Talk:Commonwealth realm

Shared monarchy or personal union

Can the article provide a clearer definition of whether the commonwealth realms are in a personal union or a shared monarchy? The references about this are very old and concern the commonwealth rather than the commonwealth realms - quite different. It seems to me that the relationship is much more like a shared monarchy than a personal union. In a personal union, there are two countries but only one monarchy. In a shared monarchy, there are separate countries, and separate monarchies, but they happen to share the same monarch. If 'shared monarchy' is googled there are numerous references to the commonwealth realms. If 'personal union' is googled there are very few. Does anyone have any up to date references that might clarify this? Neelmack (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a strong difference between the two expressions. I think they might be historical and cultural rather than real differences. For example, England and Scotland are described in terms of 'personal union' from 1603 to 1707. But in modern terms they could be described as being governed by a 'shared monarchy'. I suspect 'shared monarchy' is the preferred term nowadays. 'Personal union' has feudal overtones, implying a status of personal ownership by a monarch.Gazzster (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe a line should go in saying that 'shared monarchy is the most commonly used term nowadays'. I will look for some examples to add in as references. Neelmack (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A Personal union as I can understand it is a form of a shared monarchy and I also agree it is a more commonly and probably politically correct used term these days. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I provided a link to the previous discussion. You should read it. → ROUX ₪ 16:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you better go to that article I linked & change it! That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the previous discussion? I can only think you haven't, since 'personal union' as a term is most decidedly not more common these days. → ROUX ₪ 17:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh holy God, this again? You guys should read here, this was hashed out here several years ago. Warning, it will take some time. → ROUX ₪ 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold on! It's definitely not a "shared monarchy"! They don't share a monarchy, they are all separate ones (see Monarchy of Belize v. Monarchy of Papua New Guinea).. The United Kingdom is a shared monarchy, because its countries share a monarch. But the Queen of Belize is not shared with the people of Papua New Guinea. They share the same person as queen, but not the same queen. Rennell435 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a single country, so no. Personal union has not been used to describe the countries of the Commonwealth in quite some time. I gave you a link to the previous discussion; please read it. → ROUX ₪ 16:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the USA be on the list of "No longer commonwealth realms"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.152.224 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The USA has never been a monarchy, and it has never been a member of the Commonwealth. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC).

Borden or Lansing?

The text accompanying the picture of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles names the fourth person sitting from the left as the Prime Minister of Canada, Robert Borden. The text on the wikimedia commons page of the same picture names this person as US Secretary of State Robert Lansing. The webpage of the Imperial War Museum (where this painting is kept) also names him as Robert Lansing. The Canadian delegate is actually George Eulas Foster, the fourth person standing from the left. I've changed this accordingly. 83.84.123.35 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

When somewhere becomes republic do they have to pay the Monarchy for Crown lands?

When somewhere becomes a republic do they have to pay the Monarch for Crown lands?

This video:

• The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained

It has me wondering. Barbados has the "Savings clause" in its Constitution, so technically if this law about Crown Lands was in place in 1966, then Barbados would have it enshrined in ancient colonial law.

I mean, if Barbados becomes a republic. would the gov't owe the Queen billions for land??? Have any of the other former realms had to pay for becoming republics? CaribDigita (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because in constitutional law 'The Crown' signifies the Government,of which the Queen is an integral member. The monarch does not personally own Crown land. When a nation becomes a republic the title remains with the government.Gazzster (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No - see what happened in the Republic of Ireland, Trinidad and Tobago, India, etc. --LJ Holden 04:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Crown land" is basically just a synonym for "state land" or "public land". It does not signify that it is the personal property of the monarch. Roger (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get confused between Crown Land and the Crown Estate. The two are not the same. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Jamaican gov't will pursue - republic.

Here we go again.

• PM Portia: ‘Queen must go’ - Fri, January 06, 2012 - 12:01 AM

[SNIP]PRIME MINISTER Portia Simpson Miller yesterday said Jamaica's golden jubilee would see the country making significant strides towards breaking its attachment to the British Empire. [ . . . ] Former Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who was absent from the swearing-in ceremony for Simpson Miller yesterday, last April said Jamaica should replace the Queen as head of state before Independence Day this year. Jamaica will mark 50 years of Independence on August 6.[/End SNIP]

• GOODBYE MONARCHY: New PM wants Republican status for Jamaica; will also seek to join CCJ - Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:00:00
• Jamaica to become a republic - Friday January 6, 2012

CaribDigita (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that they evidently realise they're independent, one would assume it's unnecessary to inform them they're no longer part of the British Empire. However, it seems someone should remind Ms. Miller, before she ends up wasting her time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's good to see, that one of the Commonwealth realms might be using commonsense. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If they think they need freedom from the British Empire, it would seem this new government is somewhat lacking in the common sense department. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Republican propaganda, gotta love it. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

None the less, we shall see how this one goes. A "Jamaican Queen" how can someone have a foreign embodiment of one's own Constitution? By virtue of being a separate "Kingdom of Jamaica", should mean Q.E. II holds concurrent Jamaican citizenship. CaribDigita (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Republic? No problem 'mon', says Queen. Queen fine with Jamaica going its own way. CaribDigita (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"As we celebrate 50 years of independence, we must complete the circle of independence." Figure that one out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

By the grace of God

Most, but not all, Commonwealth Realms use the phrase by the grace of God to describe the monarch. Papua New Guinea does not do so and I have deleted this phrase from list of styles for Elizabeth II. In Papua New Guinea, the Queen's official title is: Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth as stated in article 85 of the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. See www.igr.gov.pg/constitution.pdf. Jm3106jr (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The official website of the British Monarchy, [1], cited as a reference in the clause you edited, says "The Queen's Royal style and title in Papua New Guinea is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Papua New Guinea and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth." TJRC (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, are you saying that the British monarchy's website is a more authoritative source on the style of the Queen of Papua New Guinea than the constitution of Papua New Guinea? Because I'd tend to think the other way around, actually. --Jfruh (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking interpreting the constitution is contrary to both WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. TJRC (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly an interpretation. He's just reporting what the constitution actually says. Neither is it original research: a Google book search for "Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea", returns 59 results. In contrast a Google book search for "Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of Papua New Guinea", doesn't return any. Within the former the The Statesman's Year-Book of 1992-93 (snippet view only unfortunately) clearly reports that in Papua New Guinea, Elizabeth's title is "Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's not an interpretation. You're effectively simply adding a quote from the constitution. Rennell435 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add as OP that while I am aware that the British Monarchy website as noted by TJRC does indeed include the words "by the grace of God" in Elizabeth II's style as Queen of Papua New Guinea, I knew this to be an error as Papua New Guinea is the only Commonwealth Realm that does not use this phrase in its royal style - as stated in its constitution. Each Commonwealth Realm is at full liberty to determine the style it uses for its monarch. The UK government has no say whatsoever in this regard and certainly the British monarchy's website is not authoritative for the style used by the Papua New Guinean monarchy. Jm3106jr (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Latin style of Elizabeth II in the UK

I undid the deletion by Miesianiacal who, when deleting the Latin style, asked if "Latin is an official language of the UK?." Latin is not an official language of the UK, nor is old French - but both are used in official documents. The reason for inserting the Latin style is that it is used on the Great Seal of the Realm and on various UK coins in abbreviated format. So, Latin is officially used - and a Latin form was provided in the proclamation of Elizabeth II's style upon her accession in the Royal Proclamation of 29 May 1953. See British Foreign and State Papers 1953, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1962, vol 160, page 2. Jm3106jr (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Latin is also used in Canada and other realms. I don't believe that justifies the inclusion of the Latin translation of the Queen's titles in those realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Latin is used in Canada only on coins but it is not part of the official title and style of the Canadian monarchy as established by statute. It is not used on the Great Seal of Canada - which is rather in English and French. However, in the UK, the Latin style has often been given first followed by the English in the various Royal Proclamations on the current monarch's title and style. The Latin also explains the abbreviated format on British coins where it reads ELIZABETH II DG REG FD. A quick Google search inputing Elizabeth Secunda Dei Gratia yields 405 hits. All British monarchs and those of England and Scotland before the union of the crowns have had their Latin title and style proclaimed. Thus, I see no reason why it should not be included as it is officially used. If others feel that having the Latin title is somehow incorrect or misleading, besides Miesianiacal, I would be interested to hear from you. Jm3106jr (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidently you either didn't read WP:BRD or decided it somehow doesn't apply to your edits.

You're trying to throw out an awful lot of reasons why the Latin version of the title should be included here in the hopes one will stick. But, ultimately, this isn't an article on the style and title of the British monarch; this is an article about the Commonwealth realms and it has a section of a chart that shows the monarch's title in each realm in the official languages of that realm or the English translation of the title in non-English speaking countries. Latin isn't even a spoken language in the UK, let alone an official one. The Latin version of the British title really doesn't belong here. Why are you so insistent to the point of edit warring that it should stay? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My addition was only meant to make the titles chart more comprehensive. My previous edit of the said chart was to correct the title of the monarch of Papua New Guinea - which was met with an objection (you can read about that above) but the reasoning was rejected by other editors based on the facts and so the revision stands. I never make additions simply to start an edit war - in fact this is the first time I have encountered one. I am not putting out an argument in the hope it will stick. I simply disagree with your opinion. You have not provided any compelling reason so far and no one else has chimed in one way or the other. It is your opinion that the Latin title does not belong here. It is also your opinion that - with the exception of Canada - no other languages should appear in the chart.

I have indeed read WP:BRD and I quote from it now:

• BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
• BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

It seems to me that I am following BRD in full. I began the discussion on the talk page per BRD. I have made a good-faith effort to improve the page. You have decided you did not like the change and reverted it. I made a another bold effort with added discussion on the talk page and you reverted it again - contrary to BRD. I am not being insistent that the Latin title should stay simply for the sake of an edit war. I think it is an interesting and informative addition, based on historic and official usage, that only minimally alters the original content. Thus I am baffled why you feel so strongly that it should not be permitted to remain. If a plurality of editors decides to comment and agrees that the Latin title should be removed, I will happily defer. This however has not happened. Jm3106jr (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is WP:BRD, not WP:BRDRRRRR. The guideline is there to help avoid edit wars; according to it, you should not have reverted my first revert of your addition; once reverted it was up to you to leave the revert be and begin discussion to find consensus. Right now, the content is there because you've bullied it in, not because there's a general agreement to keep it.

Also, please read again what I wrote: I didn't say you were trying to include the Latin translation in order to engage in an edit war; I asked why you believe it's so important to include the Latin translation that you will edit war in order to keep it there. I think I've made myself pretty clear: This isn't a page about the style and title of the British monarch; if we're to have the sovereign's various titles included in this page, it should be kept to the most minimum information; the official languages of each country or (since this is English Wikipedia) the English translation of a non-English speaking country's title. The Latin translation simply isn't relevant enough to the subject of this page to warrant a place in it. If more people agree with your opinion then obviously the content in question will stay. Right now, however, we're in a bit of a Mexican standoff. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we interpret WP:BRD somewhat differently. However, the insertion of the Latin title in the chart was simply an attempt to contribute positively to the page. I am not hellbent that it remain. Since we are indeed at a sort of Mexican standoff, I would simply welcome other editors to chime in and end it. I will defer to the majority and I will not revert it again. Even if you do opt to delete it (which you of course may do at any time), I will not undo the deletion. My addition isn't vital to the page, but I think it is worth preserving.Jm3106jr (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)