Talk:Commonwealth realm

NZ vs Realm of NZ in summary table

The table of current realms is just a summary. Calling the country "Realm of New Zealand" will be confusing to most readers, and most will not care about the distinction. For that reason "New Zealand" is the more appropriate visual reference for the table. But New Zealand is indeed only one element of the Realm of New Zealand, so I piped the reader through to the article on Realm of New Zealand, not the article on New Zealand, on the theory that a reader who clicks on the link actually wants to know more. --Chris Bennett (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's more confusing to the uninitiated reader to use what is the name of part of the entity as a pipe to the article on that entity. You wouldn't approve of using "England" as a pipe to the article "United Kingdom", would you?

If you think further clarity is needed, the best I can think of now is to list in small font in brackets beneath "Realm of New Zealand" the three constituent parts of that body. But, then, to be consistent, would the four countries of the United Kingdom then have to be shown as well? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether people care about the distinction is surely irrelevant - I think it's better to link to the Realm article. --LJ Holden 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any dispute over whether or not to link to the article Realm of New Zealand, but rather whether that link should be piped or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "United Kingdom" is very well known and is the usual way the country is referred to (except in the US perhaps). The term "Realm of New Zealand" is very formal and is not at all well known. Using it in this summary table causes the casual reader to do an unnecessary double-take -- it certainly did to me, and I know what the distinction is. The term "New Zealand" is well known and is the term that any reader will be familiar with when browsing through the table.

I agree with both of you that the link should be to the Realm article. All we are discussing here is the text for the link. In fact the current text is very recent. Before Miesianiacal changed it in January of this year it read "New Zealand", as it had since the table was first created over five years ago. See [1].

The edit summary he gave says "in light of recent edits". It's unclear what this means, but it appears to be connected to the immediately preceding edits by Vale of Glamorgan, which removed previous text at the end of this section that had noted that the Cook Islands was functionally a separate realm. I fail to see why those edits justify the textual change from "New Zealand" to "Realm of New Zealand"; the only connection is that the Cook Islands is also a component of the Realm of New Zealand.

In short: "New Zealand" with piping to the Realm article is preferable because it is less confusing to the reader. --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

PS to this: The underlying problem here is that the Realm of New Zealand is a federated realm, but, unlike Canada or Australia, there is no federal state. Rather, it is an association of three sovereign states under a common monarch, where New Zealand itself is primus inter pares -- rather like the inter-war Commonwealth, where the UK was widely thought of as primus inter pares. This is a concept which needs to be introduced and explained. As I said in my more general comments above (which no-one seems to want to respond to), this article needs a discussion of the relationship of the crown to the constituent parts of federated realms.

As to the immediate problem, Miesianiacal's suggestion of listing the component parts might be a path to resolution. For the reasons given I still think the text in the table should read "New Zealand", with piping to the Realm article, but I would not object to a footnote reading something like "The realm of New Zealand consists of the associated states of New Zealand, the Cook Islands and Niue. See Realm of New Zealand." --Chris Bennett (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how any of that addresses my point. I'd be quite taken aback if I clicked on a link that read "New Zealand" and ended up at a page called "Realm of New Zealand" on which I found that New Zealand is only but a part. I get that "Realm of New Zealand" is not a commonly used term. But, it still contains the words "new" and "zealand" in that order, and thus I don't think readers will be all that confused when seeing it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I think we can agree that this ought to be a non-issue.

What is confusing is seeing the words "Realm of" attached to New Zealand when you don't see "Commonwealth of" attached to Australia or "of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" attached to "United Kingdom" -- you just see the normal ordinary name of these countries. There is no indication of why New Zealand should be singled out for this very formal treatment, and I've yet to see your reason for doing so. Why did you feel it necessary to make the change last January, after living with a common-or-garden "New Zealand" for several years?

As for the "confusion" about ending up at the "Realm" page, well that's the point of ending up there: read and learn. I don't see why ending up at "Realm of New Zealand" from "New Zealand" is any more confusing than ending up at Ghana (Commonwealth realm) when you click on "Ghana" in the Former Realms table, rather less so in fact since there is a real reason for the Realm of New Zealand page to exist. --Chris Bennett (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The article linked to was changed from New Zealand to Realm of New Zealand. I don't see why there's any question about that move; three of us now appear to agree that's the right article to link to. I didn't pipe the link then and I don't believe it should be piped now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not an explanation for why you changed the text from "New Zealand" to "Realm of New Zealand" in January, when it had quite happily been "New Zealand" for many years, with no complaints or any other sign of reader confusion. That is the issue, not the change you made to the link, which has never been at issue. Could you please explain why you changed the text in January?

As far as I can tell, you are looking at this from a point of view of technical correctness, and you think that the text should be strictly technically correct at all times, respecting and reflecting all nuances. But the point of this article -- any WP article -- is to explain and educate. You don't do that by dropping the readers in at the deep end, you do it by leading them in from the shallows. Put your expert knowledge to one side, and try reading this article from the point of view of a reader who has basic geographic knowledge and some awareness that the Queen is monarch of more countries than just the United Kingdom, and wants to know more -- in other words an average WP reader (hopefully). From that basic perspective, the table is useful in giving a list of realms, when they became realms etc. But that is all it needs to do. It is not its function to draw fine constitutional distinctions (e.g. by distinguishing the "Realm of New Zealand" from "New Zealand"), because the reader is not ready for them, though it is perfectly fine for it to link to places where such detail can be found (e.g. by having a link to the article "Realm of New Zealand").

As for strict technical correctness, that will become a can of worms if it is insisted on. The flag icon is for the flag of New Zealand, not the flag of the Realm of New Zealand, which does not exist AFAIK, and links to New Zealand, not Realm of New Zealand. While New Zealand became a realm in 1947, the Realm of New Zealand, as an entity, did not become distinct from New Zealand until one of 1974/1981/1983. Worse, when that happened the Realm of New Zealand no longer met the article's definition of a Commonwealth realm ("a sovereign state..."), because it ceased to be a state, having become only an association of states, yet it is undoubtedly a Commonwealth realm. Better to quit while we're ahead and let the readers find their way to a more detailed discussion if they want to. --Chris Bennett (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain why the link was changed in January because that's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. I'll henceforth speak no more about that particular matter.

It seems we both have the reader's best interests in mind. However, I simply cannot accept that a reader is going to be anything but confused after following a link named "New Zealand" only to end up at a page called "Realm of New Zealand" on which it's found that New Zealand is only but a part of the bigger entity. Let them click on "Realm of New Zealand" and find out what that actually is, rather than "educating" them by deceit and surprise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposal on the table is to restore the text to what it had been for at least 5 years. You changed it to the current text, and you did it only a few weeks ago, yet you refuse to explain why you made that change on the grounds that it is "irrelevant"?? Of course it's relevant!

You are the principal contributor to this article, and the history and talk page record shows that you keep a very close eye on it. I don't doubt your good intentions, but it is also very clear that nothing happens here without your agreement. If you refuse to engage properly on a trivial issue like this one, and you completely ignore comments pointing out (correctly or not) that the article needs some serious work, what hope is there of getting any issue addressed that you happen to dislike or disagree with?

Please read WP:Ownership. -- Chris Bennett (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Spare us the ownership accusations; this is the only edit of yours so far that I've contested. And the proposal is to restore the visible text to what was there pre-January, but with a piped link that wasn't there before.

Ultimately, the community decides. If you don't want to wait for others to weigh in here, why not go ask for some more input; there's a dispute resolution process in place for you to follow, if you wish. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Miesianiacal (talk · contribs).--UnQuébécois (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I do not, I also don't want to discuss it any further, it's not worth the effort. But I must point out that, if that's really the way you want to play it, then you should also change the text of all the entries in the "Former realms" table to match the titles of the articles that they actually point to. Otherwise it looks like you want to have it both ways. -- Chris Bennett (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Those articles are another matter altogether. It's my opinion the names in the "Former realms" table should link to the article on the modern country and those "[Country] (Commonwealth realm)" articles (besides all their internal issues) become just sister articles to those main country articles or their respective history pages. But, as you can see from the edit history of this page plus the the conversation that took place above on this particular subject, there are others (one being UnQuébécois, ironically!) who disagree with me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to agree on everything! In the case here, it makes sense.--UnQuébécois (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I just thought that is was necessary to point out that the only Commonwealth State in South America, since May, 1966 has been left out. Guyana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.97.5 (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Guyana is a republic. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any good reason to single out New Zealand in the table, which doesn't otherwise use ridiculously formal and uncommon names. So far as I can see only one person has ever used this term in any serious sense. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand isn't the same thing as the Realm of New Zealand. Calling here the Realm of New Zealand "New Zealand" leads one to be unsure of whether New Zealand (the component of the Realm of New Zealand) is the realm (while the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau somehow are not) or the Realm of New Zealand in its entirety is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the distinction. However, in a table headed "List of Realms", our readers will assume that every member of that list is also a realm. Why do you want to confuse readers by singling out one entry? --Pete (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So, by your edit, you're communicating that only one part of the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. Do you have a source to back that up? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am communicating no such thing. Kindly refrain from talking rubbish. I note that the inclusion of "New Zealand" in the lead is likewise unqualified and links to New Zealand. We explain the situation further into the article - we don't need to cram the whole article into a summary. Please explain why you want to make a change that confuse readers. I see no reason to change the longstanding practice here, which I note was your original edit, without any useful reason to do so. --Pete (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

When you list New Zealand - a constituent part of the Realm of New Zealand - as a Commonwealth realm, you are indeed communicating that only one part of the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. You're correct about the contradiction in the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have mentioned the user experience. Now, we want to communicate the fact that The Realm of New Zealand is not exactly the same as New Zealand but I suggest that dropping readers in at the deep end in an indirect fashion is not the way to do this. "Hah, surprise!" Other alternatives have been suggested above, and my preference is to list in the minor islands within the same cell, along with a note explaining the situation, which is an odd one. It is not something that we should really be trying to explain in a summary table, nor should we ambush our users. We should make it plain and we should do so in the correct place. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm one of those editors who've mentioned the user experience, and naming the Realm of New Zealand as just "New Zealand" and linking to the article New Zealand (as you've done) will lead the unfamiliar reader to think New Zealand - one of the component parts of the Realm of New Zealand - is a Commonwealth realm, while the other parts are not.

I agree that an unfamilar reader won't know immediately what the Realm of New Zealand is. But, out of the previously explored options, it seems like showing that name and linking it to that article is the most honest (and thus clear) one, helping users understand.

Listing the other parts of the Realm of New Zeanand under the name New Zealand in the table will just, I think, convolute matters even more (are the smaller islands subordinate to, governed by New Zealand?). Best, in my opinion, would be to use either of the following:

Country	Pop.	Monarchy	Date	Queen's Title	Sovereign's Royal Standard
New Zealand (formally Realm of New Zealand)	4.39	Monarchy of New Zealand	1947	Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith	File:Royal Standard of New Zealand.svg

Or:

Country	Pop.	Monarchy	Date	Queen's Title	Sovereign's Royal Standard
Realm of New Zealand (informally New Zealand)	4.39	Monarchy of New Zealand	1947	Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith	File:Royal Standard of New Zealand.svg

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, but do you appreciate how stupid that makes us look? --Pete (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No.

Do you appreciate how uncooperative it is to imply someone's proposal to solve your problem is stupid? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the link to Realm of New Zealand should suffice. By clicking on the link it brings you to the page in question, and everything is explained. That is one purpose of having interwiki article links, to get more information on the specific subject that is mentioned, but not the main focus of the current article.--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My "problem" is that we have a list of nations, each with their flag, except for New Zealand which is given a name nobody uses and is "Informally known as New Zealand". I think anybody coming to this article looking for information is going to think that this is ridiculous. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "problem" is that it is not a list of nations, but realms.--UnQuébécois (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's a list of realms, why is only one labelled as such? All or none, surely? Furthermore, the flag shown is for New Zealand the nation, not any other entity. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no distinction between the realm and the country/nation/state in the other instances, and no separate distinct realm exists for them. It reminds me of the situation in Denmark/Kingdom of Denmark, not saying that it is the same, but reminds me of. Denmark is one constituent component of the Kingdom of Denmark, just as NZ is one constituent component of the Realm of NZ. --UnQuébécois (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course. But do you have an answer to the questions asked? Something that a reader will find illuminating when they come here looking for information? --Pete (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already made my opinion on the table entry known. I do not understand what additional question you are looking to have answered. Readers come to this article for information about "Commonwealth Realm", not any specific realm within the commonwealth, if they want information about a specific realm within the commonwealth they will link to the article in question. Readers are not as ignorant as you seem to think they are, each article covers one subject in depth, but cannot cover all possible related subjects, that is why we have links.--UnQuébécois (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the first question. If it is a list of realms, then why is only one marked as a realm? Wouldn't a reader seeking the answer be rather left in the dark by your non-answer above? How can we present the actual situation without making it confusing? --Pete (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at some of the information again, a better question is: is the jurisdiction that consists of New Zealand, Tokelau, the Ross Dependency, Cook Islands, and Niue named "New Zealand" or "Realm of New Zealand"?

This source cites the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand:

• "We do hereby constitute, order, and declare that there shall be, in and over Our Realm of New Zealand, which comprises —(a) New Zealand; and (b) The self-governing state of the Cook Islands; and (c) The self-governing state of Niue; and (d) Tokelau; and (e) The Ross Dependency — a Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief who shall be Our representative in Our Realm of New Zealand"

and goes on to say

• "There is now a Realm of New Zealand, of which New Zealand itself is only one element."

It also cites the Interpretation Act 1999 as stating

• "'New Zealand' or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency."

The answer therefore seems to be: the jurisdiction that consists of New Zealand, Tokelau, the Ross Dependency, Cook Islands, and Niue is named "Realm of New Zealand". Simply "New Zealand" isn't sufficient, since that is only (according to the Interpretation Act 1999) the name of one part of the Realm of New Zealand.

Linking to the article New Zealand in the table is therefore inaccurate; New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm. The Realm of New Zealand is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC):

Well, how about you address yourself to the question posed? We want to give the information to the reader who doesn't know it, and it would be preferable to do it by actually, you know, telling them, cos that's what we do, rather than making them guess about headings in a summary table. Or reading the talk page.

And is the "Realm of New Zealand" actually the sovereign state that the lede defines? C'mon, Mies, if you want to control every little word in this article, make them count! --Pete (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside your personal insult towards me, what exactly is your objection now? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Howe many times do I have to ask the same questions? Mies, your nose is too close to the grindstone. The "Realm of New Zealand" differs from others in that it isn't a sovereign state, as defined in the lede, it encompasses several others. I think that this is significant and should be given more prominence - like actually telling the readers - without them having to guess why one item in the list is treated differently to all the rest. Granted, there is a footnote containing the information, but I think that we should say what the situation is in the text. I'd like you to fix the thing up, because frankly I don't want to have to battle with you over endless talk pages about something so trivial that you feel is part of your inner soul or something. The summary table is out of step with the lede, it contains the flag of New Zealand and the title of the Queen of New Zealand (but not the Realm of New Zealand) and it's just a tangle all round. I don't want you to take it personally, but if you could put your formidable talents to finding a way to explain the situation clearly to readers who don't have your knowledge of the situation, it would improve the Wikipaedia. --Pete (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The bigger question is, why do you keep asking the same questions, while not wanting to "listen to" or "hear" the answers given? It looks to me that no matter what you will not be happy. A single Wikipedia article cannot always cover every single permutation, a reader who wants to know more about the specific situation with the Realm of New Zealand or any other realm, is smart enough to follow the link. --UnQuébécois (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not state the situation explicitly? This is an article about Commonwealth Realms after all. My problem is that the article is inconsistent and confusing. We should fix it up so it's not. Nobody here has yet addressed my points about the definition in the lede being incorrect, the flag being wrong, the Queen's title being wrong... You want to have a go at these pertinent points? --Pete (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've presented you with a source that shows Elizabeth II is queen of the Realm of New Zealand. It's up to you now to provide one that shows New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm, while the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency are outside the group of realms, despite being under the Queen's sovereignty. Please keep your responses consise and clear, and skip the personal commentary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but could you outline what you think should be done about the problems indicated? --Pete (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Realm of New Zealand

I agree that the current setup is wrong and should be corrected. There are few points, which should be taken into account:

1. The difference between New Zealand (the sovereign state) and New Zealand (the commonwealth realm) should be clearly shown - the three sovereign states (NZ, CI, Niue) are equal parts of the NZ realm despite the shared name between the realm and one of the states - just as Australia and Canada aren't subordinated in any way to the UK - despite their head of state titles being held by the same person.
2. Tokealu and the Ross dependency are subordinated territories of the state NZ - unlike CI and Niue.
3. The Realm of New Zealand homonymous naming with one of its parts is similar to the cases of Danish Realm and Kingdom of the Netherlands, but at the same time it's different, because neither the Denmark nor the Netherlands cases include more than one sovereign state.

That's why I suggest the following:

Country	Pop.	Monarchy	Date	Queen's Title	Sovereign's Royal Standard
Realm of New Zealand New Zealand Cook Islands Niue	4.39	Monarchy of New Zealand Monarchy of the Cook Islands Monarchy of Niue	1947	Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith	File:Royal Standard of New Zealand.svg

I implemented the above, but it was reverted. What do you think? Japinderum (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Realm of New Zeland isn't a sovereign state; it's a collection of geopolitical entities made up of New Zealand (the sovereign state), its territories (Ross Dependency, Tokelau), and two states in association with New Zealand (the Cook Islands and Niue). See the discussion below. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, but the table is a good idea though. Can we have a similar, though rather longer, table for the UK? Do any other Commonwealth realms have dependencies? ðarkuncoll 16:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How is the table a good idea? It lists the Realm of New Zealand as a Commownealth realm when it apparently is not a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't, I agree with you that the thing that is the Commonwealth realm is New Zealand. But listing the dependencies of the realms seems like a good idea, to show where else the monarch reigns over. ðarkuncoll 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That information seems rather tangential to the main focus of this page. Perhaps a footnote? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, of course the Realm of NZ isn't a sovereign state. But also the sovereign state NZ isn't itself a realm. There are three sovereign states - equals - in the Realm of NZ: NZ, CI, Niue. Relationships between those three (association, etc.) are irrelevant for the fact that NZ-the-state is not the same with (or a superset of) NZ-the-realm. That's why the proposal has the three countries with flags in the "country" cell, but also it has their encompassing realm in bold above their names in the same cell. And what do you mean by "the Realm of New Zealand as a Commownealth realm when it apparently is not a Commonwealth realm"? "Queen in the right of New Zealand" refers to the realm. What do you think the Realm of NZ is if not one of the commonwealth realms?

In any case the current arrangement should be somehow changed, because it mentions neither the Realm of NZ nor the sovereign states of CI and Niue. Do have a different idea how to show those? Japinderum (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If there are no other ideas, I assume nobody objects implementing the change as described here. Japinderum (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I added it, with a footnote "The Realm of New Zealand is the entire area in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. The Realm comprises of three sovereign states: the Cook Islands, the homonymous New Zealand (with its dependent territories), and Niue." so that concerns expressed above are taken into account. Nevertheless a user, who hasn't commented in this subsection deleted it saying "not again" and without answering questions from the 14:09, 23 May 2012 comment above. Japinderum (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to chime in and say that your 'modifications' to the table in regards to NZ, have been reverted more than once by more than one user. The edit summary left by UnQuebecois, in my opinion, does not require any further explanation, obviously there is objection to you making this change. It does not appear that you have convinced anyone that the change is appropriate, and are trying to push through the edit and hoping no one will notice.--MrBoire (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesia and Newfoundland

Regarding the repeated insertion of Newfoundland and Rhodesia into the list of former Commonwealth realms:

Rhodesia made a unilateral declaration of independence that the governments of the UK and other countries did not recognise and Elizabeth II did not accept the title of Queen of Rhodesia. Rhodesia was thus never a former Commonwealth realm.

Newfoundland was briefly a Dominion. It was never a sovereign country. As Commonwealth realms are all sovereign countries, Newfoundland was never a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But weren't all dominions ipso facto Commonwealth realms. And couldn't you say the same thing about the Irish Free State which, like the Dominion of Newfoundland, never formally adopted the Statute of Westminster? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dominions were sovereign countries (that is exactly what distinguished them from British colonies) and thus also realms. Rhodesia was a realm before UDI. If a place had/has a prime minister and recognised the same monarch as the UK it was/is by definition a realm. Roger (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect. As the article states: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch and head of state." Newfoundland was never sovereign (as Dominion states: "A dominion, often Dominion, refers to one of a group of autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty"). Elizabeth II was only ever monarch of Rhodesia as Queen of the United Kingdom, Ian Smith's declaration of independence being regarded as illegitimate, since it was never signed by either the Queen or the Governor. Neither Rhodesia nor Newfoundland meets the definition of a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly what Rhodesia's status was before UDI. It had a Prime Minister and a Governor-General - the same as Canada, Australia, etc have to this day. It was obviously not a British colony as colonies don't have Prime Ministers. Roger (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a self-governing colony. It had a governor, not a governor-general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That does make a difference, thanks for clarifying and correcing my mistaken belief. Roger (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User: Miesianiacal the Official Website of the British Monarchy states: "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch."[2] Where do you get sovereign from? You also neglected to reply to my point about the Irish Free State which, like Newfoundland, never formally accepted the Statute of Westminster therefore if Newfoundland wasn't a Commonwealth realm, neither was Ireland. In fact "Commonwealth realm" is really just a modern term for dominion. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I told you where I got "sovereign" from.

The Statute of Westminster itself required (S.10) that Newfoundland's parliament pass the law before it applied to Newfoundland. The statute did not make the same requirement of the Irish Free State. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

To state the obvious, as I am the one who reverted the original inclusion of Newfoundland and Rhodesia in the table, I would have to agree with User: Miesianiacal's evaluation of the matter.--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember also that the term "Commonwealth realm" started to be used AFTER 1949, thus precluding the changed situations for both Newfoundland & Ireland. As far as Rhodesia was concerned, it legally never changed it's status of being a colony of Southern Rhodesia until it became an independent and fully recognized republic in 1980.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, supposedly, the term "commonwealth realm" was used after Elizabeth II's ascension to the throne. So, why is there the Dominion of India? If dominion are included in this, then Newfoundland and Rhodesia rightfully deserve to be on this page. And if dominions are not "commonwelath realms", than India should be removed as well.Viller the Great (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Viller the Great

Perhaps you (Viller the Great) have missed the entire conversation here. Read from the beginning of this conversation, it is clear that you are not listening. What you are arguing in your last statement would also mean that Canada (The Dominion of Canada) should not be included as a Commonwealth Realm.--UnQuébécois (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Different titles across the realms (Canada and Grenada)

Is there a reason why, while in most realms the Queen is titled without mentioning the United Kingdom, in Canada and Grenada it is included before mentioning the country's name? -- megA (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See Title and style of the Canadian monarch, and Monarchy_of_Grenada#Title. That's all I know.--UnQuébécois (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• It stands to reason that each of the 15 separate Kingdoms may have some small variation in their wording. Also bear in mind the Constitutional conventions in force at the time each of the Constitutions were drafted or which UK party formed the government. CaribDigita (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"When composed in 1953, this format was consistent with the monarch's titles in all her other realms; after 40 years of Elizabeth's reign, however, only Canada and Grenada retained this title, all others, aside from the UK, having dropped the reference to the United Kingdom." Thank you, UnQuébécois, it is mentioned in the Canada article you linked. -- megA (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

General definition

Elizabeth II, only, shouldn't be in the definition; realms will in principle continue under her successors. I tried "UK monarch", rejected as pov (is it?). Have now tried "Elizabeth II or successor". If anybody has a better, not time-limited, definition, it's needed. Pol098 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying "UK monarch" is pov, since it names one of the 16 realms only, which would lead the reader to believe either that a) the UK has a superior statuts among the realms, b) the realms are under the sovereignty of the UK, or c) both, when neither is correct.

As I explained in my edit summary, "[the realms] have as head of state Elizabeth II or a successor" reads as though some realms have Elizabeth II as head of state, while some have her successor.

I wonder if changing "head of state" to "reigning constitutional monarch" will suffice, since constitutional monarchs implicitly have successors. The only other alternatives I can think of are very wordy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Historically it all derives from the English monarchy, but it's probably a sensitive issue best avoided. I'm looking for an otherwise acceptable form of words which will leave, say, a hard copy or stored copy of the article still making sense after a change of monarch (wp:dated). It's hard to find a generic, independent of incumbent, definition. "... recognise Elizabeth II, or after the end of her reign, a successor, as their monarch" (or head of state)? Avoiding wordiness isn't a reason to use an inaccurate defintion.

As a separate issue, it is relevant enough for the first paragraph to point out that "Commonwealth realm" is not a formal or official concept; if it is objected to on the grounds of being unsourced (which it is), then the following must equally be excised: "The qualified term of Commonwealth Realm is not official, and has not been used in law; rather, it is a term of convenience for distinguishing this group of realms from other countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that do not share the same monarch in a degree of personal union." In fact, I'd suggest a brief clause about this in the first sentence, with the detail in the body, and will start trying to sort this out. Pol098 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I insinuated that accuracy should be sacrificed for brevity; it's possible to be accurate and succinct. A possible addition to the present wording might be: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and shares a common royal line of succession with the other realms." (?)

The fact that "Commonwealth realm" isn't an official term doesn't require sourcing; it's the extended explanation of what the term is (the "term of convenience" part you mention above) that seems a bit WP:OR. I don't completely object to the inclusion of that extra explanation, but I don't think the lead is the place for it. Nor do I think the "Current Commonwealth realms" (as the header should remain) section is, either. Perhaps a history and explanation of the term itself might be a useful addition to the article as a stand-alone section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

-It might not be an official term, but I've found the following sources supporting the use of the term 'commonwealth realm':

-"University of British Colombia legal notes, volume 2", page 172 (year:1962):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=27FEAQAAIAAJ&q=commonwealth+realm&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o1tiT4DwJea00QW725iKCA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA

'Each of the commonwealth realms has superimposed on it a national citizenship'

-The CIA World Factbook 2012 describes each of the countries described on the British Monarchy website as 'Commonwealth realms'; for example, the Bahamas:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=o4lyrrsX0-wC&pg=PT302&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OlxiT-q0HaK20QWtn_GGCA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realm&f=false

"Government type: constitutional parliamentary democracy and a Commonwealth realm"

-The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq Conflicts, page 171 (2010):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=U05OvsOPeKMC&pg=PA171&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1mFiT6aIHsnC0QWvufm6CA&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCDgK#

"Although it remains a commonwealth realm with strong ties to Great Britain"

The World Factbook: (regarding New Zealand):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=w6UgzYKpcZIC&pg=PT3343&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BF1iT4--BqWe0QX09uyOCA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBjgK

"Government type: parliamentary democracy and a Commonwealth realm"

Encyclopedia of world constitutions: (Gabon to Norway): Volume 2 - Page 769:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=M3A-xgf1yM4C&pg=PA769&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I15iT4TwFoSu8QPttLivCA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realm&f=false

"The Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis is an independent Commonwealth realm"

"Commonwealth Realm" by Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome, John McBrewster:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=JFbaQgAACAAJ&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nl5iT_KbN-Oj0QWdr8SQCA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ

"A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch"

-Commonwealth and Colonial Law, by Sir Kenneth Roberts-Wray, 1966 (page 16):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=2WOuAAAAIAAJ&q=commonwealth+realms&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nl5iT_KbN-Oj0QWdr8SQCA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA

"Commonwealth State," even with a definition, is unsuitable, since there are States in the Commonwealth of Australia and in Malaysia, and the State of Brunei is not a Member of the Commonwealth. "Commonwealth Realms" would not be ..."

The New Zealand law journal: NZLJ.: Volume 51; Volume 51 (1976), page 31:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=CtYxAQAAIAAJ&q=commonwealth+realms&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yl9iT-XlCuLB0QW7v42XCw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAjgK

"The view that the Commonwealth Realms are "kingdoms in their own right" is..."

Prince William and Kate, a Royal Romance, 2011: (page 12):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=u7hQAAZqQYYC&pg=PA12&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yl9iT-XlCuLB0QW7v42XCw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realms&f=false

"The ruling monarch (king or queen) is the formal head of state for sixteen nations known as the Commonwealth Realms. These include the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and others"

Kings and Queens of England, 2007:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=uJ-lNQG45IAC&pg=PT187&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nWBiT9bQNMGn0QW41OS6CA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realms&f=false"The year saw a large tour of the Commonwealth Realms"

Chases Calendar of Events, 2012 Edition - Page 60:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=MPIyHo-BWPkC&pg=PA60&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D2FiT7qSD4mx0QWeicW4CA&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realms&f=false

"2012: The United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms celebrate 60 years of Queen Elizabeth II's reign with a four-day holiday weekend"

Solomon Islands Business and Investment Opportunities Yearbook - Page 8:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=biCkUeIoKjsC&pg=PA8&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dGJiT4THI4Km0QXRwYnACA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realm&f=false "The country remains a Commonwealth Realm"JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)