Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 3

message: :If Canada abolished the monarchy or changed the succession rules it would have no impact on the UK. Conversely, if the UK were to change its succession rules and Canada maintained the status quo, we would be faced with the possibility of having to completely change our system to accomodate a resident monarchy - when our political system and constitution are not designed for an absentee monarch (hence the position of governor general which does not exist in the UK). 	 
:The "British monarchy" is "first among equals" in political terms as the abolition of the monarchy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc would have no impact on the monarchy in Britain whereas the abolition of the monarchy in the UK would almost certainly lead to its extinction in the rest of the Commonwealth Realms.
:The fact is that the system in the "Commonwealth Realms" (outside of the UK) was designed with the assumption that the monarch would be resident in London. Do you deny that?  The fact is that the monarch is present most of the time in Britain. She has spent 2% of her reign in Canada and, I suspect, around that percentage or less in the other Commonwealth Realms.  The fact is that this means there is quite a different relationship between the monarch and a) her British subjects and the British political system and b) her subjects and the political systems in the other Commonwealth realms.
:The most obvious constitutional difference is that the duties and constitutional role played by the Governor General in the Commonwealth Realms is played by the Queen herself in Britain. i.e. The Queen, with increasingly rare exceptions, does not give royal assent to bills passed in Commonwealth legislatures or even give the Throne Speech (what in Britain is called the Queen's Speech because the Queen herself gives it). She does not name the Prime Ministers in Commonwealth Realms, does not resolve constitutional or parliamentary crises that may result in Commonwealth Realms and does not have weekly meetings with her Commonwealth PMs.	
:Now monarchists like to believe that the Queen is fully informed and intimately involved in, let's say, Canadian affairs. The reality is that in the Commonwealth Realms the role of the monarchy has developed so that it is really more of an abstract and theoretical entity, much more so than in Britain.  Let me give you a hard example. We now know that the Queen was not at all consulted on the dismissal of Gough Whitlam in Australia in 1975. This was done by Governor General Kerr in her name but she was not consulted or even informed until after it had happened.	
:Let me give you another example. We now know thanks to the 30 year disclosure rule that the Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales quite regularly write letters and make phone calls to Cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats in Britain complaining of this or that government policy (this is actually quite shocking considering all the propaganda we are fed about the monarchy being "above politics"). We also know from biographies and autobiographies that UK Prime Ministers do give some consideration to what the Queen thinks about this or that thing or even this or that minister. It may not be a decisive consideration but its in the picture. That is simply not the case for Commonwealth Realm PMs. There is no evidence of royals writing Canadian or Austrlain ministers complaining about this or that policy or of Canadian or Australian PMs being particularly concerned about what the Queen might think, at least not to the extent as is the case in the UK. 	
:Now you might say but the Governor General acts on HMs behalf so there's really no difference. But there is, the Queen's role in the UK is unmediated, in the realms it is mediated by a GG and she is almost a complete absentee from the process.	Therefore, it's quite clear that her role is much more important in the UK than elsewhere.  Also, the fact that the systems in the Commonwealth Realms are designed with an absentee monarch in mind and have a GG in place Britain becoming a republic would have an impact on the realms where Commonwealth realms becoming republics has had no impact on the Queen's role in the UK. 
:The fact is if Britain became a republic the Commonwealth Realms would have to figure out which one of them would become the new home for the Windsors, or if some sort of shared custody arrangement should be worked out where, say, she spends one month in each realm.	The fact is they would also have to deal with the royal family's wishes, including the possibility that they would not want to move to Canada or Australia but would prefer to either remain in a British republic as ordinary citizens or live in exile in Europe (or even the US). That would raise the possibility of abdication and having to find a new monarch or even of splitting the monarchy into pieces. Then there's the question of what happens to the GG and the other political and constitutional impacts of one of the realms suddenly having a resident monarch.	
:Bosh! you might say. Original research (actually no, because the differences between her role in the UK and elsewhere are well known and the realities of say, her not being consulted about the Australian constitutional crisis are well documented) Speculation! Well the possibility that the UK may become a republic is speculation, but the implications of that on the realms is based on the facts that her constitutional, political and social role in the realms is much more remote than in the UK and, in any case, quite a lot of constitutional theory has to deal with speculation (what happens if this happens in parliament, or if this happens in an election, or if a PM does this or refuses to do that). And the fact is that all these questions arise out of the fact that the Queen is resident in the UK and not resident anywhere else despite the legal fiction that she is as much a Canadian or Jamaican as she is a Briton.	
:It's more than sentimental. Even putting aside the hypothetical situation of the UK becoming a republic the difference between her constitutional role in the UK and in the other realms is quite clear to anyone with eyes to see and lacking the tunnel vision caused by wishful thinking and sophistry.Andy 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh?  Where did Peter point that out? 
Southern Comfort mentioned it in the British monarchy article. Andy 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the diatribe, but what does it have to do with your admission that there are numerous crowns within the "British Crown"? And, I don't actually see your 'example' of Peter pointing out that there is no such thing as the "Canadian Crown." --gbambino 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So can I take it from that that you agree with me on the different relationship between the Crown and the UK and the Crown of Canada and the impact a change in the UK succession would have in Canada? As for Peter, ask SouthernComfort where he saw the comment.Andy 21:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, reading Rouleau, I don't see his argument as acknowledging "multiple crowns", quite the opposite. He talks repeatedly of a single crown, of Canada being united "under the British Crown", "sharing the British monarch" etc. He never refers to the Canadian Crown (though he talks of the British Crown) but, once, to the Crown of Canada in reference to the hypothetical situation of Canada changing the rules of succession. That doesn't strike me as an admission of "multiple crowns" but more of a short form for "Crown in right in Canada". the talk of a "British crown" is inconsistent with the MLC's claim of a "Maple Crown". Andy 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Canada abolished <strike><i>the Crown</i></strike> <strike><i>its Crown</i></strike> its "crown" 

message: :Andy, with all due respect, I think youre putting out more heat than light, and instead of arguing over what ifs or what should or should not be, you should focus on answering the material issues, which are how to best represent the material and explain the issue. At this point, Im a bit sympathetic to Peter and Gbambino, because at least they tend to be more brief. I dont need a history lesson. Rather I need to know what your actual purpose is. Your interest seems to be much more in arguing rather than helping clarify this topic for others (ie. at least the simplistic and strict approach promises to be "clarifying").
:For example, you go into statements like these: "...Could consensus be achieved among the 16? Frankly, it's more likely that some realms will withdraw from the monarchy entirely..." This becan as a hypothetical, for which you gave your speculative opinion, stating it as "Frank[]" fact. You could be more tactful. Your questions seem like they contain their own answers: "How is it justifiable in a democratic society supposedly based on principles of equality and merit to have its nominally highest office determined by heredity? How is it justifiable in Canada to have as part of our constitution the exclusion of Catholics from an office of state?" I personally would tend to agree that the single Crown concept was and still is undemocratic, but you appear as if on a quest to convince those who may not have quite an idealistic concept of "democracy" as others. 
:At the root of your motivations is a youthful and naive concept of idealism, which simply ignores the "pragmatic" "real-world" notions which are somewhat embodied in conservative traditionalism and loyalism. From the conservative POV, societies arent created in a day, and therefore things which are too radically changing (like bloody revolution) simply weaken the society, hence they are considered dangerous. Meaning, that popular revolt may very well equal war and famine, etc. and that undoes the both the work of building the society, as well as the work of the society itself --to make a more "secure" future for people. From that point of view, "change" often does more real damage in contrast to the idealistic good that comes from idealistic change.  But from the liberal pro-democracy side, stalled progress toward greater idealism simply means that society can slip backwards, which likewise leads to damage and destruction. Though democracy is a principled thing, its name is typically trampled through the mud, and its commonly understood that the acceptance of a trampling climate (for example in my country) leads to destruction, just as assuredly as it leads to revolt. 
:So, understanding all of that, I think your purpose (if there really is one) is to make some kind of contrast between the idealistic concept of a democracy, (as in the U.S. for example? LOL) and the monarchy-Commonwealth system established by the UK and its former outposts, colonies, and slave camps. But, if you understand history, then you can understand this is cyclical between shifing popular poles. I see this debate as more an issue of youthful interpretation on your part, than on the facts themselves. ("Issues" are somewhere between interpretation and facts). Lastly, the issues you raise are overly general, --perhaps you chould centralise your efforts on democracy article itself. The fact of the matter is that "democracy" is, as you suspect, under attack from many fronts. In light of political panderism and corporate influence over my country's "democracy," I cant say that the "ultimate deference to the Queen" model is any worse. But, again, this isnt the place for discussions. Sinreg, SV|t 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MHTL 

message: It strikes me that for the article to raise the question rhetorically, "One Crown or several?", and describe the various meanings which people attach to the word crown, would be an excellent way of presenting the shared vs. separate dichotomy of the crownmonarchy, rather than trying to pin down exactly one answer to the question. Peter Grey 19:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Peter, however, all of the relevant articles need to be associated with each other in a Template:UK Commonwealth. This would make it feasible to sort what goes where. -SV|t 05:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many Crowns, so little content 

message: Another power the realms hold is the formal approval of any marriage within the royal family that may produce an heir to the throne. For example, when Charles, Prince of Wales married Diana, Princess of Wales in 1981 it required the assent of 15 governments (the above 16 minus Antigua & Barbuda, St. Kitts & Nevis, and Belize, which were not yet independent, plus Mauritius and Fiji which were still realms at the time).
:How can this be true? Charles and Diana were British citizens, and not subject to the laws of any of the Commonwealth Realms with the exception of the UK. Members of the Royal Family do not have a constitutional position in the Realms, including the UK. The only legislation applying to them is the Royal Marriages Act, requiring them to receive the concent of the monarch before marriage. But this is a UK Act and does not apply in the realms, and the Prime Ministers of the non-UK realms cannot advise the Queen on UK matters. Astrotrain 19:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
::I also think the statement is too strong, but I can't say anything authoritative because I didn't even know such consent had been sought until I saw this.  I don't know for a fact that it was sought.  If it was, and was not just a courtesy, I suggested when you last raised this that the RMA might be one justification for it.  Since the RMA does affect the succession I can well imagine it being argued that UK approval is not sufficient for the other Realms -- but then similar approval should be sought for all marriages of descendants of George III!  The other precedent, of course, is the suggestion of a morganatic marriage for Edward VIII, which certainly was discussed with the Commonwealth Realms.  But I doubt that such approval was sought, for example, for the marriage of Elizabeth and Philip.  --Chris Bennett 20:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Powers of the Realms

message: The basic idea is this: the page is protected, to throttle editing until certain issues are hashed out. This can take two forms: the page is mechanically protected, and only two (or small number) trusted sysops can edit the article --doing their best to represent the specific suggestions of disputants --in this case Andy and Gbam. The other way is to bar the disputants from editing the article, while allowing the article to be edited by a larger group of "moderators". Im proposing this now, to start some discussion, but I dont want to wait forever. Sinreg -SV|t 05:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amended. Adding template. This is obviously going to have to spill over into other articles, or else end with Andy's ban, which I dont see as justified. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: AndyL and Gbambino are not the only parties to have made specific suggestions.  They are just the most vocal and disputatious.  To summarise my own opinion: intellectually I'm generally with Gbambino, but editorially I tend to side with AndyL.  Since AndyL and Gbambino show no signs of coming to terms, I agree moderation is necessary.  So long as the sysops take the whole of recent editing history into account and don't give those two parties undue weight, I have no trouble with either approach to moderation, though I prefer the second.   --Chris Bennett 16:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And disputatiousness can be more of a problem than the material itself. Thanks for "dipping your oar" Chris. And please stick around. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I just protected it, so youre can rest a bit. Ultimately my view (inclusionism) is that if material is not complete hogwash then its worthy of place, though where and how exactly to place it can be the problem. Consider this my sanction of Andy's basic thrust for "clarification", though by no means am I agreeable with his language or notion for placing this here. Certainly for massive cross-article debates, having a central Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth might be a good idea. While the page is inviolable, please consider putting energies toward working on the yet unformed template:UK Common. Andy should do the same. Maybe if that can be accomplished agreeably, then you two can start to agree on other things. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't understand this at all. Why can't the section "one crown or several?" simply give a brief, two-sentence explanation of each possible interpretation, and be done with it? (Some people say this, for this reason. Others say that, for that reason.) The wikipedia is full of many many much much more flammable disagreements, and in most of the ones that I've come across even the most contentious editors have been able to reach a modus vivendi with no protection needed. What gives here? Doops |  talk 07:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the general m:inclusionism, but placement, wording, and sources are vital, and tend to be readily picked at. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, come off it, Andy. And here I thought you were beginning to be civil for a change. I've made myself clear, and your your comments are way off the mark. --gbambino 15:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyhow, seems I've "lost" again. Time to slither off..-gbambino. 
If you want to be treated with respect you should start behaving in a manner worthy of respect. Andy 19:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Andy, knock it off please. Let me be the one to tell people to knock off any ad hominiem - yourself included. -SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, well, Peter: are you sysop endowed? Jtdirl will be along shortly, maybe we'll talk some others to come along too. My job ATM is to freeze the disputes, deal with them, organize energy toward improving what we've got, and bring others in to help. As a suggestion, please  material instead of cutting it. This way, its still there and can be hidden from view until its ready or otherwise better placed. Redundancy is more a question of editing and rewriting than anything else. Sinreg to all.-SV|t 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you're saying that wasn't your intention? Peter Grey 03:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Well thanks for the info, Andy, but Peter can answer any questions himself. Peter might nevertheless try WP:RFA at some point in the NF. -SV|t 15:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderated editing 101 

message: This dispute is very long and protracted, and quite difficult to follow, and also dragged out over different pages. Could the people involved, please state their positions (briefly), and then others can consider this?
*It seems to be can any new legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom have force of law in another sovereign state, other than in the case of a state which voluntarily and explicitly chooses to adopt it into its own law, and, if so, would this contradict the assertion of the 1926 Imperial Conference that the Commonwealth realms are in a relationship of equals. (Of course, I could be missing something.) Peter Grey 21:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the dispute?