Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 1

message: What is the appropriate capitalization of this phrase?  Can we make the title and the first sentence consistant? -- Zoe
:It seems to me that it should be "Commonwealth realm" for the same reason I'd expect an article about European kingdoms to have a lower case "k". Ben Arnold 12:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Surely Ireland left in 1949 - from recollection the 1937 constitution or related law retained the monarchy as an organ for external relations and they remained in the Commonwealth (and relations with the UK went through the Dominions Office, not the Foreign Office). I won't change it without checking here though. Timrollpickering 12:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland's leaving 

message: Any chance of listing the 'Realms' at the bottom of "The Commonwealth of Nations" simply to be able to consolidate some templates???  CaribDigita 16:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance to consolidate Commonwealth Realm with the Commonwealth? 

message: I disagree with the statement "Another power the realms hold is the formal approval of any marriage within the royal family that may produce an heir to the throne". The Royal Family are British citizens, therefore they are only subject to British law. Thus if say New Zealand passes a law forbidding marriage, or the government is against the marriage, there is no legal barrier to marriage in the UK. Astrotrain 20:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
The obvious problem with this particular scenario is that it would change the succession in right of New Zealand.  But I agree that the sentence seems a little strong, and I also doubt that any marriage that passes muster in the UK actually does require Commonwealth consent.  The only argument I can imagine is that the Royal Marriages Act now requires permission of each of His Majesty's Governments rather than just the UK government.  In fact I suspect it was done as a courtesy, for the avoidance of doubt rather than any other reason. --Chris Bennett 02:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Powers of the Realms

message: The sub-title "Rise of Republicanism" was based on nothing but POV and read like a republican call to arms.  There have been republican sentiments in every Commonwealth Realm since they were first colonised, and though there continue to be those with republican leanings in the Realms, including the UK, there is nothing to prove there is a Commonwealth-wide rise in these feelings.
What's more, much of what was stated in the section exists almost verbatim in articles relating to republicanism within individual realms (ie. Republicanism in Australia, Canadian Republicanism and Monarchy in Canada/Debate on the monarchy -- these links have been included in the "Controversy" section.  All other information was shifted down to the "Controversy" section, and some was moved to the more relevant Republicanism in Australia.  Very little, if anything at all, was removed. --gbambino 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rise of Republicanism" 

message: I think this is where people are getting hung up:
*Some arguments from republicans in Canada are legitimate points of view to which they are entitled: opposed to monarchy in the abstract, opposed to an absentee monarch, opposed to this particular dynasty, etc.  In contrast, the notion that the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty is outright disinformation and is not encyclopedic.  To my knowledge this theory has never been proposed in good faith, but is merely a tactic used for its inflammatory value.
*The concept of multiple Crowns is a useful metaphor for describing the shared vs. separate character of the monarchy.  It is apparently not, in Canadian law at least, the correct usage of 'Crown' as a legal term. Peter Grey 03:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Thanks, Peter. The plot thickens. -SV|t 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two essential points 

message: "the notion that the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty is outright disinformation and is not encyclopedic."
The notion was the basis of the O'Donohue suit (contradiction betweeen the Charter of Rights and the Act of Settlement). Whether or not there is a contradiction is a matter of opinion but you cannot exclude the argument just because you don't like it, Peter. It's perfectly encylopedic to mention it in the Monarchy in Canada article as an argument brought up by republicans since it is and since we can document that the argument has been made. As for whether Canada's sovereignty is lessened by having what is arguablly a Briton as head of state and not being able to, under the current constitution, change the rules to the succession without the consent of 15 other countries, again that's a perfectly valid point of view and you cannot exclude it just because you don't like it or find it offensive. AndyL11:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument was made unsuccessfully: O'Donohue's petition was dismissed because it was "not justiciable and there is no serious issue to be tried".  It is a fringe point of view that is in contradiction to fact and that exists only as a propaganda tool. Peter Grey 13:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: So it's not "original research" but you "suspect most Canadians would agree...". Once again you've taken facts and then made the leap to political speculation.  You're trying to use litigation to give an artificial credibility to a political opinion.  Probably a lot of people would favour changing the succession law on grounds of secularism.  But that's very different from saying the Constution is flawed and amendments are imperative. Peter Grey 14:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: What's bad faith is pretending you changed the subject each and every time you're proven wrong. The 'argument' is not valid - it was rejected by a court of law. Peter Grey 14:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The legal argument or the political argument? You can't use one to back up the other. Peter Grey 15:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe the original research was your very creative theory about the Royal Title.  The O'Donohue petition is merely out of date. You've simply gone and changed the subject again.  The question (the one I'm discussing anyway) is "the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty".  This is incorrect as a fact of law. Peter Grey 15:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Legal argument or political argument? Pick one. (You do understand the difference?) Peter Grey 16:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The reference says that the Australian part of the title is given precedence in Australia.  It's a sentimental statement, not changing a legal relationship. Unless you're telling us it turned Canada into a colony of Australia.  (Do you think no-one ever checks your sources?) Peter Grey 16:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It wouldn't be surprising, given that he earlier argued himself into stating that Parliamentary Supremacy made Canada a colony of New Zealand.  But, of course, I digress... --gbambino 17:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: that has nothing to do with *this* article  That's been the point all along. Now stop wasting everyone's time. Peter Grey 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible contradictions or ambiguties in law