Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Commonwealth realm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

• Talk:Commonwealth Realm/Archive - may require summary here.
• Talk:Commonwealth Realm/Archive 2 - Talk beginning shortly after mediation
• Talk:Commonwealth Realm/Archive 3 - Continued
• Talk:Commonwealth Realm/AVD - Extraneous comments by ArmchairVellixologistDon

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)

It is interesting that gbambino and Peter are again trying to excise any mention of the "British Crown" even though that is the established legal and constitutional term for the "shared crown" and even though they both have acknowledged this, however grudgingly, elsewhere. The term "British Crown" should be used in the article and as Rouleau's comments affirm the correctness of the usage I think the Rouleau quotation currently in the article should be used. As for whether or not the Crown is "essentially British", there's a strong argument that it is and no, gbambino, it's not a "fringe argument" either. Culturally, historically and constitutionally the crown remains "essentially British". The laws shaping the monarchy are all British laws, they may have been accepted or copied by Commonwealth Realms but that does not change their origin. Homey 22:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

How about:

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)

No. You are pushing your POV that the crown is not an "essentially British institution". Homey 22:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"and that the Crown is shared equally amongst the Realms,"

That hasn't been agreed to at all. Please do not embellish, gbambino. Homey 22:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If the Crown were shared equally the Queen would not spend the majority of her time in one of her realms and that realm would not have the primary say on matters such as approving royal marriages, initiating royal reforms etc and the succession to the throne would not be designed in such a way as to fit the needs of one realm and no others. Homey 22:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

The passage in Monarchy in Canada states the Crown functions independently in each realm; it does not say equally, that is a gbambino interpolation. Homey 22:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

We've agreed the crown is not an exclusively British institution; the claim that there is any agreement that it is not "essentially British" is gbambino's invention. Homey 22:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

It is not, however, an affirmation that "the Crown is shared equally amongst the Realms" as you wrongly claimed. Homey 22:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If the Realms are equal then it follows that the Crown must be shared equally. If one Realm has more control over the Crown than another then the principal of equality (or symmetry, as Rouleau stated) is negated. --gbambino 15:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"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)

Would you care to explain how a relationship of equals might otherwise be regarded? Or do you have a different definition of equality than everyone else? --gbambino 19:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand the difference between realm and crown, do you? Or maybe you think one is a metaphor for the other?Homey 20:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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". --gbambino 20:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you not understand that "realm" and "Crown" are different concepts and just because something is said of one doesn't make it true of the other? There are not "multiple crowns" (which you and Peter conceded long ago) so its nonsense to talk about "equal crowns", we're talking about a shared Crown (which is what the Statute of Westminster implies), one that is more British than it is anything else. You disagree and think it's in equal parts British, Canadian, Jamaican etc and that's fine which is why what we are dealing with is two different POVs, the problem is you insist on pushing your POV as a fact and cannot conceive that anyone but a "fringe" element could possibly think any different. This makes any sort of mediation with you difficult if not impossible. Homey

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)

Yes, silly me. And I suppose those Australian judges, and Constitutional Committee members, and even judges in the UK who assert that the Realms are sovereign entities within which the Crown operates seperately must be idiots too. We should all be so glad you've come forward to clarify the way things really are. Imagine, for 70 years we've all been mislead by a bunch of conspiring monarchists. Shame on us. --gbambino 21:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Separately" is not a synonym for "equally" (just like "exclusively" is not a synonym for "essentially")Homey 14:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

How about "Some monarchists promote the misconception that the "Crown" is no more British than it is Australian, Canadian, or Jamaican and that it is made up, in equal parts, of all the realms over which it reigns. History, culture and the law suggest, however, that while the Crown is not exclusively British, it is essentially so."Homey 14:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Which meaning of 'crown'? What is 'is not..., it is essentially...' supposed to mean? And remember that law is the one area where we can be sure we're talking about equality and symmetry. Peter Grey 14:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I mean that, in law, the Crown in the sense of the entity that reigns over the Commonwealth realms is properly referred to as the British Crown which certainly suggests that it is more British than, say, Jamaican. We can also talk about the origins of most of the laws defining the Crown as being British just as all received law still extant in the Commonwealth is British (or English in some older cases). Hence, we can speak of it being British in the same sense that we speak of Common Law being English. As well, as has been pointed out, the rules of succession governing the monarchy were written in the 18th century to fit the needs of the British state. They've never been modified or updated to meet the realities or sensibilities of the Commonwealth Realms (such as the inconsistency of having a bar on Catholics in a country such as Canada that is 40% Catholic) and thus they remain British rules that govern the determination of the head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica etc. Yes, they can be changed but the mechanism to do so is so cumbersome that Tony Blair, for instance, has ruled out any change in the forseeable future. Homey 15:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

We've established absolute equality in a legal sense, and "British" in an informal historical sense. I don't see the value in trying to start a whole new debate on 'historical jurisprudence', nor what value it could possibly have to the article. Peter Grey 15:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Being British in origin does not make something British today. If that were the case then you'd have to say the government of Ireland is British as it remains a Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy inherited from Britain, along with many of their current laws. Seems silly, right?

In the same manner the modern Crown over the realms was a unitary British Imperial Crown, however, to state that it remains British because it was British is ignoring the modern reality of the situation where the Crown is now 'divided' equally.

As well, though many of Canada's laws obviously have their origins in the UK, including the Act of Settlement, they are now purely Canadian constitutional law. If Canada were to become a republic we would stay with a Westminster style parliament, and many of our constitutional laws patriated from the UK would remain intact (obviously not the Act of Settlement, though).

There have been many constitutional developments over the past 138 years, and it's true that much of the law and terminology hasn't yet caught up to modern actuality; hence the Crown over the Realms is still sometimes referred to as the "British Crown" for "historical reasons and for convenience." But that does not mean that development stops here and now (as though the Act of Settlement will never be changed), or that the terminology around the Crown dictates the reality of it.

Also, doesn't Tony Blair's statement that the bar of Catholics from the Throne most likely will not be removed within the foreseeable future affirm that the UK does not have sole control (or even major control) over the line of succession? --gbambino 16:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It's all a matter of perception isn't it? Hence, saying that the "British Crown" isn't "essentially British" or asserting that the Crown is no more British than it is Australian or Jamaican is an expression of a POV rather than the expression of a neutral fact, as are your assertions about what are "misconceptions" and what are not. If you want to have a resolution you have to back away from your demand that views you disagree with be labelled "misconceptions" since what you are demanding is the adoption of a certain POV (and yes, what you may regard as fact is regarded as POV by others, you have to learn to recognise that if you want editing on wikipedia to work). Homey 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

After all the effort to agree on "no longer exclusively British", you want everyone to go through this all over again with "essentially exclusively British"? You think this wasn't challenging enough for the mediator and everyone else? How, exactly, is this different from what's already been rejected? Besides, in legal terms, it's simply wrong, and in non-legal terms, it's subjective and non-encyclopedic. Peter Grey 18:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, you are misrepesenting the discussion. I'm fine with "not exclusively British". gbambino reopened the debate by substituting the word "essentially" in order to push his pov and you are trying to push your pov by demanding the characterisation of views you disagree with as "misconceptions". I am fine with the compromise Chris has suggested, are you? Homey 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, no, I believe it is the word "misconception" (which I introduced, not Peter) that offends you, Andy. Would you really object if I had proposed "a common view prevails that the Crown remains an essentially British institution"?

Peter, I think that after having to concede that the Crown is not 100% British, Andy is now trying to say something along the lines of it is 80% British because everyone thinks it is. --gbambino 19:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you've shown an unwillingness and perhaps an inability to compromise. Are you willing to accept Chris' proposal or are you going to continue to try to reshape it so it reflects your POV?Homey 20:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Where's your compromise? And no, I don't accept Chris' proposal for reasons I have already stated. --gbambino 20:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The compromise I've been referring to, the only compromise I've been referring to, is the one proposed by Chris. If it's a matter of you refusing to accept anything short of your POV in the article I'm afraid we'll just have to keep the article protected indefinitely or otherwise revert any attempt by you to inject POV. Can you suggest any compromise that does not promote one POV over another. You will have to set aside your insistence that your POV is a universally accepted fact. Are you capable of that?Homey 21:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think gbambino has shown he cannot seperate his POV from the editing process. I suggest we just see if there's a consensus amongst the rest of us and if there is then implement that and if gbambino ends up editing against the consensus we can just go to the arbcomm with the suggestion that he be banned from editing articles related to the monarchy. Homey 21:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Settle down. I think you've shown you're in an awful rush to get this resolved before any one else reveals the fallaciousness of your arguments. Chris' proposal is not acceptable for reasons I have already stated. I've been working on something throughout the day here, but seeing as I also happen to have a paying job I can't dedicate my every moment to it. I'm sure it wont be perfect, but I hope it'll help the process. And Andy, there's a difference between acknowledging differing views and acknowledging the utterly baseless assertions of an individual who is discontent with reality. --gbambino 21:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions so far have been counterproductive and, frankly, somewhat underhanded (sneaking in "essentially" for "exclusively" for instance). I think your language above only furthers my point that you are incapable of real compromise or actually acknowledging the legitimacy of any view you disagree with.

Peter, do you accept Chris' proposal for a compromise?Homey 21:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you going on about? Compare this:

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.

To this:

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 exclusively British institution.

Essentially, exclusively, there's a difference between the words, but is it really that huge within the context of the sentence? You're making such a big deal out of nothing because you didn't read my proposed paragraph properly. --gbambino 21:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"but is it really that huge within the context of the sentence?"

Yes, it is - I suggest you consult a dictionary. If, as you claim, it doesn't make a difference then you shouldn't have a problem if we say "exclusively" rather than "essentially". Homey 22:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Within that sentence? No, I don't care. But, I'm scrapping that sentence anyway. --gbambino 23:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Chris' proposal is a step backwards, unless it is split so that facts are under "Constitutional implications", and the political opinion is under "Public perceptions". (Which was apparently not the intent.) Peter Grey 21:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter, you are being disingenuous. You write as if I introduced the term "misconception" when, in fact, it was you and gbambino. Quite clearly, my "counterproposal" above was an attempt to underscore the problems with yours and gbambino's position by putting the shoe on the other foot. If the word "misconception" can be used by one side, it can be as easily used by the other. This is why your and gbambino's proposal to descibe views you disagree with as "misconceptions" is a non-starter and anything but an attempt at a compromise. Rather, you and gbambino are trying to enforce your particular POV. That the Crown is as much Canadian/Australian/Jamaican etc as it is British is nothing but propaganda designed to make the monarchy more acceptable to nationalists and non Anglophiles in the Commonwealth Realms (outside of the UK).

I'm sorry but it's absurd to pretend that describing a contrary view as a misconception, as you propose to do, is either a compromise or anything other than a POV. Homey 21:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I see now where I went wrong with my proposal that included the word "misconception". I was guilty of what Peter points out: lack of differentiation between the legal definitions of the Crown and the cultural. Stating the Crown is not shared equally by law is a misconception. Culturally is perhaps another story. I'm hoping that the proposal I'm working on will address this. --gbambino 22:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I sense that gbambino is about to present us with a straw-man argument in order to justify his use of the term "misconception". Homey 22:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Contrary views of political opinions are simply other political opinions, contrary views of facts are called errors. Try to debate them one at a time. By the way, my alleged "point of view", as you call it, was that "the Crown is shared equally amongst the Realms" becomes impossible to assess. Peter Grey 22:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter, do you assert that "the Crown is shared equally amongst the Realms" is a fact or do you concede it is a theory?Homey 22:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

" The Sovereign, however, is a force of unity who embodies all Canada and all Canadians as Head of State."

Given the Act of Settlement's bar against Catholics and given the riots in Quebec City against the Queen in 1964, can we say that the quotation from the MLC site above is a misconception?

"the British Crown no longer exists in Canada"

Peter, can we say that the comment above by MLC theoritician Richard Toporoski, is a "misconception"? Or perhaps we should just call it an error?Homey 22:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally Peter, you attacked me for my argument regarding what might happen if Britain changed the succession law and Canada didn't, yet I see Toporoski considers the same question. I was considering an impossibility, you suggested, Britain would never unilaterally change the succession because of the Statute of Westminister, you claimed. Perhaps you should attack Toporoski with the same arrogant ferocity with which you attacked me:

let us say, an alteration were to be made in the United Kingdom to the Act of Settlement 1701, providing for the succession of the Crown. It is my opinion that the domestic constitutional law of Australia or Papua New Guinea, for example, would provide for the succession in those countries of the same person who became Sovereign of the United Kingdom. But this would not be true in Canada. There is no existing provision in our law, other than the Act of Settlement 1701, that provides that the King or Queen of Canada shall be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom. If the British law were to be changed and we did not change our law (and by section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982 such a change would require resolutions of the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of all the provinces to authorise a proclamation by the Governor-General to determine who the Sovereign of Canada should be so the Governor-General would be given the authority to create his own King!), the Crown would be divided. The person provided for in the new law would become king or queen in at least some realms of the Commonwealth; Canada would continue on with the person who would have become monarch under the previous law, a situation which certainly would not be allowed to continue either by political reality or by public opinion.[1]

Interesting. Toporoski seems to be arguing that if the UK unilaterally changed the succession the "political reality" is that Canada would soon follow. Does this not mean that Britain has more authority on the question of the succession than Canada and that therefore the Crown is more British than Canadian not only "culturally" but politically and one could argue legally as well (at least for all practical purposes)? Homey 22:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Homey 22:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not. --gbambino 22:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Not only does Toporoski support the mainstream interpretation as to law, he has done the courtesy of carefully distinguishing legal consequences from his speculation on political consequences. Peter Grey 02:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it does. He speaks quite specifically of Britain unilaterally changing the rules of succession and he asserts quite clearly that this would result in Canada changing the succession to conform with the new British rules. Sorry to burst your bubble, gbambino, and I'm sorry especially that it is your mentor who has done the bursting.Homey 23:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No he does not. He states that if Britain unilaterally changed the rules the situation would not "be allowed to continue either by political reality or by public opinion". That does not mean Canada would be forced to do the same, but might under it's own conviction. It could also mean that Canada and the other Realms would exercise their power to stop Britain's unilateral change. Similarly if Canada unilaterally altered the line of succession (as it well could) it would place the UK and other Realms in a situation which most likely would not "be allowed to continue either by political reality or by public opinion." You're twisting words to suit your bizzarre theories again, and doing it poorly now too. --gbambino 23:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"It could also mean that Canada and the other Realms would exercise their power to stop Britain's unilateral change."

What power? How would this "power" be exercised? The Statute of Westminster is not a treaty so other countries could not go to the Hague to try to have it enforced (not that much could be done even if it was a treaty), nor would the UN particularly care (in any case the UK is on the Security Council so in the insanely remote chance that the UN Security Council told Britain it must do what the other realms say or else, the UK could exercise its veto)

Similarly if Canada unilaterally altered the line of succession (as it well could) it would place the UK and other Realms in a situation which most likely would not "be allowed to continue either by political reality or by public

opinion."

No, Britain has a resident monarch - nothing would change for it if the monarchy divided. Canada, however, does not have a resident monarch but would risk acquiring one if the monarchy divided. Hence, there would be very strong pressure on Canada to conform with British unilateral changes but there would be very little if any pressure on Britain to conform to any Canadian unilateral changes. Homey 01:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the same pattern we've seen before, of beginning with a legal question and making a jump to a political question. No-one is denying the possibility that Canada might react if the UK changed its succession. But that is necessarily speculative - let's be charitable and say it's an open question if it's encyclopedic or not. There is no possibility that Canadian courts of law will simply enforce British statutes. British statutes aren't even in both official languages. Peter Grey 01:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the court's view of the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. As Judge Rouleau saw fit to use it as part of the basis for his ruling, other courts may do the same if the question ever comes up. Homey 01:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Another familiar AndyL/Homey tactic, reaching back before 1982. Peter Grey 02:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Then Rouleau is guilty of the same tactic:

19] It is well recognized that the preamble to the Constitution identifies the organizing principles of our Constitution and can be used to fill in gaps in the express terms of the constitutional text (see Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of P.E.I., 1997 CanLII 317 (S.C.C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 at p.75).

20] The preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.) 30 & 31 Victoria, c.3, as amended, provides as follows:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom ...

[21] This portion of the preamble confirms not only that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, but also that Canada is united under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. A constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is shared with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries, is, in my view, at the root of our constitutional structure.

Peter, the BNA Act was not repealed as a result of the 1982 Constitution, parts of it were amended but the preamble was left alone. Therefore, it remains in effect to the extent that any preamble is in effect. I do not know how a future court may rule if there is a possible "division in the Crown" due to Britain changing the succession rules alone; neither do you, but ruling out the possibility that the court will utilise the 1867 preamble to find that Canada is committed to having the same monarch as the UK is premature. You say the Statute of Westminster displaces the preamble, well just as the Charter of Rights evidently did not displace the Act of Settlement it is incorrect to speak of one part of the constitution displacing another if nothing has been specifically repealed (as certain sections of the BNA Act were). The 1867 constitution has equal weight with all other parts of the constitution, if there is a conflict between then the court assesses the conflict and would usually interpret the more specific section as an exception (for instance the section of the BNA Act which allows for the funding of Separate Schools in Ontario is an exception to the Charter provisions for freedom and equality of religion). If the preamble to the 1867 Constitution which states that Canada is under the British Crown and the preamble of the 1931 Statute of Westminster which says that alteration to the succession shall only occur if there is unanimity amongst the realms end up being in conflict because the UK unilaterally changes the succesion, how would a Canadian court rule? I don't know, and neither do you. So for you to dismiss the possible import of the 1867 preamble is unwarranted and unsupported.Homey 14:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law. 1867 was before 1982. Peter Grey 22:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, Rouleau uses the word symmetry to discuss changes in the succession among Commonwealth realms but symmetry and equality are not the same thing. A ten tonne truck and a minivan may travel in symmetry but that doesn't make them equal.

The "equality in law" between the Crown of Canada and the British Crown is a theory, not a fact, and particularly given language about Canada being "under the British Crown" we should be wary of stating equality as a fact. Homey 14:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Main Entry: sym·me·try Pronunciation: 'si-m&-trE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -tries Etymology: Latin symmetria, from Greek, from symmetros symmetrical, from syn- + metron measure 1 : balanced proportions; also : beauty of form arising from balanced proportions 2 : the property of being symmetrical; especially : correspondence in size, shape, and relative position of parts on opposite sides of a dividing line or median plane or about a center or axis -- compare BILATERAL SYMMETRY, RADIAL SYMMETRY 3 : a rigid motion of a geometric figure that determines a one-to-one mapping onto itself

I'm afraid "symmetry" is actually the same as "equal." Something cannot be symmetrical without one side being the equal of the other. Synonyms (you love those, right?) of symmetry: balance, equilibrium, evenness.

As for your constant reference to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, what Peter is saying is that you're using definitions which are pre-1982. You take the words "Crown of the United Kingdom" and believe that to still literally mean the Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament (thus implying that Canada's government is subservient to the UK). But you never addressed Peter's earlier point that the "Crown of the United Kingdom and Ireland" doesn't even exist anymore, and you also never address the legal reality that the Crown within the UK constitution is not the same thing as the "British Crown" as shared amongst the Realms. We can sit and speculate all we want about why the wording of the preamble to the Constitution Act wasn't changed at the time of patriation (again, perhaps a lack of proper nomenclature for the Crown over the Realms?), but nothing changes the fact that the Statute of Westminster and the patriation of all the Realms' constitutions has changed the definition of "British Crown". No court would ever rule that because the UK altered their line of succession Canada would be forced follow along because the preamble to the Constitution Act states Canada is united under the "Crown of Great Britain and Ireland." And remember that in 1936 Canada had to pass an Act of Parliament to recognize Edward VIII's abdication for George VI, otherwise if the UK went ahead without us we'd be left with a different King to the UK's (just like Ireland was for one day). The preamble to the constitution was the same then as it is now. --gbambino 16:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

But you never addressed Peter's earlier point that the "Crown of the United Kingdom and Ireland" doesn't even exist anymore

I think it's understood in law that a reference to the King in a law passed in one parliament would be read as referring to a subsequent King even if the royal title has changed. Magna Carta didn't cease to be when the title of "king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou" ceased to exist as such. The Act of Settlement did not become defunct when the "crown and regal government of the Kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland" it refers to became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the claim on France being dropped, for one). If this wasn't the case, legislative chaos would ensue whenever the King's title changed (or indeed, whenever a King was succeeded by a Queen or vice versa). In the same way that the BNA Act's references to the Queen did not fall into abeyance when Victoria was succeeded by her son, a reference to the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland does not become defunct when that position changes to the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Homey 17:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No court would ever rule that because the UK altered their line of succession Canada would be forced follow along because the preamble to the Constitution Act states Canada is united under the "Crown of Great Britain and Ireland.

Then why did Rouleau base his ruling, in part, on the 1867 preamble if, by your arguments, the preamble is effectively null and void? For what you say to be certain, Rouleau would have had to not rely even in part on the 1867 preamble in his ruling.Homey 17:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You've answered your own question: it's about current legal definitions of a body vs. outdated ones, whether it be for a particular monarch or the institution of the/a crown. Just as in British law the words "Crown of Great Britain and Ireland" now actually mean "Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so too have legal alterations over the past 70 years made the words "Crown of the United Kingdom" mean either the Crown as shared by the Realms or the Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK parliament. The development of Canadian law gives the former definition to the words "Crown of the United Kingdom", not the latter. It's clear that Rouleau is referring to the shared "British Crown" rather than the Crown within the UK constitution. --gbambino 19:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC) Also, you didn't address the point that Canada had to pass an Act of Parliament to recognise the new King in 1936 otherwise the country would have had a separate king to the other Realms (as happened to Ireland). The preamble to the Constitution didn't force the King of the UK on Canada at that time, and as the Constitution is now patriated and 100% Canadian, there is certainly no way it would happen now. --gbambino 19:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law. 1867 was before 1982.

So then we have a conflict between that and the preamble just as we have a conflict betweeen the Charter of Rights passed in 1982 and the Act of Settlement passed in 1701. When such a conflict occurs courts do not look at equal parts of the Constitution and say, well this part is more recent therefore it trumps the earlier part - if they did the ruling in the O'Donohue case would have been quite different. Rather, they treat both elements as equal and try to reconcile them. I suspect that just as Rouleau ruled, in essence, that the succession rules were an exception to the Charter's absolute ban on religious discrimination the courts may rule that the 1867 preamble provides an exception to the nullification of post-1982 UK acts. Homey 22:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1701 was also before 1982. For your scenario to make any sense at all (not saying it does, but hypothetically), the Supreme Court of Canada (not the Parliament of the United Kingdom) would have to elevate a UK statute to constitutional status in Canada. Not just any statute, but one contravening the Statute of Westminster. Peter Grey 00:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"1701 was also before 1982"

Yes, that is my point - the courts do not weigh conflicting parts of the constitution on a chronological basis as your earlier post suggested.

No, the Supreme Court would not have to "elevate" a British statute. It would just have to affirm that the preamble to the 1867 Constition mandates that whoever is the sovereign of Great Britain will also reign over Canada, notwithstanding any British statute or any changes to British statutes.

IE the crown would be affirming the outcome and disregarding the antecedent -- it would be saying that the more important issue is the avoidance of a division of the crown which would violate the intent expressed in the preamble. How the person who wears the crown is determined is less important than the fact that the same person who reigns over the UK also reigns over Canada. Homey 01:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"And remember that in 1936 Canada had to pass an Act of Parliament to recognize Edward VIII's abdication for George VI, "

Not if the 1936 Act was superfluous

otherwise if the UK went ahead without us we'd be left with a different King to the UK's (just like Ireland was for one day).

Ireland had a different constitution than Canada. I admire your earnestness as a few weeks ago you were arguing, as adamantly, that Britain had to wait for the dominions to pass their own succession acts when, of couse, as it turned out it didn't do that at all. Homey 11:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

whoever is the sovereign of Great Britain will also reign over Canada - not automatically according to Rouleau and the 1936 Succession to the Throne Act. The issue is not chronological order, it's that fact that before 1982 Canada was technically not fully independent. Peter Grey 01:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to file an amicus curiae brief if the issue ever goes to court, but until it does go to court we just don't know how a court would rule, with or without Rouleau. Homey 11:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

We have Richard Toporoski's expert opinion. But at least we all agree on one point, which is that some combination of Canadian legislators and/or Canadian judges will decide the issue. Hence it is an internal Canadian matter, we can remove all of this speculation from this article. Peter Grey 16:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes and Toporoski's "expert opinion": concedes the possibility that the UK could act unilaterally and that Canada would be compelled by political realities to follow suit. Two things you rejected the last time we discussed this.

In any case, we should probably focus on the issues at hand. I placed a proposal at the bottom of this page the other day which, I think, we should all be able to agree to. Homey 22:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ever doubted that the UK could act unilaterally, and Toporoski does not state Canada would be "compelled" to follow anything. --gbambino 22:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't argue any legal compulsion, but he argues that politically and practically Canada would have no other choice (of course, he assumes that Canada would not opt to become a republic under this scenario which I think is far more likely). Homey 16:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

No, his comments don't. But Toporoski is a monarchist anyway, so his opinions can't be valid. Remember Andy? --gbambino 23:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.Homey 23:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Have anything constructive to offer, or do you just like to bicker because you're a person who gets upset when the real world doesn't match your imagined view of it? --gbambino 23:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You are being very snippy today. Anyway, as to your second paragaph the reference to a "divided Crown" is spurious. The rest of your suggestion sounds like a monarchist rationalization for why most people don't espouse monarchist views. You refer to "heritage departments", in what countries do such departments exist? It sounds like you are generalising based on the Canadian example. Your claim that the "public visibility" of Governors-General is increasing is subjective and, I suspect, is also a Canadian generalisation. As for "Thus many others view the Crown within their country as particular to their nation's history and society, distinct from its role elsewhere" do you have a reference for this? Who, specifically, views the Crown like this. Who are these "many others"?

I think we should wait to see what Chris comes up with. Homey 01:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thus, legally the Crown is no longer an exclusively British institution, but instead is equally of each Realm.

This is a theory, not a fact. There is no law that says this notwithstanding Gbambino's attempt to extrapoloate from the Statute of Westminster. Homey 14:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

My point is that while we can refer to a "shared Crown" in the article we'd be making assumptions by referring to the Crown being shared equally (and yes, you can share something in an unequal fashion - if I use a cottage 1/3 of the time and my sister uses it 2/3 of the time we are still sharing it). Let's just not use the word "equal", gbambino and Peter are pushing a POV by constantly reinserting it into the discussion. Homey 17:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Except Rouleau's constant use of the word 'symmetry' to describe the relationship amongst the Realms under the Crown, and the Balfour Declaration's statement that the Realms can consider themselves equal messes up that theory. --gbambino 19:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the focus has moved too far away from, you know, Wikipedia, and making human civilization a better place. With respect to the article as it currently (17:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)) exists, what, specifically, are the actual disputes?

Peter Grey disputes:

• A number of theorists contend that the "Crown" in any of the Commonwealth Realms is the equal of the British Crown, however, in O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 Justice Rouleau described the relationship between Crown and Commonweath Realms as one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries".
  • Rouleau quotations have a long history of causing problems, because readers unfamiliar with Canadian legal terminology might assume "UK-British" instead of "Commonwealth-British".
  • "equal of the British Crown" should probably spell out 'Crown the legal concept', or simply be moved to a (balanced) discussion of perceptions, rather than the legal facts. Peter Grey 17:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• To the mediator: Because the statement in its current form is misleading, I suggest removing it during the discussion. Peter Grey 06:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

To the mediator: Since the term "British Crown" is correct and is not otherwise used in the article, if you do remove the Rouleau quote during the discussion you should change "Crown" to "British Crown" in the article at least in the first instance. Homey 15:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The correct term in law is "Crown". "British Crown", "Canadian Crown", only occur for contrast. And the article already has sufficient, if not superfluous, British references. Too many would take us even farther away from NPOV. Peter Grey 16:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino disputes: It is commonly held that these developments created a separate Crown in each of the Commonwealth Realms, united only in the person of the monarch and matters directly related to the person of the monarch such as the laws affecting succession.

• This is covered in the paragraph which follows, and thus is repetitive. This whole paragraph should be removed.

A number of theorists contend that the "Crown" in any of the Commonwealth Realms is the equal of the British Crown, however, in O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 Justice Rouleau described the relationship between Crown and Commonwealth Realms as one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries".

• There is no dispute over which theorists must "contend."
• The Crown operates the same in each Commonwealth Realm, including the UK -- thus "Crown in any of the Commonwealth Realms is equal of the British Crown" is misleading.
• "However" implies that Rouleau offers a different, unconventional view of the Crown, when he does not.

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)

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)

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)

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)

"British Crown" may not "sound right" but it is the correct term and thus it should be used at least once or twice so I cannot accept gbambino attempt (and Peter's argument) for removing the the term "British Crown". As for "Commonwealth-British" and "UK-British" theser are neologisms and thus "original research" Peter (unless you can find citations) and it's not just "Canadian law" that uses the term "British Crown", it is commonly used throughout the Commonwealth and I suspect is used in law in much of the Commonwealth.

I've seen no use of the word "equal" in the letter of the law or in its interpretation by judges. "Symmetry" is used so let's go with that rather than getting into semantic arguments about whether equal and symmetry are precise synonyms. Homey 15:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"British Crown" is not the "correct" term, but rather, as has been established, is one used sometimes for "historical purposes and convenience." 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 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

With "United Kingdom" occuring 17 times and "British" 19 times, further elaboration would diminish the article, especially since the message is supposed to be "not exclusively British". Peter Grey 18:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, using "The Crown" exclusively and particularly in the first instance is inappropriate for NPOV purposes and "British Crown" remains the correct term. Your latest intervention changes neither of those facts.Homey 18:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

"The Crown" is POV for the reason already given, it assumes a Commonwealth POV rather than an international POV and does not distinguish between the British Crown and, say, the Dutch Crown. "British Crown" remains a legal, correct and proper term and thus, particularly in light of NPOV policy, it should be used at least in the first instance. "Confusion" can be avoided in the body of the article by explaining that the "British Crown" is no longer "exclusively British". Your political considerations should not be an issue here. If you are exceedingly concerned I suggest you write the various Prime Ministers prior to the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and ask them to adopt a new term, until then "British Crown" should be used by us. Homey 21:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The correct term is "Crown". Peter Grey 23:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

Peter, stop being dismissive. We try to be NPOV by avoiding speaking in the "voice" of a particular nation. Referring to "The Crown" is therefore POV in the same way as referring to "The President". This is not my "personal prejudice" it's a matter of trying to speak in a neutral international voice. Homey 14:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

""British Crown" is not a legal term"

If that's the case, Rouleau must not be a judge. I think we need to bring other people in on the NPOV issue. Homey 15:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rouleau's ruling does not create law. Other (preferably unbiased, but educated) opinions are always welcome. --gbambino 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

I didn't "destroy" the edit history. Gbambino violated copyright by posting large sections of material from the Monarchist League of Canada website into the Monarchist League of Canada article (the second time he had done this, in fact). Accordingly the page was listed on the Copyvio page and was deleted after a week, according to policy. The only "pattern" of behaviour this indicates about me is following wikipedia policy. I suggest, Peter, that you address the NPOV issue being raised rather than resort to ad hominems. Indeed, resorting to ad hominems instead of addressing the issue suggests you have no adequate response to the question and are trying to distract attention from it through a personal attack. Homey 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe Peter's main point was that it is a common tactic on your part to claim NPOV as soon as facts conflict with your political motives. Diverting attention with cries of "ad hominem" attacks, previous errors on my part, and false claims of "no adequate response" being given, is practicing the very thing you recommend that Peter not do (when he wasn't doing it in the first place). --gbambino 17:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As with Peter you are not actually addressing the NPOV issue on its own merits. I suggest you do so in the previous section rather than trying to help Peter create a distraction. Homey 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly did, but perhaps I should make it more clear: you're claiming an NPOV issue where there is none. "Crown" is the accurate term, the one used in law since at least 1931 (if not earlier), and the most applicable to the section of the article we are discussing. --gbambino 17:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please reread my actual point regarding NPOV as you have not addressed it. Homey 17:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe Peter's main point was that it is a common tactic on your part to claim NPOV as soon as facts conflict with your political motives.

Interesting then that the example he used had nothing to do with NPOV. Homey 17:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The alleged "NPOV issue" has been addressed. Your arguments have been evaluated on their own merits, or rather their lack thereof, not on the basis of your character flaws. Your previous dishonest tactics simply demonstrate the questionable standards you use in assessing NPOV violations. Peter Grey 17:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The example, in case you have forgotten (it no longer being in the edit history), was your abuse of {{NPOV}} and {{totallydisputed}} where policy and guidelines clearly indicated that at most a {{dubious}} tag would have been appropriate. Peter Grey 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a) quite picayune (ie the difference between "disputed" and NPOV tags is the number of NPOV violations/errors of fact in an article) b) has nothing to do with your false accusation that I "destroyed" the article's history. c) has of course, nothing whatsoever to do with the NPOV issue here regarding the voice of an article. Rather than attack what you perceive to be my motivation you should actually address the NPOV question itself on its own merits. I understand if you are unable to do this but substituting an ad hominem is not suitable. Homey 18:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Your "issue" was that you considered "British Crown" was more neutral than "Crown". Peter Grey 18:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The alleged NPOV issue has been addressed

Saying "no it's not" is hardly a counterargument or refutation to the issue of adopting an international voice rather than one that assumes the reader is British or in the Commonwealth. If you had addressed the issue you would have answered that question as it is the centre of the issue. Instead you've dismissed the issue and been engaging in ad hominems as a distraction. Homey 18:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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)
  • I will accept Peter's proposal, noted below. --gbambino 18:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Peter Grey
  • I noted under "disputed NPOV claim" how the NPOV concern can be addressed with a minor rewording without introducing "British Crown" in the section in question. Peter Grey 18:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've just come across this discussion, and can perhaps offer an independent view. I've read through the article as it currently stands, and it seems to me that, by the time one comes across the term "Crown", which crown is being referred to should be abundantly clear. A change to "British Crown" would, in the context of this article, indeed be less NPOV than "Crown." Sonitus 15:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For:

• I have another compromise suggestion. CJCurrie 22:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I would support the aforementioned shift in wording (ie. "Crown" to "British Crown"), but with a caveat. I now believe that "The Crown, historically British" would be a more appropriate introduction to the first paragraph than "The British Crown". Although the Crown is no longer exclusively British, its "legacy" is clearly of the British line. Adding the phrase "historically British" would highlight this legacy, while bypassing the disputed point entirely (which will be dealt with in the next paragraph anyway, pending clarification of the wording). CJCurrie 22:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this deals with the NPOV problem.Homey 10:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is why distinguishing legal issues from other issues is so important. Legal distinctions matter, and history and perceptions should not be used to defeat facts of law. Of course the reverse is also true: historical and informal ties should not be ignored or downplayed either. Peter Grey 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

I don't know which you're calling "universal" and which "local", but the point is that neither should supercede the other. Peter Grey 00:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think the opposite is true. The universal should generally supercede the "local" (or the particular) as we have a world-wide audience. Homey 00:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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

I think it might be possible to resolve this situation with some clarification of language.

In recent days, the outstanding dispute on this page has been whether or not the term "Crown" should be replaced with "British Crown". Those who have followed my contributions to Talk:Monarchy in Canada will know that I regard Canada's monarchy as essentially British -- in terms of its history, and in terms of the existing right of succession. In spite of this, I've been more reluctant to promote the term "British Crown" on this page (as my unsuccessful attempt at a compromise proposal yesterday probably indicates).

These positions may seem paradoxical, but there's a reason for my ambivalence here: namely, that the "Crown" as a legal institution is not quite the same as the person of the monarch. Having done of a bit of additional research on this subject, I'm now convinced that there is an established (though not uncontested) view that the "Crown" in Canada and other Commonwealth Realm countries is no longer "British".

Among those who hold this view is the Canadian constitutional historian David E. Smith, who writes in "The Invisible Crown: The First Principles of Canadian Government" (1995): "it is not possible to talk with any precision about the Crown in Canada without first acknowledging its imperial provenance, not because the Crown in Canada today is British - it is not - but because the patterns of meaning that underlie constitutional monarchy originated in Canada's British and colonial past" (p. 20). David Smith's words need not be taken as gospel truth on this subject, but they represent a body of opinion that cannot be entirely ignored. (Please note that this interpretation says nothing about the "equality" of crowns vis-a-vis Britain and Canada.)

There is, however, another side to the story. While the Crown in Right of Canada (to continue with this example) may be a domestic institution in the strictly legal sense, this does not make the actual monarch "Canadian" (or Jamaican, or Australian, or Tuvaluan, etc.). The royal line which holds the crown is British, and reigns over the Commonwealth Realms by virtue of occupying the British throne. Elizabeth II is, first and foremost, the monarch of Britain. No individual nation other than Britain may change the line of succession, whereas Britain exercised this very right only five years after the Statute of Westminster was passed. It is therefore legitimate to draw attention to the British nature of the monarchy, and to the fact that the monarch continues to reign over Commonwealth Realm nations by virtue of occupying the British throne.

It is correct, in turn, to describe Canada as being "under the British Crown" in the sense that the monarch of Britain is, ipso facto, also the monarch of Canada (Rouleau's ruling could perhaps be read in this light). The problem with this interpretation is that the Britishness of the "Crown" as a legal institution is far less clear. Rather than clarifying the situation, the phrase "British Crown" could ultimately lead to more confusion on this point.

For this reason, I must conclude (somewhat contrary to my personal inclinations) that "Crown" should not be replaced by "British Crown" in the passage in question. However, a reference to the Britishness of the monarchy would be entirely appropriate (both to resolve NPOV concerns, and for general historical accuracy).

I would not object to Peter Grey's suggestion, of inserting the phrase, "British Crown", with reference to the 1926 Balfour declaration. I would also recommend that the first sentence of the disputed paragraph be amended to read, "The British monarch continues to reign in all Commonwealth Realm nations, but the Crown as an institution operates separately in each realm, with the Queen in right of each realm being a distinct legal person".

Thoughts? CJCurrie 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, except for the following:

• "While the Crown in Right of Canada... may be a domestic institution in the strictly legal sense, this does not make the actual monarch "Canadian" (or Jamaican, or Australian, or Tuvaluan, etc.)."

The Monarch is Canadian, Jamaican, Australian, etc., in the same legal sense as the Crown; hence the term "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada," or "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia." However, again, this is the legal reality, not the cultural perception, which is, obviously, more open to interpretation.

• "The royal line which holds the crown is British, and reigns over the Commonwealth Realms by virtue of occupying the British throne. Elizabeth II is, first and foremost, the monarch of Britain."

This is no longer true. As the Crown is equally shared, so too is the line of succession and the Monarch. So, by the domestic constitutional laws of each Realm the Royal line is also the Canadian line, the Australian line, the Tuvaluian line, and so on. As well, by law the Queen is not first and foremost the Monarch of Britain, but Monarch of Britain as equally as Monarch of Canada.

• "No individual nation other than Britain may change the line of succession, whereas Britain exercised this very right only five years after the Statute of Westminster was passed."

Again, no longer true. As I mentioned above, the laws governing the line of succession to the Crown in Right of Canada are a part of Canadian constitutional law, and thus can only be altered by the Canadian parliaments, not the UK parliament. This is why, 5 years after the passing of the Statute of Westminster, Canada and all the other Realms had to agree to the abdication of Edward VIII in favour of George VI, and pass their own legislation recognising this change to the line of succession. Britain did not act unilaterally in that example any more than Canada did, and, as has been discussed earlier, Ireland had given their consent to the changes, but irresponsibly did not get their legislation passed in time; it was done the next day.

I continue to agree with Peter's proposal, but feel my proposed first paragraph of the section in question remains adequate. Stating "British Monarch" is confusing for the same reasons as stating "British Crown." --gbambino 15:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The term Realm and Dominion constitutionally mean the same thing. In a nut shell, the independent country choses to use the British Parliamentary System as it form of government. In this form of government, known as Constitutional-Monarchy the Figure-Head of State is the British Monarch. The British Monarch has almost no political power, and the Elected Parliament, lead by the Prime Minister rules the country.

The use of the term Realm' is in effect a "red-hairing". It still means Dominion, which donates an independent country within the British Commonwealth, that has the British Monarch as their Figure-Head of State.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• The United Kingdom typically is not called a dominion; otherwise the words are synonymous. Peter Grey 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The term Dominion was very carefully defined in the Balfour Declaration as 'AUTONOMOUS (ie not sovereign ) COMMUNITIES ( ie not nations )WITHIN THE BRITISH EMPIRE ( as the empire was considered to be a single national unit the Dominions were still considered to be a part of the British Nation and despite the huge degree of autonomy granted in 1931 remained ultimately subject to the jurisdiction of the British government - at the very least via the British Privy Council ).

The term Dominion is a description of political 'status' ie not a colony and not a Sovereign Nation . It defines the degree of sovereignty .

To be one of the Queens Realms does not indicate political status - for instance Australia is referred to as one of the Queens Realms but it is not is not within the jurisdiction of the British Nation .Since 1986 Australia has had the Constitutional status of a Sovereign , Independant and Federal Nation . Australia operates as a constitutional monarchy but the Queen represents the Australian 'Crown' or independant political unit with the assent ( or permission ) of the Australian parliament - see Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 [ Jon Lee 27 Aug 2005 ]

No you are incorrect. The Dominion of Canada was peacefully granted independence from the UK, on July 1, 1867. It was an independent country that choose to stay a member of the British Commonwealth. The term Dominion means an independent country, voluntarily apart of the British Commonwealth, that chooses to have the Monarch of the UK as it Figure-Head of State. Please leave the Political-Science psycho-babble out of this.

Other Dominions for the record,

The Dominion of Canada (independent July 1, 1867),

The Commonwealth of Australia (independent 1901),

The Dominion of New Zealand (independent 1907),

The Union of South Africa (independent 1910).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to say Canada was a fully independent nation in 1867 is an extreme oversimplification. There are a number of features of the Dominions before the Statue of Westminster in 1931 that we would not see as features of an independent state. For instance, the Dominions' Governors-General acted simultaneously as the representative of the British government and as the de facto exercizer of the King or Queen's reserve powers in the Dominion (summoning and dissolving Parliament, giving assent to laws); indeed, the G-G's actions as de facto head of state in the Dominions were sometimes determined by instructions from the British government, not the Dominion government. And, in a more concrete example, Britain's various declarations of war at the beginning of World War I were held to speak for the Dominions as well as for Britain proper, without any need for the Dominion parliaments to declare war on their own; and from a large-scale strategic perspective, the Dominion military forces were treated as part of a single Empire-wide force.

From much of the discussion on this page, it seems that people want to either insist that Dominion status immediately made a country independent, or that a Dominion/Commonwealth Realm wasn't independent until all constitutional links to Britain were severed (which for Canada and Australia wasn't until the '80s). Both of these views seem to me to be overly simplistic. Even after the concept of "Dominion" was come up with, the British Empire was seen as being a single unit in many ways, especially when it came to relations to other states and empires. (Note that Dominions did not send or receive ambassadors to other countries.) The Statute of Westminster established the legal framework to make the Dominions really sovereign in their own right, but not all of the Dominions exercized all of their new sovereign perogatives right away. Still, it seems silly to me to say that, for instance, Canada in the 1970s was still a British colony: it was inconceivable that Britain would have actually exercized its legal rights to veto changes to the Canadian constitution at that time, and if they had surely Canada would have just issued some sort of UDI that the world would have respected. Anyway, that's my rambling two cents. --Jfruh 16:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Jfurh,

First of all, three reference books that you should read on this issue, I shall list below,

• (1). R.G. Trotter, The British Empire-Commonwealth A Study in Political Evolution, MacMillan Co., Ltd., Toronto, Canada, pp.131 , (1932).
• (2). M. Ollivier, Problems of Canadian Sovereignty, Canada Law Book Co., Ltd., Toronto, Canada, pp. 491, (1945).
• (3). H. Lamont, Burkes Speech on Reconcilation with America, Ginn and Company, New York, pp. 152, (1897).

The UK founded the Colonies that would become the

• United States of America (July 4, 1776),
• Dominion of Canada (July 1, 1867),
• Commonwealth of Australia (Jan. 1, 1901),
• Dominion of New Zealand (Sept. 26, 1907).

Each of these four independent countries celebrate their dates of Independence from the UK, on the dates cited above. The first independent country obtained its independence via victory on the battlefield, whilst the latter three independent countries were peacefully granted independence, and choose to stay apart of the British Commonwealth. ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

AVD, I am well awre of the dates you cited, but I don't really see how they relate to my point. Do you consider a country to be independent if it another country's parliament can declare war on that country's behalf? If that country's de facto head of state receives binding advice from another country's government? If its laws can be overruled by the legislature of another country?

I'm interested in reading the books you cite. The key term in the title of the first is evolution. Canada was definitely more in charge of its own affairs after July 1, 1867, but it did not instantly become a fully sovereign state. That status was acheived by a process of evolution. --Jfruh 19:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Jfuh,

To help frame this discussion between you and I, I must use a few terms. The Dominion of Canada has two major Linguistic Groups. The people who are of the English-Speaking group are known as English-Canadians, and those of the French-Speaking group are known as French-Canadians. It simply is a socialogical fact that these two groups look upon the development of Canada very differently.

May I ask, Jfuh, are you an English-Canadian, or a French-Canadian?

Respectfully,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, neither :). I am an English-speaking citizen of the USA. I don't see how that makes the facts I cited any more or less true. If you feel I've misinterpreted them, please explain how. --Jfruh 19:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

On July 4, 1976 did the United States of America celebrate its bi-centenial (i.e., 200 years)? Yes, or No?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it celebrated 200 years since the declaration of independence. I don't see the relevance to the issue under discussion. The D of I is a convenient historical signpoist -- the moment at which a group of elected American officials declared their independence. The US did not de facto exercize sovreignty over all of the territory it claimed until the last of the British evacuated in 1783. And under the agreement by which the British left, the British government renounced any degree of control in American affairs. This was not the case in Canada in 1867. --Jfruh 00:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Jfruh,

Ah-ha! Yes, the date of July 4, 1776 is a convenient sign post that the USA Government chose after winning its independence from the UK. They choose July 4, 1776, as their Independence Day, becuase they had won the right to do so by winning the War Independence (1775-1783).

The bicentennial of American Independence was celebrated in 1976, not in 1981,1983, or 1989 (which represent the 200 year anniversary of the the Battle of Yorktown (i.e., the British Capitualtion), the signing of the Paris Peace treaty (aka, the Treaty of Separation), the Ratification of the USA Constitution, respectively.

The USA Government CHOSE its Independence Date (via victory on the battlefield).

Similarly, the Canadian Government CHOSE its Independence Date (via the UK peacefully granting its independence).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Ok Jfruh,

The British North America Act 1867 established the Dominion of Canada as an independent Nation-State. Its independence was peacefully granted by the UK, in stark contrast to the United States of America that won its independence from the UK via victory on the battlefield by winning the War of Independence (1775-1783).

The Dominion of Canada chose to have the British Constitutional-Monarch as its Figure-Head of State, and to remain a member of the British Empire (not yet the British Commonwealth). this process of peacefully granting independence to mature British Colonies came about after learning from the mistakes the British Government made in handling the grievances of the 13 Colonies (of the 19 Colonies) that rebelled and broke away.

In 1867, the Dominion of Canada could pass its own laws, and send them to the Governor-General who would grant them Royal Ascent subject to being sent to the British Parliament for (i) review, and (ii) final approval.

You with me so far Jfruh?

Now, the British Parliament could review (and alter) Legislation passed by the Canadian Parliament, and then finally approve it. The operative word it could. They actually did not do this very often (if you actually check).

In the Statute of Westminister 1931, the British Parliament could no longer review (and alter) any Legislation pass by the local Parliaments of the Dominions. In other words, function (i) the reviewing and changing of local laws was revoked from British Parliament.

However, function (ii), the final passing of Legislation was retained by British Parliament. With regards to the Dominion of Canada, this finally approval by British Parliament remained on the books until 1982. In 1982, the Canada Act (1982) finally removed the neccessity of the sending and rubber stamping of Canadian Legislation to the British Parliament.

So there you are Jfruh, the Dominion of Canada (founded July 1, 1867) and its evolution of Sovereignty. Sovereignty is different than independence (and I suspect by your POV you would say that Canada is only 23 years old!).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

The meaning of 'Dominion' changed over time, most notably with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. 1 July 1867 was the creation of the Dominion of Canada (and abolition of the Province of Canada). It established a new degree of autonomy, but had no bearing on independence. It's particularly significant for English Canadians because English Canada, as a community, didn't really exist until the railways joining the Atlantic, Laurentian and Western anglophone communities were built. (French Canada, of course, had already been there for 250 years.) Peter Grey 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That is not the case. In 1625, King James I granted a Royal Charter to the British Colony of Nova Scotia (i.e., New Scotland). Additionally, the British Colony of Newfoundland (i.e., Terra Nova) was established in 1497. The Spanish Settlement of St. Augustine Florida was established in 1565,the French Settlement in the Gaspe Penisula in 1604, Quebec City in 1608, and the British of Jamestown Virginia in 1607.

In 1763, the Treaty of Paris ceeded all the French Colonies in North America to the UK. From 1763-1775, there were 19 British American Colonies (18 English-Speaking, and 1 French-Speaking). From 1775-1783, 13 Colonies of the 19 Colonies seceeded and won their independence from the UK by winning the War of Independence (1775-1783). The 4 Northern Loyalist Colonies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec remained in British hands. The 2 Southern Loyalist Colonies of British East Florida, and British West Florida fell back into Spanish hands (after 20 years of English-Speaking Settlement).

In 1783, the United Empire Loyalists (known as the "Tories" in the USA), left the USA and settled in British North America (i.e., the 4 Northern Loyalist Colonies). Many settled in Nova Scotia, but the Lion's share settled in the Western Half of the Colony of Quebec (today known as Ontario). This region was never settled by the previous French Colonists of New France, and was basically empty of European Settlement.

By 1791, the numbers of English-Speaking settlers were so great that this area was broken off into the English-Speaking British Colony of Upper Canada.

Therefore, English-Speaking British Colonies of Nova Scotia (dominant by 1756), and Upper Canada (dominant by 1791) were pre-existing for about 100 years before Confederation in 1867. The sole use of the word Canada by French-Canadians is a myth, English-Speaking Colonists had their own pre-existing Colonies in "Canada" as well.

Lastly, the term Dominion means and independent country, that choose to remain in the British Commonwealth and have the British Monarch as their Figure-Head of State.

This "self-governing Colony" status is a bunch of bunk, taken out of context, by people that read the historical texts too literally.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Which part is supposed to be "not the case"? Peter Grey 01:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter Grey wrote,

The meaning of 'Dominion' changed over time, most notably with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. 1 July 1867 was the creation of the Dominion of Canada (and abolition of the Province of Canada). It established a new degree of autonomy, but had no bearing on independence. It's particularly significant for English Canadians because English Canada, as a community, didn't really exist until the railways joining the Atlantic, Laurentian and Western anglophone communities were built. (French Canada, of course, had already been there for 250 years.) Peter Grey 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The part(s) that are "not the case" are,

(i). English-Canada existed, along with French-Canada before Confederation into the Dominion of Canada in 1867.

(ii). the term "Canada" refers to the land mass known as(until 1867) British North America.

(iii). the term "Dominion" meant independence from the UK, with membership in the British Empire-Commonwealth, and the Figure-Head of State was the British Constitutional Monarch.

(iv) the construction of a Railroad connecting the four Canadian Provinces (1867) of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario had nothing to with English-Canada coming into existance. English-Canada (i.e., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario) already existed prior to 1867, as did French-Canada (i.e., Quebec).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Canada (province), New Brunswick and Nova Scotia existed separately before 1867. Anglophones in Canada (province) had no particular relationship with anglophones in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia before then. (Confederation, starting 1870, should have also united the francophones in Quebec with francophones in Manitoba, but that didn't quite work out.) 'Canada' didn't mean the same as British North America until 1871. 'Dominion' meant something different in 1867 from what it meant in 1931. Peter Grey 03:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter Grey,

Where did you learn your Canadian History? You have many things wrong here. The British Colony of Nova Scotia was created by King James I of England (formlerly King James VI of Scotland) in 1625. The territory it sat on was disputed by the Kingdom of France. From 1625-1756 the territory of Nova Scotia was fought over many times (the French called it l'Acadie ).

The Seven Years War (aka the French and Indian War) which lasted from 1756-1763 changed everything. The Kingdom of France was defeated and all of its mainland North American lands became British. The British Colony of Nova Scotia was awarded the boundaries that encompass the present day territories of the Provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edawrd Island, and New Brunswick.

After the USA was formed and formally recognised by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 (the Treaty of Separation), British North America (1783-1867) consisted of the British Colonies of Newfoundland (1497), Quebec (1763), Nova Scotia (1625), New Brunswick (1784), Prince Edward Island (1770).

The United Empire Loyalists (aka the Tories) left the USA and settled mainly in Nova Scotia, and Quebec. So many English-Speaking United Empire Loyalists came and settled, that Nova Scotia was split up into Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in 1784. In fact, St. John New Brunswick was settled entirely by Loyalists in 1784.

With regard to Quebec (1763), the United Empire Loyalists also settled in the Western part (unihabited) region, known as the United Counties of Ontario. (After Lake Ontario). In fact 80% of the original settlers of what is present day Ontario, were United Empire Loyalists from New York State. Again, so many English-Speaking United Empire Loyalists came and settled, that Quebec was split up into French-Speaking Lower Canada (1791), and English-Speaking Upper Canada (1791), from 1791-1840.

The link between the "English-Canadians" was in the influx of the United Empire Loyalists from the USA, after 1783. Where did you learn your history Peter Grey?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Until 1867, but no-one outside Canada (province) called themselves Canadian - they were separately British. The French Canadian population outside Manitoba was geographically contiguous. And British Columbia is in North America. Peter Grey 14:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"...the term Dominion means and independent country, that choose to remain in the British Commonwealth and have the British Monarch as their Figure-Head of State."

If this is the case then the United Kingdom, an independent country that has chosen to remain in the "British Commonwealth" (I believe you mean Commonwealth of Nations) and have the "British Monarch" as "Figure-Head of State", is a dominion as much as Canada, Jamaica, Belize, New Zealand, et al., are.

Whether or not dominion and realm mean the same thing, the term "dominion" has fallen out of use. Today it is accepted that those countries that have Elizabeth II as head of state are termed "realms" -- Her Majesty's Realms, Realms of the Commonwealth, whatever have you.

The Monarchy's website itself states that those countries who have the Queen as Sovereign are termed Commonwealth Realms: "A Commonwealth realm is a country where The Queen is the Sovereign. The Queen is Queen not only of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, but also of the following realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu." 1

It also seems, from that same website, that the word "realm" replaced "dominion" around the time of Elizabeth II's coronation, when she, unlike her father, was proclaimed with different titles in the "independent realms of the Commonwealth." In each Realm her titile included the phrase "...Queen of Her Other Realms and Territories and Head of the Commonwealth." Prior to that date, the Imperial Conference of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster, 1931, still refer to "dominions." --gbambino 01:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello gbambino,

Yes the term "Dominion" (at least in Canada) has fallen into disuse by the Elected Governments since 1963. Nevertheless, the full length formal names of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are,

The Dominion of Canada,

The Commonwealth of Australia,

The Dominion of New Zealand.

respectively. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is just that, i.e., a Kingdom. Whereas Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are Dominions.

Take care,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Would anyone object if I implemented the above change? Are there any other "housekeeping" changes that should be carried out?Homey 12:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we're close enough to consensus now to end this article's protection status. What do people think?Homey 15:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I see no consensus on the matter of either the proposed paragraphs or the use of the term "British Crown." The article should remain protected until at least those issues are sorted out. --gbambino 17:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy gbambino,

Just to let you know, I support your contributions, as being accurate, informative, and educational. I thank you for taking the time to type them. I have learned quite a bit from your writings, and I wish to congratulate you on work well done eh. ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

So be it. Do you have any problem with my implementing the suggested link to Union of South Africa? Homey 17:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't; but then, I'm sure I'm not in any position to give permission either. --gbambino 18:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to ensure that no one will object if I carry out the edit. Since there is no objection I'll carry it out. If anyone objects to the edit I'll revert it. Homey 18:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

I'm willing to accept this change. CJCurrie 01:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur, though perhaps the "essentially British and of Britain" part could be re-worded as per your earlier suggestion, Peter. --gbambino 05:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

So can we lift protection? I think at this point we might make more progress if protection were lifted and changes were actually tried out. We can always have the article reprotected with the status quo ante bellum put in place if there's a problem.

BTW, this scholarly article may be of interest to you both The law of succession to the Crown in New Zealand Homey 12:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)