Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 4

message: If this interpretation of Rouleau HAD been agreed on the Canadian page then I would have been perfectly happy with this proposal.  However, it is perfectly clear from the Canadian talk page that it has NOT been agreed -- and that you knew that (did you REALLY think I'd just take your word for it??).  Therefore you cannot legitimately use that argument to drive the text on this page.  
What is also clear is that there is no hope of agreement on either page.  Therefore I am going to butt out at this point and let you children fight amongst yourselves.  I am sure you will continue to do until a real mediator with big guns steps in to bang some sense into your collective heads.   But I will ask the mediator offline to comment out the current Rouleau text, since it is certainly wrong.   --Chris Bennett 22:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, because the Balfour Declaration, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, the Statute of Westminster 1931, and the patriation of each of the Realms' constitutions, remain little known outside of legal circles, a common misconception prevails that the Crown remains an essentially British institution.  This misconception is aided by frequent reference to the shared Crown as the "British Crown" for historical reasons and for convenience.  For example, in the Ontario court ruling on the case O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003, Justice Rouleau states for Canada: "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries [is a] constitutional principle." --gbambino 22:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: What on earth are you on about?  Firstly, where the Queen spends the majority of her time has nothing to do with constitutional law.  Secondly, who says the UK has "primary say" over Royal marriages/reforms?  And thirdly, what real support do you have to your claim that the line of succession is tailored to "fit the needs" of one Realm and no others? --gbambino 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this interpretation 

message: :From Monarchy in Canada:
:"As a result of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 the dominions acquired the right to be considered equal to Britain rather than subordinate; an agreement that had the result of, in theory, a shared Crown that operates independently in each realm rather than a unitary British Crown under which all the dominions were subordinate. The subsequent Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 was the first indication of this shift in law, further elaborated in the Statute of Westminster, 1931... These concepts were reasserted by Justice Rouleau, in a 2003 court ruling... in which he wrote that "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries" is a "constitutional principle." The Monarchy is thus no longer an exclusively British institution, although it may often be called British for historical reasons and for convenience."
:That seems to me to be an affirmation of the equality of the Realms under the Crown. --gbambino 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "If the Realms are equal then it follows that the Crown must be shared equally."
That's an agument, not a fact. Please try to set your POV aside.
Homey 18:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple concept: one Crown, Realms are equal, all Realms share the Crown equally.  I know it's tough for you, but try to wrap your mind around it, as it's quite "relevent". 
Just because something is simple doesn't make it true.Homey 20:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From MiC 

message: *Part of the problem with the wording, from a Canadian perspective at least, is that it brings back the word 'crown' and the nightmarish ambiguity associated with it.  (Hence the particular wording I orginally used.)  Skimming through some Canadian statutes, the pattern is clearly that Crown is a non-specific term, representing the state in general as personified by the monarch.  'Queen' and 'Her Majesty' are specific terms, and often occur qualified by 'in right of' for the Dominion or a provincial government, or contrasting Canada and the United Kingdom.  Thus 'Crown' in a Canadian court decision must refer to the one and only Crown as shared across the Commonwealth Realms. Of course, legal terminology in other jurisdictions may differ slightly.
*Informally, of course, 'Crown' can mean the legal crown, or the person of the Queen, or the Queen of a specific realm, or the phenomenon of constitutional monarchy, or any of a number of general meanings.
*'Crown' is ambiguous in another way that has caused enormous grief on the talk pages.  Consider the Crown in Canada and the Crown in the UK: how are these to be compared in cultural, non-constitutional terms?  Is the "Crown in Canada" the Queen exercising her constitutional office, or is it the combined activities of the Queen and the Governor General?  Both interpretations have a certain merit.  Thus, while in the legal sense there is no ambiguity regarding an equal partnership of sovereign states, in non-legal meanings (which of course the article should address as well) the statement "the Crown is shared equally amongst the Realms" becomes impossible to assess.
*Misconceptions do exist about the equality relationship or that the UK has some obscure reserve power over the over Realms. The misconceptions  should be acknowledged, and the correct information provided.
*Perception of inequality between the operation of the Crown in the UK and the operation of the Crown elsewhere is of course noteworthy, but as a political opinion, not a legal principle.
*I am still not convinced that quotations from the Rouleau decision contribute anything positive to the article.  This was not a ground-breaking decision that changed Canada's destiny; a petition was brought to court and found, on the basis of existing law, and to the surprise of practically no-one, to be wholly without merit.  I think it is telling us something that so much effort is required to ensure that it is not misinterpreted. Peter Grey 23:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How vocabulary is a problem 

message: There seems to be a pattern of whenever Homey throws out accusations, it's really himself that he's talking about. I think GBambino may have sometimes overstepped NPOV, although apparently acting in good faith. In part he is representing the view of the Monarchist League of Canada, which, naturally, focuses on Canadian aspects of the Crown, and of course the function of the Monarchist League of Canada is, in part to provide encyclopedic knowledge to the public, but also to express sentimentalism and patriotism.
AndyL/Homey has not demonstrated good faith.  He has made repeated attempts to introduce errors of fact in what can only be presumed to be politically-motivated sabotage. The wording suggested is a classic example of this.  After much effort by a number of editors to reach some level of concensus, he now proposes describing the reality of constitutional law, which people have invested time in researching, with "Some monarchists promote the misconception", and describing a thus far undocumented political opinion with "History, culture and the law suggest".  This, he would have us believe, should be an acceptable compromise to the objections, which were not raised against explaining dissenting points of view of republicans, but raised only against putting legal fact and political opinion on an equal footing. Peter Grey 21:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts versus opinions

message: Okay, I know it's going to need work, but this is my preliminary proposal:
:It is held that these developments created the current situation where the Crown operates separately and equally in each of the Commonwealth Realms. Hence the Queen in right of each realm is a distinct legal person, with the Queen of Canada separate from the Queen of New Zealand or the Queen of the United Kingdom.  But because the Realms are united through the institution of the Monarchy matters directly related to the person of the Monarch, such as the laws affecting succession, are commonly and symmetrically shared.  Thus, legally the Crown is no longer an exclusively British institution, but instead is equally of each Realm.
:From a cultural standpoint, how the Crown is divided is not as clear.  Because the constitutional reality of the equally 'divided' Crown remains little known outside of legal circles, many still view the Crown as a solely British institution.  Perceptions are also affected by frequent reference to the shared Crown as the "British Crown" for historical reasons and for convenience.  The role of the Crown within each Realm is little understood by the majority of the population, including the purpose of the Governor General in countries outside of the United Kingdom.  However, in recent years the Queen, when in a particular Realm, has publicly referred to her personal history, and/or the Crown's relationship and role within that nation, and refers to herself specifically as queen of that Realm.  When giving speeches in Canada she will acknowledge the distinct culture of Canada by always using both the country's official languages.  As well, in the larger Realms (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) the public visibility of the Governors General conducting their ceremonial duties has been increasing, aided by heritage departments of the government who promote the Monarchy within their country as part of the cultural fabric (see 1).  Thus many others view the Crown within their country as particular to their nation's history and society, distinct from its role elsewhere.
:For political reasons republicans (outside of the United Kingdom) promote the view that the Crown within their particular country remains British and of Britain, whereas monarchists will assert that the Crown in right of their Realm is a core institution of their nation, distinct from the Crown in right of other Realms. --gbambino 22:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is held that these developments created the current situation where the Crown operates separately and equally in each of the Commonwealth Realms. Hence the Queen in right of each realm is a distinct legal person, with the Queen of Canada separate from the Queen of New Zealand or the Queen of the United Kingdom. But because the Realms are united through the institution of the Monarchy matters directly related to the person of the Monarch, such as the laws affecting succession, are commonly and symmetrically shared. Thus, legally the Crown is no longer an exclusively British institution, but instead is equally of each Realm.
I suggest you read Toporoski above. His scenario regarding the succession contradicts your assertions.Homey 22:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: While it doesn't seem to make any sense to talk about an "unequal" sharing of the Crown, I'm not sure it's really helpful to try to spell out comparisons like this. (Just for clarity, not "crown" headgear or the physical person of the Queen, "Crown" the legal concept.) I think this may be taking us back to comparing disjoint definitions of "Crown". Peter Grey 17:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gbambino proposal 

message: Could we perhaps try the following?:
:The Crown has become an institution which operates separately in each Commonwealth Realm, with the Queen in right of each Realm being a distinct legal person. The institution of the Monarchy, the succession, and obviously the Queen herself, are shared equally by all the Realms in a symmetrical fashion. Thus the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, and in different contexts "Crown" may mean the crown as shared or the crown in each realm considered separately.
:From a cultural standpoint, how the Crown is divided is not as clear. For political reasons republicans (outside of the United Kingdom) promote the view that the Crown within their particular country remains British and of Britain, whereas monarchists will assert that the Crown in right of their Realm is a core institution of their nation, linked to but distinct from the Crown in right of other Realms. --gbambino 19:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GBambino proposal 

message: How about:
:are shared by all the Realms in a symmetrical fashion.
If you are correct and "equal" is a synonym for "symmetrical" it would be redundant to say "shared equally...in a symmetrical fashion."  
:From a cultural standpoint, how the Crown is divided is not as clear. For political reasons republicans (outside of the United Kingdom) promote the view that the Crown within their particular country remains British and of Britain, whereas monarchists will assert that the Crown in right of their Realm is a core institution of their nation, linked to but distinct from the Crown in right of other Realms.
The problem here is 1) the use of the term "divided" is spurious, use "shared" instead ("division of the Crown" is a phrase used to describe what would happen if different realms adopted different succession rules).
2) you are ascribing political motives to republicans but no motives to monarchists (when certainly monarchists have political motives for minimising, or even denying the Britishness of the Crown). Why say "For political reasons" at all? Also, there are a number of monarchists who promote (and also defend)  the "Britishness" of the monarchy so it is misleading to ascribe one view to republicans and the other to monarchists. 
As an aside, I am still waiting for your theory of how the other realms would utilise their "power" to compel the UK not to unilaterally change the succession. 
Also, I think it is important to use the Rouleau quotation as it affirms a) that the entity we are describing is the "British Crown" and b) that we are under it. I would accept not using the quotation if the article itself referred to the Commonwelath Realms as being "under the British Crown".   
so how about:
:The British Crown is an institution that both reigns over the Commonwealth realms and operates independently in each individual realm, with the Queen in right of each Realm being a distinct legal person. The institution of the monarchy, the succession, and obviously the Queen herself, are shared by all the realms in a symmetrical fashion. Thus the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, and in different contexts "Crown" may mean the crown as shared or the crown in each realm considered separately.
:From a cultural standpoint, how the Crown is shared is not as clear. Republicans and some monarchists argue that the Crown within their particular country remains essentially British and of Britain, whereas other monarchists will minimize the "British" nature of the Crown and emphasise its domestic characteristics. For instance, in Canada, some monarchists refer to the "Maple Crown" in order to assert what they contend are the Crown's Canadian characteristics.
Homey 22:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homey's reaction 

message: It's true that "equally" and "symmetrically" need not be both included in the sentence, so the first paragraph might be as follows:
:The Crown has become an institution which operates separately in each Commonwealth Realm, with the Queen in right of each Realm being a distinct legal person. The institution of the Monarchy, the succession, and obviously the Queen herself, are shared by all the Realms in a symmetrical fashion. Thus the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, and in different contexts "Crown" may mean the crown as shared or the crown in each realm considered separately.
As for the second paragraph, your proposed one reads as though those who assert the Crown in Canada is a distinct and intrinsic part of Canadian society are in the minority, and monarchists are divided on the issue while republicans are not.  Perhaps it could simply read:
:From a cultural standpoint, how the Crown is shared is not as clear. Some argue that the Crown within their particular country remains essentially British and of Britain, whereas others emphasise the larger body of the Crown as a shared link between the Commonwealth Realms, and the Crown in right of their nation as having specific domestic characteristics.--gbambino 22:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GBambino revised proposal

message: Sounds like we're on to something (although 'cultural standpoint' really belongs in the 'public perceptions' section).  Some very small suggestions:
*Maybe spell out "person of the Queen" to contrast legal and physical persons.
*I think "equally" works better than the more technical "symmetically" (but that's just style). 
*"British and of Britain" doesn't sound right. Maybe "British in character", and maybe even tack on "and a continuing link with the United Kingdom and/or Commonwealth"? Peter Grey 02:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has been watching this issue unfold from afar, might I just voice support for Gbambino’s revised proposal (as listed immediately above). It’s definitely on the right track towards compromise. I do note Peter Grey’s stylistic suggestions, but don’t think them necessary; symmetrically, in this context, perhaps works better than equally. --(*returns to obscurity*)Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "British Crown" is not the "correct" term, but rather, as has been established, is one used sometimes for "historical purposes and convenience.
That's *your* qualification, however, Rouleau uses the term "British Crown" throughout his ruling so evidently it is the legal term. What is the correct term, gbambino? "Commonwealth Crown" or "Commonwealth Crown" or neologisms, "The Crown" is in appropriate in an international context as it is unspecific (there's more than one crown in the world?). "British Crown", as you concede, is the historically established term and no other term has been adopted to refer to the entity that reigns over the Commowealth realms. I seem to recall posting a url earlier to the Commonwealth website to show that the term "British Crown" is still used. I know that Canadian monarchists like to downplay the term in order to deflect criticisms that the Crown is a colonial hangover but that is immaterial to our use of terms in this article. Homey 18:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More reaction

message: As well, one has to remember that Wikipedia is international. Using the term "The Crown" in the first instance instead of "The British Crown" violates NPOV in the same way that using, in the first instance in an article, the term "The President" instead of "the US President" or "The President of the United States" since doing so makes assumptions about the "nationality" of Wikpedia and its readers. So not only should we use the term "British Crown" because it's correct, we have to use it at least when the concept of "The Crown" is introduced in the article for NPOV purposes and because there is no established alternative term (as I said "Commonwealth Crown" is a neologism). EG, in an article about, say, the Cuban Missile Crisis we should refer, at least initially, to "US President John F. Kennedy" or "John F. Kennedy, President of the United States" rather than "President John F. Kennedy" (I haven't checked to see if we do or not but if we don't that needs to be changed). Homey 18:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Peter chooses to ignore the NPOV issue or the fact that "British Crown" is perfectly correct as confirmed by Rouleau's usage of it and rely on simple assertion. Peter, which law, agreement or treaty retired the term "British Crown" from the Commonwealth? And what do you say to the various academics etc who use the term "British Crown" to refer to the current entity reigning over the Commonwealth realms? Homey 00:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Conflicts between your personal prejudices and reality are not an "NPOV issue". Peter Grey 04:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It's an article about the Commonwealth Realms.  It's blatantly clear which group of countries is being referred to, and which crown they're under.  The correct legal term is "Crown" -- and a number of examples of this have been given.  "British Crown" is not a legal term.  Adding "British Crown" will only negate the clarity we're trying to achieve by muddying the differentiation between the shared Crown and the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom. --gbambino 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: disputed NPOV claim

message: *The first instance is the following: The Balfour Declaration of 1926 declared that the dominions were autonomous and equal in status. Although this was a political statement and did not immediately change the legal status of the Crown....  In the context of 1926, "British Crown" is an acceptable term.  I assume that if that change is made, the word "Crown" can subsequently be used without superfluous qualification. Peter Grey 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution of NPOV concern

message: It has nothing to do with NPOV.  The Crown is the legal term as it is used throughout Commonwealth Realm law rather than "British Crown." In fact, within the Statute of Westminster, the one standing law that affects all Realms of the Commonwealth in regards to their relationship to one another in terms of the Crown, the institution is specifically, and only, referred to as "the Crown."  Rouleau is not creating law with his ruling, so his use of the term "British Crown" does not make it legal.  He merely alludes to the Crown in that way for convenience rather than because of any specific reference in law.  As I said, in this instance, calling the shared Crown the "British Crown" when we're trying to distinguish it from the Crown in Right of the UK will cause unnecessary confusion. --gbambino 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Peter chooses to ignore the NPOV issue or the fact that "British Crown" is perfectly correct as confirmed by Rouleau's usage of it and rely on simple assertion. Peter, which law, agreement or treaty retired the term "British Crown" from the Commonwealth? And what do you say to the various academics etc who use the term "British Crown" to refer to the current entity reigning over the Commonwealth realms? Homey 00:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Conflicts between your personal prejudices and reality are not an "NPOV issue". Peter Grey 04:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It's an article about the Commonwealth Realms.  It's blatantly clear which group of countries is being referred to, and which crown they're under.  The correct legal term is "Crown" -- and a number of examples of this have been given.  "British Crown" is not a legal term.  Adding "British Crown" will only negate the clarity we're trying to achieve by muddying the differentiation between the shared Crown and the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom. --gbambino 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How the word Crown is actually used

message: This is another pattern we've seen from AndyL/Homey - when his politically-motivated assertions are demonstrated to be errors of fact, he then claims an NPOV issue.  We saw this on Monarchist League of Canada before he destroyed the edit history. Peter Grey 16:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad Hominem cutaway

message: The following paragraphs have been proposed:
:The Crown has become an institution which operates separately in each Commonwealth Realm, with the Queen in right of each Realm being a distinct legal person. The institution of the Monarchy, the succession, and obviously the Queen herself, are shared by all the Realms in a symmetrical fashion. Thus the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, and in different contexts "Crown" may mean the crown as shared or the crown in each realm considered separately.
:From a cultural standpoint, how the Crown is shared is not as clear. Some argue that the Crown within their particular country remains essentially British and of Britain, whereas others emphasise the larger body of the Crown as a shared link between the Commonwealth Realms, and the Crown in right of their nation as having specific domestic characteristics.
Reasons for and against using the term "British Crown" in place of "Crown":
Against:
*Gbambino:
**"Crown" is the accurate term, being cited within law throughout the Commonwealth Realms, including the key piece of constitutional legislation regarding the relationship of the Commonwealth Realms under the Crown, the Statute of Westminster 1.  "British Crown" is not a term of law, only sometimes being used in circumstances where the Crown as shared must be distinguished from the Crown within the jurisdiction of a certain Realm Parliament, or for historical reasons.
**Clarity is the utmost goal here and using the term "British Crown" in this instance will muddy the differentiation between the shared Crown and the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, thereby causing unnecessary confusion for readers. --gbambino 18:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this deals with the NPOV problem.Homey 10:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Im glad to hear things are narrowing down. I think I understand the arguments a bit better. On the one hand there is the familiar approach, which says in "x context, x convention is used" - while a more general ("neutral") approach would be to be explanatory. In the context of all Commonwealth articles, this would mean stating exactly how "British" these are. I personally find it confusing to use Commonwealth terms to describe "the Queen of Canada" instead of "British Queen" Elizabeth II. "British Monarch" seems to be general ("neutral") enough, and not as confusing as "the Crown" or the Canadian Monarch. In other words, if the commonwealth monarchs are all (for the forseeable past and future) equivalent to the British Monarch, policy points toward simple mechanical redirection as the dominant policy. Likewise, the definition "The British monarch or Sovereign is the head of state of the United Kingdom," will need to be changed to say head of the British Commonwealth, including the UK, Canada," etc. -St|eve 18:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Right. It goes both ways -- local convention, or universal explanation. In this context (open world encyclopedia), the universal needs to supercede the local, as our interest is in conveying information to those unfamiliar, rather than convey 'reinforcing fact' to those already somewhat indoctrinated. Sinreg, St|eve 23:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "Local" means anything which is not universal. As large as the British Commonwealth is —by some definitions it may even be called "global" —it is not "universal." Hence Commonwealth terms are "local," and universal terms are the most general. Is that clearer? -St|eve 06:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I know what 'universal' means, I'm referring to the use of terms which are accurate without reinforcing existing misconceptions, and in particular when is the right context to use 'British'. We seem to have a consensus that for "Constitutional implications" post 1931, 'British' is incorrect, and that for "Public perceptions", 'British' has some validity. Peter Grey 17:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The Commonwealth has not been the "British Commonwealth" since 1946. Hu 03:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute on "British Crown" 

message: Having resolved the outstanding issues with respect to constitutional law, I would suggest that there are more points of view that can be addressed in terms of historical and cultural perspectives.  For example, the statement "the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the British Commonwealth of Nations" (Statute of Westminster) was an important political and sentimental statement, which has not completely lost all its meaning.  While it is true that monarchy support today tends to focus on the Crown as a domestic institution, the sentimental ties, and the ties to a common history and common traditions, do still play some role for some people. Peter Grey 16:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Im glad to hear things are narrowing down. I think I understand the arguments a bit better. On the one hand there is the familiar approach, which says in "x context, x convention is used" - while a more general ("neutral") approach would be to be explanatory. In the context of all Commonwealth articles, this would mean stating exactly how "British" these are. I personally find it confusing to use Commonwealth terms to describe "the Queen of Canada" instead of "British Queen" Elizabeth II. "British Monarch" seems to be general ("neutral") enough, and not as confusing as "the Crown" or the Canadian Monarch. In other words, if the commonwealth monarchs are all (for the forseeable past and future) equivalent to the British Monarch, policy points toward simple mechanical redirection as the dominant policy. Likewise, the definition "The British monarch or Sovereign is the head of state of the United Kingdom," will need to be changed to say head of the British Commonwealth, including the UK, Canada," etc. -St|eve 18:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Right. It goes both ways -- local convention, or universal explanation. In this context (open world encyclopedia), the universal needs to supercede the local, as our interest is in conveying information to those unfamiliar, rather than convey 'reinforcing fact' to those already somewhat indoctrinated. Sinreg, St|eve 23:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "Local" means anything which is not universal. As large as the British Commonwealth is —by some definitions it may even be called "global" —it is not "universal." Hence Commonwealth terms are "local," and universal terms are the most general. Is that clearer? -St|eve 06:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I know what 'universal' means, I'm referring to the use of terms which are accurate without reinforcing existing misconceptions, and in particular when is the right context to use 'British'. We seem to have a consensus that for "Constitutional implications" post 1931, 'British' is incorrect, and that for "Public perceptions", 'British' has some validity. Peter Grey 17:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The Commonwealth has not been the "British Commonwealth" since 1946. Hu 03:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Different kinds of Britishness

message: :::AVD, will you please stop just asserting things and answer the points I made?
:::Before 1931, laws passed by Dominion parliamentss could be overruled by the British Parliament.  The Governor-Generals conflated the position of representative of Britain and de facto head of state.  The British Parliament could declare war on behalf of the Dominions without consulting their parliaments.  These are facts that indicate that Domions were not fully independent states before 1931.
:::Do you think I am wrong in these facts, or their interpretation?  Please answer that question if you want to continue this discussion.  --Jfruh 03:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominion of Canada Sovereignity versus United States Of America Sovereignity

message: Howdy Jfruh,
Please compare the definitions of Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Independence.  After doing that, please consult their French Language definitions, and their connotations.
Then consider the constant battle between English-Canada and French-Canada over controlling domestic affairs, as opposed to international affairs.
Then factor in that Canada's Loyality to the UK was assumed, whereas the USA's was rejected.   Now, you are starting the get the picture of "Canadian Independence from 1867 to 2005".
The Canadian Republic does not yet exist, so please do not constrain you POV to the narrow USA notion of "Republic equals Independence".
ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compare Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Independence

message: Could a moderator please change the listing of South Africa in the list of former Commonwealth Realms to Union of South Africa? This article deals entirely with the former country. Thanks in advance. 
User:Homagetocatalonia 08:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: South Africa

message: As far as I can tell, this is what we have right now:
*Change the first occurrence of 'Crown' in a pre-1931 context to 'British Crown'; all other references will not require qualification.
*Under 'One Crown or several?', change shared equally by all the realms to shared by all the Realms in a symmetrical fashion.
*Delete the entire sentence A number of theorists contend that the "Crown" in any... 
*Add new paragraph: From a cultural standpoint, how the Crown is shared is not as clear. Some argue that the Crown within their particular country remains essentially British and of Britain, whereas others emphasise the larger body of the Crown as a shared link between the Commonwealth Realms, and the Crown in right of their nation as having specific domestic characteristics.
Peter Grey 21:16, 12 August 2005 Peter Grey
:That sounds fine to me. Can we go ahead and implement that? Any objections? Homey 23:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to accept this change.  CJCurrie 01:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just so we're clear