Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 6

message: ...* Most wiki links are nominals (nouns and noun phrases) or words and phrases derived from nominals. With a few exceptions where something else just works better.  Let's not forget, the goal is comprehension and convenience for the readers. Peter Grey 21:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: [[Commonwealth Realm]] - comment 

message: In two Commonwealth Realms -- Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands -- the governors-general are elected by the parliament.  I think this should be mentioned here, but I admit that I don't understand how this practice reconciles with the legal theory of the Westminster system. Is the Queen appointing the G-Gs in those realms on the advice of her Parliament, rather than of her government?  Or has the Queen's reserve powers in those realms been restrained by constitutional law? --Jfruh 21:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elected Governors-General 

message: While I understand why Ireland is on the list of former commonwealth realms, I believe that Ireland's departure from the commonwealth in 1949 predated the existence of the term "Commonwealth Realm" altogether (the term Dominion was in use at the time).  In addition, Ireland's political setup for the bulk of this period -- with an elected President coexisting with the monarch -- is different from any other Commonwealth Realm.  At the risk of adding extraneous material to this page, I think this stuff ought to be mentioned at least --Jfruh 21:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, never mind, I see that this has already been dealt with in a footnote. --Jfruh 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland a realm? 

message: Nice map, whoever did it, but you left off St. Vincent and the Grenadines
:Corrected. --Colonel Cow 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Vincent and the Grenadines 

message: Regarding the Monarch of Australia, would it not be more appropriate to title her Queen Elizabeth I (Queen of Australia) rather than Queen Elizabeth II (Queen of England)? After all, there was no previous Elizabeth who would have reigned over Australia even as a colony. In fact, since Federation 1901, should not the previous Kings of Australia (not of England) too (since after Federation Australia was now an independent country with its own monarch head of state, separate from England) should have had their titles re-ordered in the Australian context by ordinal number? 
:Numbering is customary, not logical.  You could use the same argument to say that she should be Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom, since the kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707.  There have been 11 kings Edward of England and the UK, but only 8 are numbered; 11 kings Charles of France and 17 kings Louis, but the highest numbers are X and XVIII respectively; two kings Alfonso of Spain, but they are numbered XII and XIII; Popes John XX and XXI are the same man and there have been two popes numbered John XXIII and so on.  
:As a matter of law, the various Styles and Titles Act have all proclaimed her under the name Elizabeth the Second.  They could have chosen Elizabeth the First, or even Elizabeth the Fifteenth had they wished, but they didn't.  
And since the creation of the British Commonwealth, should not other Commonwealth countries now being independent (previous simply existing as colonies of a "empire") now also be titled Elizabeth I to reflect that she is now a monarch of many independent countries rather than previously Queen Elizabeth II of England via her former colonial empire? And since she is the "Queen of the Commonwealth", a new position from during her reign and should, while keeping her as Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of England, then also title her in the Commonwealth context as Elizabeth I of the British Commonwealth? 
:She is Head of the Commonwealth, not Queen of the Commonwealth.  The Commonwealth is not a realm, its just a club.
And the "republics" in the commonwealth, while they have elected  presidents by the people, are they not actually under the Queen as her popularly elected representatives of the Head of the Commonwealth, with the difference from monarchies like Australia being that her representative as Head of State is appointed and delegated by her personally as as Governor-General? 
:No.  Presidents of Commonwealth republics, whether elected or not, are Heads of State, and not subordinate to the Queen in any respect whatsoever.
In terms of the seats of power, the Commonwealth republican presidents and the Governor-Generals of the Commonwealth monarchies may difffer, but in terms of the seat of delegation, functionally I would see them to be the same: still representing the Monarch under the Commonwealth. Under my understanding then, the Queen would legally (though probably politically no be able to do so) have the authority to dismiss any of her representatives under her delegation of each independent country of the Commonwealth, such as perhaps Robert Mugabe or, in earlier times, Idi Amin? Interesting question! 
:No.  See above.
As a corrolary regarding Australian (and other Commonwealth country) coins, would they be not genuinely actual "Legal Tender" in Australia since it is her image as Queen of England, Head of State of England (Elizabeth II) which bears all Australian coins and not her image as Queen of Australia, Head of State of Australia (Elizabeth I) which ought to be borne on Australian coins? This would lead it to consider that "Australian" coins are not realy Australian Legal Tender but rather they are English Legal Tender but denoted in terms of Australian Dollar / cents denominations! The Australian $5 note would still be Austraian Legal Tender since the image of the Queen does not specify the name. Nor does it make sense for the Australian Prime Minister to swear his oath to the Queen of England (Elizabeth II). Why not swear his oath to the Queen of Australia (Elizabeth I) if he is the Prime Minister of Australia?
: He swears his oath to Elizabeth II Queen of Australia.  In any case, she is not Queen of England.  As a legal entity, England ceased to exist in 1707.
Sincerely, Vytautas B. Radzivanas, Perth, Western Australia
: HTH --Chris Bennett 17:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, but you were making a different argument, which was that the Queen MUST be Elizabeth I of Australia.  And indeed she could have been Elizabeth I of Australia while also being Elizabeth II of the UK.  But the Australian parliament has explicitly chosen not to number her this way.  --Chris Bennett 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Read again FDR -- it was Vytautas Radzivanas who held this position, and me who was disabusing him of it.  You might also try spelling my name right! --Chris Bennett 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering Elizabeth 

message: Just made a small change to this part - Victoria certainly didn't vote in favour - Only the ACT did. Further to that the 'defeated by a narrow margin overall' is certainly debateable - given the double majority required. 220.235.156.94 12:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right - I've removed that contentious comment and left it with the factual point that the referendum was defeated. --gbambino 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian republic referendum 

message: In case I am wrong in assumption of a prior merger being in force or if such a split is contemplated in the future, IMHO as someone who writes frequently in matters historical, this particular section ought to be in it's own article. 
:In any event, the redirect issue is worthy of expostion in and of itself, so here it is. 
This (following) duplicates a post to user talk:Mel Etitis as my UK 'goto guy'.  Best regards, <B>Fra</B>nkB
Hi! This is of national interest to you, so I'll pick on you about this vexation!
*re: Here ==  #redirect Commonwealth_Realm#Former_Commonwealth_Realms  which should navigate to  Commonwealth_Realm#Former_Commonwealth_Realms  when used in (historical) articles calling for the distinction.
*iirc, the section linked was 'Merged in' from a prior seperate article, which presents the problem of reaching such nations as a reference. 
*Unfortunately, every time (maybe 5-6) I've tried to use the titled (redirect) from within an article, I end up 'fixing the link' with the direct referenced link. 
*I guess this is 'proper' from the point of view of not including double redirects, but this doesn't quite 'qualify' in my mind as such, nor does it seem logically consistant with the merge into one article. 
*In other words, this is costing me 'productivity' by not working! (We all only have so much free time!)
*Any ideas on how to fix it?????  Or do I just have to suffer the necessary double edits. (At least the redirect serves as a repository for the correct link syntax!)
Thanks, Best! <B>Fra</B>nkB 13:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documenting this issue here re. Section: 'Former_Commonwealth_Realms' 

message: There is a discussion re whether Canada is a kingdom at Talk:Canada#Canada_is_not_a_kingdom. As this affects all realms, it is relevant here & discussion should probably continue here. --JimWae 20:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not.  Its a silly discussion.  Of course Canada is a kingdom, as are all the other Commonwealth realms, since they are independent monarchies, and their monarch has the title "Queen of <Realm>".  --Chris Bennett 23:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are all realms kingdoms? 

message: This article is a little inaccurate in how it defines "realm", but I can't think off-hand how to reword it simply to avoid the problem.
For example, the very first paragraph currently says this:
A Commonwealth Realm is any one of the 16 sovereign states of the Commonwealth of Nations that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen and head of state.
The problem with this and other examples that equate being a realm with a sovereign state is the Realm of New Zealand.  That realm is not a state, but is virtually a mini version of the Commonwealth in its own right, being made up of three sovereign states and two dependencies:
#New Zealand proper
#The Cook Islands
#Niue
#Tokelau
#The Ross Dependency
Constitutionally, the Cook Islands and Niue are equal partners with New Zealand proper within the Realm of New Zealand, and are sovereign states in their own right.  Possibly the only way to neatly reflect this in the article is to insert a footnote at the very first reference to realms being sovereign states.  Any other approach would probably involve quite clunky phrasing.
Silverhelm 12:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Realm of New Zealand is what is considered a Commonwealth Realm - the three states within it are all headed by EIIR as Queen of New Zealand specifically.  But the Realm of New Zealand is commonly referred to as simply New Zealand.  Should NZ then be called by it's formal name in the article to make clear that the full Realm of NZ is the Commonwealth Realm, and not just the island state within it? --gbambino 15:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate definition 

message: I am researching the history and constitutional law of the British Commonwealth of Nations.  The name of this organisation used to be refered to as the British Empire.  Then following the formation of the British Dominions of the Dominion of Canada (1867), the Commonwealth of Australia (1901), the Dominion of New Zealand (1907), and the Union of South Africa (1910), the organisation was refered to as the British Empire-Commonwealth.  This hyphenated term was used to denote that the majority of the territory was still under the direct government of the United Kingdom (i.e., the British Empire part), whereas the British Dominions were independent countries within the British Empire (i.e., the British Commonwealth part). 
On December 6, 1921, the Irish Free State was formed and granted Dominion Status as well.  This left the Mother-Country with the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  The Irish Free State unambigiously retained its Dominion Status (1921-1937), and later left the British Commonwealth in 1949, to become the Republic of Ireland.  During this period on August 15, 1947, the British colony of the Empire of India was partitioned into the Dominion of India, and the Dominion of Pakistan (who later became the Republic of India, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in 1950 and 1956, repectively).
Following the partition of 1947, the majority of the organisations' territory were no longer British colonies, and were in fact British Dominions. Thus the usage of the term British Empire was discontinued, and it became known as the British Commonwealth of Nations (later in fact the term Commonwealth of Nations has become prevalent).
Therefore, up until the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, the term Dominion Status was in use, and completely understood in legal and constitutonal terms.  The intent of the framers of the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 is clearly and explicitly expressed in the body of the text. Nowhere within the text did it state the intent to abolish the term Dominion Status, and replace it with term known as a Commonwealth Realm.
So, can anyone give me a legal reference to begin my research into the origin and legal definition of the term Commonwealth Realm?  If other Wikipedians would be so kind, I would be most greatful indeed.
70.30.193.143 20:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a Legal Reference to define a Commonwealth Realm?

message: What is the issue noted about the Queen's speech in Jordan during 1984- states her speech contradicted Australian government- but does not provide details. Astrotrain 20:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Bogdanor, opinion in Australia was that the speech was too pro-Arab, and did not reflect the view of Australian government.  He quotes an Australian constitutional lawyer as saying "If the British Government continues to use the Queen in this way the conclusion must be that it is intolerable to have the same person as Head of State of two independent states."  I thought that the fact of the dispute was worth mentioning but its details were not. --Chris Bennett 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jordan 1984 speech