion.
The same Head of State, was in true armed combat with itself (Eastern Caribbean V. Grenada point of view), then the Head of State was also opposed to armed combat with itself(Jamaica's point of view), and it was also at peace with the United States at the same time(United Kingdom's point of view). lol

P.S. I know it goes into the area of separate crowns, but it just goes to show how twisted this can get. CaribDigita (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not alike to??

Unusually for the Church of Scotland, Glasgow and Dunblane Cathedrals are both owned by the British Crown, though they are not alike to the Chapels Royal, which exist in both the United Kingdom and Canada and form a part of the Ecclesiastical Household in those two countries

Strange wording. Can it be expressed more clearly? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&oldid=317551362"