Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

The Lede

Currently there is a lot of instability, reverting, ramming through new content without consensus, and insertion of verifiability tags which are all clear indications of a lack of consensus. As a result, the last stable version should remain (there is no deadlines here) until all parties involved can arrive at a suitable consensus. At this point, it is not exactly clear to me what the issues are but I can attempt a list. Regardless, policy is clear that the last stable version (status quo) remains in place until a consensus can be established at the Talk (i.e. here).

As I see it, there are two major issues that new editors are taking issues with (feel free to add/correct):

A. An apparent need to render clear that this is not a legal topic. However, my perception is that this is not the actual issue, instead the actual issue being that this topic was initially created based on editorial whim (i.e. this topic was created by Wikipedia editors, as opposed to documenting an already existing topic (i.e. this topic was not encyclopedic at time of creation).

B. The need to "slim down" (i.e. simplify) the article, but for the purposes of scope for this section here, we are only concerned with simplifying the lead.

The last stable version of the lede is : "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch and head of state. Each realm functions as an independent co-equal kingdom from the other realms."

For point A, I would offer that no legal topic disclaimer is needed as the article does not purport itself to be one, and if we were to put such a disclaimer in all non-legal topic articles this would affect millions of articles. For example, the word "country" and "head of state" are not legal terms either (in the two sources listing legal terms I linked to in its section above) but we clearly do not need such a disclaimer there, and the same logic applies here.

For point B, I agree. trackratte (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all of this comment by Trackrattle, concerning point A and point B. Qexigator (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we delete the article Head of state, too? GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Point A. (1) I think the need to clarify that "Commonwealth realm" is not a legal term is that it looks like one, especially now that it has been found to be used both by the Commonwealth itself and by Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth. Unlike "country" or "head of state", its reference is neither potential nor general but actual and specific. If one just said that the expression is used "informally", that would beg the question of what it might mean if used "formally"; better to explain that it is not what it may seem to be. I believe there had been consensus on this, even if it had not been so spelt out. (2) How this article was created is not, or no longer, important; these important uses of "Commonwealth realm" have been identified and are reasons to have an article that explains them

Point B. The changes by several editors here reflect development, not conflict; there was no instability. However, let us all take the reversion to a last "stable version", as starting point. I propose for discussion the following text; it is what I created yesterday, adding now that the expression is also used by the Commonwealth itself and fully capitalising "Head of the Commonwealth" (so used in the London Declaration):

A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch and head of state. "Commonwealth realm" is not a legal term; it is used by the Commonwealth and by Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth to refer informally to those Commonwealth member states that have her as their monarch and head of state.

In 1952, Elizabeth II was monarch and head of state in seven independent states—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon. Since then, new realms have been created through independence of former colonies and dependencies and some realms have become republics. As of 2020, there are 16 Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom. All are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation of 54 independent member states. All Commonwealth members are equal, whether they are Commonwealth realms or not.

Comments, please. Errantius (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal Term (Point A)

Is there any source that gives rise to the supposition that it is taken as a "legal term"? What is meant by "legal term" that calls for the proposed disclaimer? Is there any published academic or other study that makes the point notable as a question of international or local law? Why is it desirable to write this article as if there were some sort of problem of comprehension? Is there any precedent in comparable Wikipedia articles for cluttering the text with such disclaimers, which here amounts to a needlessly fussy attempt to clarify something which is neither asserted nor implied. It actually is less than helpful. The Perth Agreement, for example, was entered into by those members of the Commonwealth that are known as "Commonwealth realms". Qexigator (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

WP editors here wish to include a clarification of an expression that they reasonably fear ordinary readers could misunderstand. No source is needed for that. Errantius (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources are always needed. Assessing the status of a term is WP:OR. CMD (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The required information about status is in the refs to Commonwealth and royal usage. This is only about clarifying that information, which it is thought could well be misunderstood. Errantius (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Do any of those refs say that it is not a legal term? CMD (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes: "Governor-General" says "Such countries are known more traditionally as Commonwealth realms." (my emphasis). Other pages use the expression without legal formality: "President" says "Following the London Declaration of 1949 which allowed the Commonwealth to admit and retain members that were not Commonwealth realms, India was the first Commonwealth country to become a presidential republic in 1950." (my emphasis—and the London Declaration does not actually use the expression "Commonwealth realm") and "Prime Minister" says "There are 32 countries with a prime minister as head of government in the Commonwealth. Sixteen are Commonwealth realms with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, five are national (local) monarchies and 11 are republics." (my emphasis—"Commonwealth realms" is used along with other expressions evidently used without legal formality: "head of state", "national", "monarchies" and "republics"). Errantius (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Those quotations do not support the assertion that "Commonwealth realm" is not a "legal term". A useful source would defines "legal term", explains why "Commonwealth realm" isn't one, and presumably establish which particular legal framework they are working within when saying this. CMD (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would anybody explain a term that they are not using? These quotations use the term otherwise than as a legal term—by which I mean a term that is used with legal effect—and are examples of doing so. Errantius (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

All legal terms are used otherwise than as legal terms. CMD (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but the question here I think is much smaller: that "Commonwealth realm" may look to ordinary readers of WP like a term used with legal effect and an article on it should clarify that it is not. Errantius (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the average reader considers whether terms they read have "legal effect", whatever that may mean in this situation. In any case, attempting to make clarifications based on original research is not an improvement to the article. CMD (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. No source for it not being a legal term (letters patent sealed with the Great Seal are legal documents and so the use of the term in such a document makes it legal). No source for "used by Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth": original research not found anywhere in the source given. No source for "informally": a letters patent is not an informal document. DrKay (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Another thing I dislike about these sorts of discussions is the way people deliberately select sources to bolster their pre-existing point of view. All the pages at the Commonwealth network that support a particular view have been assiduously gathered and presented but of course the pages there that say something else, such as The Queen is also head of state in 16 Commonwealth countries, all of them fully independent. She is head of each of these states individually. Excluding the UK, the countries of which the Queen is sovereign are now formally known as realms (though the term is, in practice, virtually obsolete) and the Queen is represented by a governor-general who carries out the formal offices of head of state." are carefully excluded. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see why letters patent should be brought into this. And I have given a ref to the Queen's website, where she uses the expression "Commonwealth realms" prominently in the section on the Commonwealth, in the course of discussing her role as Head of the Commonwealth and activities of other royals deputising for her in that role. That section says: "Commonwealth realms Did you know? A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. There are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK." That is not formal (or, if you like, technical) legal language and the site has no legal force.

You have no basis for suggesting that any contrary evidence has been "carefully excluded" (which I find offensive) and you have not produced any. Your quotation includes the words "Excluding the UK, the countries of which the Queen is sovereign are now formally known as realms". Since the UK is "excluded", this reference to "realms" cannot be to "Commonwealth realms", which include the UK. I take the reference to be to her being monarch of each of these states individually. Errantius (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Responding to a complaint about unsourced original research with a load of unsourced original research is not going to win over the complainant. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't said anything unsourced that needed a source. Errantius (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Prove then that the Queen, herself, personally, has written the royal family website. I don't see her signature there. DrKay (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose : What is the basis and support for the assertions "WP editors here wish to include a clarification" and that it is reasonably feared that the expression could be misunderstood by "ordinary readers" in the context of this article as a whole , or any part of it. Seeing that no good answer has been offered to certain questions above (listed below), among others, it is evident that the proposer is unable to make such an answer --

Is there any source that gives rise to the supposition that it is taken as a "legal term"?

What is meant by "legal term" that calls for the proposed disclaimer?

Is there any published academic or other study that makes the point notable as a question of international or local law?

Why is it desirable to write this article as if there were some sort of problem of comprehension?

Is there any precedent in comparable Wikipedia articles for cluttering the text with such disclaimers, which here amounts to a needlessly fussy attempt to clarify something which is neither asserted nor implied. Qexigator (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As an involved editor I would like to motion closure on this point as, regardless of the applicable points brought forward above, it is clear that there is no consensus for this change (the insertion of a 'legal term disclaimer'). While debate may obviously continue, it appears to me that we have reached the point in talking in circles and where perhaps our collective efforts are better placed on moving on towards tackling Point B (simplification of the lede). trackratte (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Simplifying the first one or two sentences of the lede (Point B)

Last stable version: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state [1] in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch and head of state. Each realm functions as an independent co-equal kingdom from the other realms." [1] Together with associated states and dependencies.

By way of kicking off this section, I would offer the following points:

1. A definition must be verifiable. Given the challenges that have occurred here, I believe that one or more references to this definition are now required. Someone has mentioned above that the official commonwealth site, or the official UK Monarchy site defines the term, as a result I suggest that the ref be inserted and the lede be adjusted accordingly (i.e. be either exact or nearly so since we are defining a term here when we say 'A Commonwealth Realm is...') to avoid OR. EDIT: not saying that references must be cited in the lead sentence, that's a separate issue, merely that sources must be used to generate the content (i.e. verifiability).

2. "in which QEII is the...monarch and head of state". The term "head of state" is included within the definition of monarch and is therefore superfluous (Monarch: "a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor"). Therefore, in the interests of simplifying the lede I suggest that "and head of state" be removed. A bluelink can be provided for "monarch" to any reader wishing to explore that term further.

3. "reigning constitutional monarch". If she is the monarch then she is reigning (i.e. we would not mention her if she were not, and it would be illogical to have a 'QEII is the unreigning monarch') so once again "currently reigning" seems redundant. Further, given the topic and the wider area in which it is nested in, "constitutional" is likely a bit extraneous as well given that there are no, and never have been, any absolute monarchs within the Commonwealth. Given this is a fairly niche sub-topic, I cannot see how one could read this article without understanding that the UK, Canada, Australia, etc are democracies (i.e. are not totalitarian dictatorships).

4. The footnote attached to "sovereign state" seems overly pedantic for the lede sentence and to me seems extraneous here as it is a given that a "sovereign state" includes all of its 'holdings'. If such fine-grained nuance is required, it is best placed further are in the article body and not in the very first sentence.

5. The second sentence, while I understand its importance, is somewhat redundant in the sense that "sovereign state" is included in the definition in the first sentence, so a sovereign state, by definition, is an "independent co-equal" with other states.

As a result, such a simplified lede sentence would look something like:

"A Commonwealth Realm is a sovereign state which has Elizabeth II as its Monarch."[2][3]

6. This addresses, I believe, all of the issues brought forth in points 1-5 above. Further, keep in mind that I am intentionally just trying to speak to the first one or two sentences here so we can resolve that before moving on to the rest of the lede for practical purposes to facilitate discussion. trackratte (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We should not be aiming to insert any references in to the lead. If there are definitional differences, they should be discussed in the article. Despite all the heated discussion on this talkpage about the validity of the term and its usage, there is not a single mention of this in the article body. If we have good content in the body, we can use that to help craft the lead, instead of discussing here based on whatever each individual editor pulls up on the time. CMD (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed in the sense that the body should be well written, and that Wikipedia cannot create content but can only document it as an encyclopedia. However, given the apparent ambiguity of what, exactly, a "Commonwealth Realm" is (and therefore the validity of the article itself), I do think it is required to define the topic according to reliable sources particularly with the accusations that this article topic is a pure invention by Wikipedia. Only then, with a clear sense of what the topic is and what we are talking about, can we really hope to write a verifiable and well-written body. As for potentially including a section discussing where the term came from, I think we would have to create a new talk section to tackle that, and would have to have some good reliable sources that note that, or else we are just continuing to place editorial speculation instead of actual verifiable content. As an aside, there seems to be an official document here if somebody already hasn't posted it. trackratte (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That document confirms what I pointed out above: sources are not agreed on whether or not the UK is a Commonwealth realm. Some sources exclude it explicitly. DrKay (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead is not the place to address ambiguity. WP:LEAD is clear that the lead is a summary of the body. The topic of the lead is whatever content is included in the article body. Focusing in the literal first sentence is a back-to-front way to address this issue. These two comments show that, a new source was provided, and another editor notes that it shows definitional discrepancies. If these sources were included and this topic was written about somewhere in the main article body, we would all have a much firmer base for discussing the very first sentence. CMD (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

DrKay, agreed, there are some challenges here. One way to approach it is that different countries will have a different POV, or perhaps in the source that excluded the UK we can look at how they define the term (which if they say that a CR is simply a state with QEII as its Queen, then by definition they've included the UK, but then contradict themselves later on in the same publication. That itself is probably worthy of its own Talk section.

CMD, let me perhaps better explain my point. For the purpose of our discussion here on the Talk we need to come up with a sound definition of the term "Commonwealth Realm" that is thoroughly verifiable, which means we actually have to verify it by presenting the sources (here at the Talk) and look at how we reconcile them while avoiding OR and NPOV. Once we do that, we will by default know what the lede sentence or two will look like (as it is naturally a one or two line definition of the topic), and therefore how to treat the rest of the article (what is the rest of the article, what is it scope, does it include the UK, etc?). Whether or not we actually include these references in the main space lede sentence is a separate discussion (WP:LEADCITE- "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus...The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article") I think, and such a discussion should only really occur once we settle the core bit of what is a CR. I hope that helps. trackratte (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To better explain my point, the sources given here and the verified points they make need to be included in the article if we are going to base our definition of the article on them. Per WP:V, to be thoroughly verifiable these sources need to be in the mainspace. This is not about LEADCITE, as what we are discussing on here is not currently in the lead or the body. Given that we have sources that disagree on the definition itself, rather than seeing how to twist a variety of sources into a single sentence, it would be easier for us (and better for the article) if we used those sources to create text that covered this disagreement, which would indicate the best way to summarise this into the initial sentence. CMD (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, we are both driving to the same place. Either way (or route I guess to carry on the analogy), we still need to hammer out the same issues regardless of how we get there (simplify the lead, and determine the exact nature and scope of the article). All good stuff. trackratte (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Of 1 to 6 above, but subject to others' comments, in my view 2, 3, and 4 are not controversial and are acceptable as useful trimming, and by removing verbosity would improve the article (but which part or page of the document about judicial tenure is being cited?) Qexigator (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Page 129. DrKay (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That document on judicial tenure by J. van Zyl Smit has very good provenance—the Commonwealth Secretariat and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. He says (p 129): "A ‘Commonwealth realm’ is a state, other than the United Kingdom, in which the Queen is the Head of State." He gives no reference. The Queen (in her website) includes the UK: "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. There are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK." But I don't see any point in just recording that he and HM disagree. Other reliable sources? Errantius (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful to bring in other references to determine the 'common usage' to borrow from WP article naming convention principles. If common usage differs from one (high quality) reference, then we can certainly highlight that in the main body either in the body proper or by way of footnote (i.e. something to the effect that, 'while CR in common usage by definition includes the UK, certain official sources from the UK itself state that the UK is not included as a CR blah blah blah'). From a simple Google search:

1. Express (UK Newspaper): "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch"

2. The Globe and Mail (Canadian National Newspaper): "A Commonwealth Realm is a country that has The Queen as its Monarch. In addition to Britain and Canada, there are 13 other Realms....".

3. Atlas of the British Empire: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch..."

So it seems that in both British and Canadian common usage, the UK is included by definition and explicitly so in most cases. To be fair, it seems that the above sources take from Wikipedia, except for the Globe and Mail which seems to have uses the official QEII website as its reference. trackratte (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's good in WP principle, of course—though I wouldn't rely on the Express (I don't know the others).

But what HM and the Commonwealth say about their own affairs carries a certain authority, no? If that's how they see it, that's how they do it and so that's how it is. Unless some earlier settled, even legal, use can be found.

Thus, how about we remove this article and merge its content into Commonwealth of Nations, adding refs (so far) only to the royal and Commonwealth websites—following the theme of the position of Elizabeth II in the Commonwealth. In that context it might be sufficient to say, for example, that the phrase "Commonwealth realm" is "a convenient and informal way of referring collectively to those member states of which Elizabeth II is monarch". Errantius (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't go around in circles please. You've provided no source for it being informal, I've provided one for it being formal. That suggestion is a dead duck. It shouldn't be made again without new evidence. DrKay (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have provided two particularly important sources of 'informal' use: the Queen's website (prominently, which it can be assumed she approves) and some places in the Commonwealth's website. I have also shown that a source you give doesn't mean what you suppose. I believe that my evidence is sufficient and I doubt that we will get anything better. Errantius (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Then it cannot go in, because none of the sources say that it is informal. As I said above, we cannot deliberately select sources that bolster one point of view (even though they don't -- they're being interpreted in a way that they do not explicitly read) nor can we carefully exclude those that disagree. We cannot use sources that make no mention whatever of formality to support the claim that is it informal, nor can we exclude a source that explicitly says the term realm is formal because we happen to disagree with it. DrKay (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting my arguments and and questioning my motives. This is not about whether the term "realm" by itself is formal; of course it sometimes is. The issue here is whether the expression "Commonwealth realm" is "formal"—specifically, in the sense of being a legal term—and to specify that it is "informal" would clarify that it is not a legal term, as some readers might otherwise suppose.   I put the view a long time ago that, for that reason, specification as "informal" does not require a source, some place that discusses whether it is "formal". But the clarification in WP could usefully be illustrated by examples of informal use and I have provided some important examples, from the websites of the Queen and the Commonwealth. Could we go on productively from my merge proposal, below? Errantius (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Material cannot go in the article unless supported explicitly by a source. There are no sources for informality and there is a source for the opposing claim of formality. The claim of informality is consequently in breach of three core-content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. DrKay (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It all seems very desperate to me. Digging and digging to try and find some formal way that Commonwealth realm is used. When we all know very well that it simply doesn’t have that significance. There are dominions. There are realms. There is no formal thing called a “Commonwealth realm”. There are vast, vast, vast numbers of references to “dominions” and (to a much, much lesser extent, ‘realms’) in all sorts of laws and court cases etc. As to “Commonwealth realm”, slim and recent pickings indeed. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Beside the points. The term "dominion" is no longer used, although its historical use has been important and is covered in Dominion. And nobody here has been suggesting that "Commonwealth realm" is "formal" if by that is meant "with legal effect", i.e. altering legal rights or duties: on the contrary, there has been argument about whether the article needs to point out explicitly that it is not formal in that sense, i.e. that it may look like a term with legal effect but is not.

The key question seems to me to be very simple: Is there a significant risk that an ordinary reader could take "Commonwealth realm" to be a term having legal effect? If Yes, there should be an explanation that it is not such a term.

I still think Yes; my merge proposal suggests a way to avoid the need. It could also avoid much duplication and redundancy—but that is a separate argument. Errantius (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Point #2, doesn't need to be addressed. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with the intro having constitutional monarch & head of state. Though reigning isn't needed. PS - Odd how suddenly in these last 'few' days, this article has garnered so much attention. For so long it was virtually ignored. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me then, based on those that have addressed points 1 through 5 at the outset of this section, that there is consensus for the following lead sentence :

"A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state which has Elizabeth II as its monarch and head of state."

Qex has agreed to this based on points 2-4, and GoodDay has taken issue with the removal of "and head of state" so is included here in the interests of consensus. Note that citations for the lead sentence have no been really discussed so are not included here, but could be added later on as required. trackratte (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. DrKay (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

DrKay, I think I fixed what you're after above. Please feel free to change the capitalization directly above if required. trackratte (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Though it might not have appeared so, I do appreciate your redundancy arguments & hopes of streamlining this & related articles. I'm content with deleting constitutional monarch or monarch from this article's intro as well as the intros of all the Commonwealth's monarchy articles, if we're to keep head of state. See solution at Monarchy of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that the term "head of state" doesn't imply monarchy or the monarch, and that it doesn't appear in Canadian law and it's applicability to monarchical systems is disputed by academics, I don't think using only head of state is particularly beneficial here. trackratte (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources so far

• The Crown as Head of the Commonwealth - From Unity to Unity (1953): "The sole uniform concession to the memory of the departed unitary status lies in the express or implied provision of each of the new acts that a citizen of another Commonwealth realm shall not be treated or listed as an alien, but as a British subject" (Offline perhaps? Provided by Leventio above)
• 2002 press secretary statement: "The Medal is given for a book of verse published by someone from the United Kingdom or a Commonwealth realm. Originally the award was open only to British people, but in 1985 the scope was extended to include people from the Commonwealth realms."
• Commonwealth publication on legal systems (2015): "A 'Commonwealth realm' is a state, other than the United Kingdom, in which the Queen is the Head of State." It also refers to non-UK 15 as Commonwealth realms in their summaries, but not the UK.
• https://www.royal.uk/commonwealth-and-overseas: "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. There are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK."
• 2012 Queen's address: "to visit all the Commonwealth Realms and a number of other Commonwealth countries."
• Commonwealthofnations.org 1: "Such countries are known more traditionally as Commonwealth realms...The United Kingdom is the 16th Commonwealth realm but does not have a governor-general since the Queen fulfils the function of head of state in practice."
• Commonwealthofnations.org 2: "Following the London Declaration of 1949 which allowed the Commonwealth to admit and retain members that were not Commonwealth realms..."
• Commonwealthofnations.org 3: "Sixteen are Commonwealth realms with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state..."
• Commonwealthofnations.org 4: "Excluding the UK, the countries of which the Queen is sovereign are now formally known as realms (though the term is, in practice, virtually obsolete)..."

The above are the more reliable sources that have been presented in the discussions so far. Regarding the composition, some are ambiguous, some explicitly include the UK, and some explicitly don't include the UK. (Different pages on commonwealthofnations.org do both.) None comment on legality, although one notes it is formal and mostly obsolete. CMD (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Where in the article do we explain that “dominions” is not an obsolete term? And “Commonwealth realm” unlike “dominion” is not used in law?

A couple of extracts from UK statutes conferring indepdence that don’t include the supposedly official “Commonwealth realm” term still refer to dominions:

Solomon Islands Act 1978 - “On and after 7th July 1978 (“Independence Day”) the territories which immediately before that day are comprised in the Solomon Islands protectorate shall together form part of Her Majesty’s dominions under the name of Solomon Islands; and on and after that day Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of those territories.”

Ghana Indepdence Act 1957 - “The territories included immediately before the appointed day in the Gold Coast ... shall as from that day together form part of Her Majesty's dominions under the name of Ghana...”

Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think "dominion" is an obsolete term. Of current British statutes, it has not been used in the title (except when it has occurred in the name of a corporation) since 1949. To my recollection, it is no longer used by the Queen or the Commonwealth. The examples you give here are in statutes that largely expired as soon as they became effective. No worries, then, on the score of "dominion". Errantius (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are claiming that “dominion” is obsolete, than you do need to provide sources to back that up.

I have provided statutes that are STILL IN FORCE that were enacted decades after commonwealth countries supposedly becam “Commonwealth realms”.

I have not identified any instance of the United Kingdom annexing territory to Her Majesty’s dominions than when the territory comprising Solomon Islands was annexed by the United Kingdom to Her Majesty’s dominions under the Solomon Islands Act 1978 (Note: Solomon Islands had not been under UK sovereingty but had been a UK protectorate). That Act did something very similar as to what was done with Ghana over 20 years earlier. Can you identify an example after 1978 of the United Kingdom doing the same thing but using the term “Commonwealth realm”... Or indeed any other term. I’m interested to hear about it. I’m very much open to correction but I cannot identify from the Wiki list of “Commonwealth realms” any jurisdiction where the United Kingdom annexed territories after 1978. There really is very little need to use the term dominions now. It seems to me that if you are claiming that the term is obsolete, then you need to provide a proper source for that. And point out how what terminology the United Kingdom now uses when annexing territory if it has replaced “Her Majesty’s dominons” with something else. Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We were discussing "Commmonwealth realm", where the question is whether a country is "a Commonweath realm"—one of a class of Commonwealth member states—and what is comparable to that is whether a country is "a dominion". The word "dominion" is no longer used in that sense. I don't see that as a statement requiring authority.

You have a strange way of reading a grant of independence as annexation. In 1978 the Solomon Islands became independent as "part of Her Majesty's dominions" in the sense of having her as their head of state, i.e. in the sense of becoming a Commonwealth realm.

The UK is longer annexing territory. No authority is needed for that statement either. Errantius (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Under United Kingdom law the expression ‘His/Her Majesty’s dominions’ means “all territories which ‘belong to’ the Crown or are in the ‘ownership’ of the Crown”. There is rarely any doubt under United Kingdom law, assuming the facts are established, whether a territory is within His Majesty’s dominions. It is necessary to show only that title is vested in the Crown. There have been occasional cases where the kind of title that the Crown had raised doubts about whether the territory in question formed part of His Majesty’s dominions. Such cases include certain lands leased to the United Kingdom in the region of Hong Kong, certain lands leased in Wei hai wei and Cyprus. Until the Solomon Islands Act 1978, the territory comprising the Solomon Islands was not part of Her Majesty’s dominions. Are you disagreeing with me on that? In other words, Her Majesty did not ‘own’ or have ‘title’ to that territory. Do you disagree with me on that? It was the Solomon Islands Act 1978 - an Act of the United Kingdom parliament on which the people of Solomon Islands had no say [though they may very well have been perfectly happy with its terms] - that changed the status of the territory comprising the Solomon Islands to territory that formed part of Her Majesty’s dominions. It annexed the territory to Her Majesty’s dominions. Beforehand, Solomon Islands was merely a United Kingdom protectorate, not territory over which Her Majesty exercised sovereignty. Do you disagree with any of that? We are discussing the nature of the term “Commonwealth realm” which in your comments you have claimed is “a class of Commonwealth member states”. Of course, no constitution, no law, nothing anywhere officially categorieses any state whatsoever as a “Commonwealth realm”. That is not the case with respect to dominions. All of the supposed “Commonwealth realms” form part of Her Majesty’s dominions. That is and remains the legal position. The Solomon Islands Act is a very good illustration of that fact. While the principal purpose of the statute was undoubteldy to confer what’s generally described as ‘indepedence’ on Solomon Islands, in order to do so, the United Kingdom needed to first annex the territory to the Crown. Without having done so, the United Kingdom itself could not confer on the new government of the territory concerned sovereignty over the territory in question. The new government would need to look to others. Please let me know what you disagree with in any of this.

Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I won't challenge your explanation that the UK may have first annexed the Solomon Islands and then granted independence, but I still don't understand how after independence SI could been "dominion" in the sense of British title. However, I'd rather not go on with debating about this unusual case. Errantius (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Universally, territories under the Crown are “Her Majesty’s dominions”. In most of the indepdendence statutes, there was actually no need to provide as much. That’ because the territories concerned were already within “Her Majesty’s dominions”. For example, Barbados or Jamaica. In the case of Solomon Islands, the territory needed two be annexed to the Crown in order, in short, for good title to be conferred on its government. The point about the Solomon Islands statute is that it illustrates the extreme limitations of this so called “Commonwealth realm” concept that is bandied about on Wikipedia as if it had a formal meaning. The Solomon Islands Act was the last example that I have identified of the UK annexing territory to the Crown. As before, there could be another later one that I haven’t identified. In any event, it was done DECADES after ‘Commonwealth realms’ are supposed to have come into being but the UK didn’t, in the SI Act, purport to create a new ‘realm’, nevermind a ‘Commonwealth realm’.

Anyway, the point I think that gave rise to our immediate current exchanges is that you’d claimed that the term ‘dominion’ was obsolete when it very clearly is not obsolete. And I’ve provided an example of how it is not obsolete and in the article we ought to be explaining that any territory that is a supposed ‘Commonwealth realm’ (yes I can’t hide my disdain for this term that has no legal meaning) is part of ‘Her Majesty’s dominions’. And, indeed, all the complexity of explaining that.... Essential reallly to debunk the illusion that even you were under as to dominions being a term that’s obsolete etc. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, you are still confusing two senses of "dominion":

• "dominion" in the sense of "a dominion", a class of former colonies in the British Empire—a usage that I contend is obsolete;
• "dominion" as in "Her Majesty's dominions" or in "to have dominion over", which refers to title—derived from Roman law, dominium—which may still be in use, albeit antiquated, but it is irrelevant here.

British Imperial discourse commonly employed a term, such as "the Crown", in unconnected senses—sometimes referred to as "chameleon" usage.lErrantius (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If this discussion is straying into a milldly pedantic, but nonetheless informative. review of terminology, let me add the following. In current English, 'dominion' is little used but it is not obsolete and is an appropriate word to use in some contexts, such as 'The Commonwealth has evolved from colonial and imperial times, so that Queen Elizabeth's dominions today are not only the kingdom that comprises England, Wales, Scotland and part of the island of Ireland, but also include many former territories that are now sovereign independent states and collectively are referred to as 'Commonwealth realms'. And compare that and 'With few exceptions. in England the feudal law of primogeniture is obsolete and well-nigh extinct', and again, 'The grand jury is obsolete in its homeland. England, but flourishes in the federal republic founded in north America by some of England's erstwhile colonies '. Qexigator (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Errantius. The point is simple. The article ought to explain that all of these so called realms are part of Her Majesty’s dominons. Do you disagree with that. Hi Qexigator. Are you suggesting that the term Her Majesty’s dominions no longer forms part of United Kingdom law? I’ve had this out with Errantius (above in the chain) so my view that it is not is already explaied. If you agree with me that it is still part of the law, ought this not to be explained in an article concerned with countries that form part of Her Majesty’s dominions? Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As usual, it's a question of context: "dominion" is part of English/UK law, and the law of Commmonwealth realms, for as long as there remains a possibility that the issue in a legal dispute about public law or private law could depend on the meaning of the term in legislation, such as the Solomon Islands Act 1978, or in previously decided cases (precedent). For instance, you may be interested to look at this excerpt from the Hansard record of a debate on a bill about the "Power of Parliament of Dominion to legislate extra-territorially". (HC Deb 24 November 1931 vol 260 cc246-79)[4]. And, for example, see cases about title to land in what is now the Commonwealth of Australia, such as Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and Mabo v Queensland (No 2). Specialist lawyers could, and have, written books on the topic -- such as The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations Thomas M. Franck (OUP 1990) quoting on p.270 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition 1974)[5] -- and later law may replace earlier law, but the name and concept "dominion" can never be erased from the full corpus of the law of Commonwealth realms. Even an abolition Act could not be fully understood unless the previous law was known. But I do not think that the article would be improved by adding anything that is OR or SYN (such as example above about 'obsolete'), and I feel the article does well enough without it. Qexigator (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: This quotation exemplifies the use of dominion for parts of the UK: 'The Scots parliament in 1670, made the first advances toward a treaty, which after two months deliberation came to nothing. James II. had an union with Rome more at heart than an union of his dominions, but when king William came in, the convention of the Scots estates proposed it again,.... commissioners on the part of Scotland were appointed February 27th 1706, those on that of England, on April 10th;.... laid the terms they agreed on, before the queen on July 23d,... the 4th article, which declares "That all the subjects of the united kingdom of Great Britain, shall, from and after the union, have full freedom and intercourse of trade and navigation, to and from any port or place within the said united kingdom, and the dominions and places thereunto belonging; ..'

Date of creation of the United Kingdom

The current article dates the creation of the United Kingdom from 1707, but that's only the creation of Great Britain: the modern UK dates from 1 January 1801, when the Act of Union 1800 (and the equivalent from the Irish Parliament) came into force. The former kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland were both subsumed into the UK from that date. (It should be 1801, not 1922, because while Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922 so far as UK law is concerned, Northern Ireland remained in the UK under the Union of 1801 - so while the boundaries of the state changed in 1922 and its name caught up in 1927, its legal identity did not.) I would suggest '1707' be replaced with '1801' on this basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.127.199 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Corrected from 1707 to 1801 and changed the piped link from Treaty of Union to Act of Union 1800. Thanks for bringing it up. Leventio (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dubious

I've marked as dubious a list of things the monarch does in the realms. She doesn't actually make decisions on or do any of them. They are done in her name by others and decided by others. DrKay (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably depends on realm I think, Elizabeth is probably more close to any British PM than PM in other realms even if she did dismiss a the australian goverment and the PM in 1975 Australian constitutional crisis but its hard to know, there good changes that the governor-general just told Elizabeth II what was going to happen and she just rubber stamped it without much thought or involvement while others do say Elizabeth II was more involved in this than what the public being told. But by the sound of what the Hair to the throne has said that it would be simpler if all of those countries got their own Indipeant head of state. DoctorHver (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth didn't dismiss the Australian government. Recently released correspondence has made this clear. The GG wrote her seeking guidance. She told him to sort it out himself. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The Queen didn't rubber stamp anything. She has no power to direct or approve anything done by the Governor-General. In 1975 Buckingham Palace was keen that the Australian G-G leave them right out of the business. The British High Commissioner was reporting back to the British Government, but they couldn't do anything either. --Pete (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay:The monarch chooses to stay above politics & not pick sides. The monarch does have reserve powers, but usually doesn't use them without advice from her prime ministers. The parliaments could easily strip the monarch of those reserve powers, if they think they're misused. Just ask the Swedish monarch, if such a step can be done. That's why it's called a constitutional monarchy. Though not exactly the same situation, George V 'stayed out' of Canada's constitutional crises, in 1926. Considering the ramification from that event? Australians should thank us Canadians. PS - Hopefully, both our countries will become republics 'someday'. Lead the way Barbados, lead the way. GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The key word here is reserve powers. Does Elizabeth II have them or not. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between legal realities and day-to-day practice. Just because a fire extinguisher has never been taken off the wall to be used to put out fires, doesn't mean it doesn't have the power/ability/role to do so. In fact, if all the other systems are working properly (fire prevention in this analogy), not having to use that fire extinguisher is actually exactly what is supposed to happen.

There are numerous high quality sources that clearly show that the Crown has innumerable authorities. Look at the "Doctrine of Necessity", and what happened in Fiji and Grenada using Crown prerogative powers. trackratte (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed @Trackratte:, the monarch does have those powers. George V (in 1926) & Elizabeth II (in 1975), just had the good sense to 'not' dismiss Byng or King in 1926 and Kerr or Whitlam in 1975. The actions by their respective representatives (Byng & Kerr) proved their (the monarchs) inaction, was the correct move. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Update

Please update all the maps in these categories: [6] and [7] to reflect that Barbados is now a republic within the Commonwealth. Peter Ormond 💬 05:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Commonwealth

What about the theoretical possibility that a sovereign state could have Elizabeth II as monarch without being in the Commonwealth? Like a modern King of Hanover.

• such a state would meet the definition of "Commonwealth realm" stated in the lede of this article, but it hardly seems that "Commonwealth" is an accurate description
• on the other hand, perhaps it has been specifically stated that the realms would not allow such a scenario? Inwhich case, in theory a monarch who accepted the throne of a non-Commonwealth state would ipso facto abdicate the thrones of the realms?
• Has any realm ever been suspended from the Commonwealth? How would that affect its monarchy?

jnestorius^(talk) 15:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It's possible, but (to date) no Commonwealth realm has left the Commonwealth of Nations & retained their monarchy. Every country that has left the Commonwealth (AFAIK) had already become a republic. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ireland essentially did the two at the same time, though there was some constructive (or otherwise) ambiguity in its position prior to that explicit declaration, which in turn precipitated the Commonwealth being reconstituted on the present lines. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The question seems to anticipate some sort of new "personal union" with the Commonwealth monarch becoming the head of state of another country. I suppose in theory (say for example) Princess Estelle and Prince George might get married, and their kid ascend to both thrones. But this would need to approved under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 in the UK. Or some republic repents of their ways and begs to be taken into the fold, but has no interest in joining the Commonwealth. Also clearly something that the monarch would need to "take advice" on, not something they could just agree to unilaterally. Both seem fairly unlikely, but AFAIK the other realms would in theory have to make individual decisions about how they felt about this. In practice, presumably they'd try to make some sort of collective decision, as they did on the change from male-preference to absolute primogeniture. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

St Kitts and Nevis

The royal title for St Kitts and Nevis has been changed from the usual form, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of [...] and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth" to a shorter form. I reverted that, but it has been restored - citing an election notice issued by the Governor-General of St Kitts. This appears to be taken from Monarchy of Saint Kitts and Nevis#Title, which cites two election notices.

This referencing seems insufficient. The G-G alone can't determine the title and presumably is quoting from a statute made by the National Assembly under the 1983 Constitution (which itself does not contain the title). But I can't find such a statute. If there is none, the G-G may be using a short form conventionally employed—in which case, however, the full title would still be correct here. Errantios (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The full title should be used. GoodDay (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Changed back to full title. Errantios (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

We should be using the actual style. Using the style found in the three citations is better than changing it to a totally uncited style. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Does the monarch take precedence in all the Commonwealth realms?

This may not be the case in Australia. Not certain about the other realms. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

HM's omission from Australia's offical table of precedence surely just assumes her priority as too obvious to mention. But let's not drag anyone else into the confusion of that article. Errantios (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the solution would be to have all these Table of precedence pages deleted. I suppose that wouldn't succeed, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Dominions

The list and the map in the list section includes Dominions. The explanation in note 3 is not prominent enough and it should be stated explicitly in the sub-heading and the caption. Otherwise, it's unsourced original research and should be removed. DrKay (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm is an evolution of the old dominion terminology, as covered in the article and externally (eg. Although the notion of Dominion fell into disuse, it reemerged as the concept of Commonwealth Realm). Given the change was gradual and not punctuated by specific events (much like other related aspects of British Empire history such as the independence of the dominions and the disuse of Dominion within formal names), it would be OR to draw a firm line between the "dominions" and the "realms". This article notes Realms was used officially as early as 1952, and Frenchmalawi has noted above sources that include Dominion as late as 1978. CMD (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The list includes the Irish Free State and India, which even by your own standards and the definition given by every reliable source in the article, are not realms do not meet the definition of Commonwealth realm given in all the sources and in the article. DrKay (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Amended 11:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any standards on the matter. Sources treat realms as part of the evolution of the dominion status that kept evolving after its first creation, and I've not seen sources classifying them as different types of entities. CMD (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Section is still original research by synthesis. DrKay (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Current realms table - new columns proposal

I propose to add the following columns to the "Current realms" table:

• area
• GDP
• GDP per capita
• HDI
• total percentage of English-speaking population

Like e.g. G7#Member_country_data and BRICS#Member_countries tables have a plenty of columns (though here maybe we don't need some of them).

Moreover, I propose to add photos of the current governor general and prime minister. Grillofrances (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is overkill. The table shouldn't be too complicated and the realms are not in an economic relationship in the way that G7 and BRICS countries are. They don't meet regularly as a group or have a joint administration that arranges co-operative working. Nor do I see any value in adding photos of people: the table is of countries not people. DrKay (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Commonwealth realm → Commonwealth Realm – Incorrect grammar in current title. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. This is a matter of style rather than grammar and the lower case form is used by those organizations that mandate lower case in their manuals of style, like the Guardian[8] and the Financial Times[9]. Wikipedia's manual of style mandates lower case usually. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - there was significant discussion and debate on this some time ago, essentially because the realms are individual entities and not a single entity, a capital-R description is inaccurate. Nothing about that has changed since the last move proposal --LJ Holden 09:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - the grammar is fine. "Commonwealth realm" is not a proper noun so "realm" does not need to be capitalized unlike the C in Commonwealth. 208.98.222.3 (talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:CAPS. Graham (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as a general concept or class of realms. Primergrey (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - As mentioned by other editors, current title is appropriate per MOS:CAPS. Furthermore, WP:COMMONNAME indicates sentence case is the preferred form. Capitalisation is not a grammar issue. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per above (WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:CAPS). Suasufzeb 22:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not a proper noun. Other terms that could be considered equivalent in terms of style would be Far Eastern countries and Middle Eastern countries, in neither of which the word "countries" needs to be capitalized. Keivan.f^Talk 16:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“Personal union”

In the section “relationship of the realms”:

…there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate, or even whether personal union is applicable at all.

I'm not sure that the source says what this summary claims it does: the sentence in question is “[the Commonwealth] is no longer a federation, nor a military alliance, nor a personal union, as it now includes republics”, which I read as applying to the Commonwealth as a whole. That is, the Commonwealth as a whole cannot be a personal union because it contains republics, but that does not mean that the monarchies in the Commonwealth are not in personal union with one another. aaltotoukka (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There's three sources for that line, for clarity which one of them are you referring to here? Certainly if that's the best we have, that'dbe a big ol' {{verification failed}}. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Remember this isn't the Commonwealth of Nations page. There's no republics on this page, nor the five monarchies that don't have Charles III as head of state. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The question is, do we have a good source for the "the CRs are not a personal union" viewpoint. Which wouldn't be the case if the cites given are pointing about that the commonwealth isn't. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It's always been a confusing & non confusing topic. Is Charles III a monarch/head of state of different countries? or does each country have a monarch/head of state, which happens to be the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That's the case -- if that even is a that -- with all personal unions. I think the quibble about whether this is one is more to do with there being a common agreement between the countries involved that it'll continue in that same form. As opposed to one going all Salic Law or whatever and having a different person inherit, as would be the case with a traditional, unmodified PU. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That kinda came close to happening in Canada (over the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013's constitutionality), a few years ago. Until the Canadian Supreme Court put an end to the challenges, in 2020. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Is an explanation needed for why the UK doesn't have a governor-general?

BTW - Though there's an off-wiki source provided. It might be helpful to add a footnote, explaining why the United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explains why? DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There's already a source provided, I thought. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Where? DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

In the N/A bit, where there's not British governor-general, box. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That source just says that UK is not one of the countries with a Gov-Gen. I thought you wanted to say why the UK doesn't have one. That's not a source for that. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

A footnote, explaining why the United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general, would help readers. The monarch residing in the UK, would most likely be the explanation. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:OR without a source. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom is the 16th Commonwealth realm but does not have a governor-general since the Queen fulfils the function of head of state in practice." (emph-add.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Source is slightly out-of-date (oops, repubalypse), but good enough for that purpose. There's a slight (if sadly common) structural issue that the concept of governor-general and viceroy are discussed, and linked to our plentifully sourced and info-dense articles on those topics in section 3.2... having just thrown it out there as a use in section 1. Not really clear if those latter two columns are even especially well-placed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No idea what the hell you are talking about or what source you are referring to. Less is more. if you have a source, just link to it. DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the both of you, to figure out 'how' to explain why the UK doesn't have a governor-general. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You're the one that riased it. You're the one - the only one - that said it needs to be explained. If someone has a source then we can look at it. otherwise you just raised a dead end. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

(yaec)The source already in the article, as GD already said. Your sweary confusion surprises me. (A little.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There already is a source there. I was merely suggesting adding a footnote in connection to the source, for readers. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, no there isn't; you're wrong. The source you refer to does not say why the UK doesn't have a Gov-Gen.

IP, your posts don't tend to be understandable because you seem to be more interested in being "entertaining" than communicating. What is "repubalypse" supposed to mean? I suggest you cut down your posts and make your points succinctly if you want to gain consensus support for what you propose. As far as "The source already in the article" is concerned I'm not going to trawl through the 117 citations looking for what you claim is the source. As far as "as GD already said" is concerned, I've already shown that GD was wrong about that and that citation isn't a source for t. I hope that's clear for you. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you (I think) agree with me IP 109. But I must concur with @DeCausa:, your posts here (and at Charles III's talkpage) are becoming increasingly incoherent. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We'll just let the readers figure it out for themselves, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Realms by region

The number of these is long enough that they're a bit of a laundry list, and I think might be clearer with some geographical structure. An extra section doing that might be useful, but currently I'm leaning towards just adding a "region" field -- "Europe", "Oceania", "Caribbean", etc -- to the main table of them. Any thoughts either -- or indeed some other -- way? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Kinda confusing, as the Caribbean is within North America. Instead of region, continent would've been the better choice. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the column to be consistent throughout, as opposed to being a mix of larger continental and subregional groupings.

That said, while I don't think a column for regions is necessary, I'm not opposed to using smaller subregional terminology if we're keeping said column. I'm just of the opinion that if a subregion is used for some entries, subregions should be used to denote all (subregions of Oceania that could be used include Australasia, Melanesia, and Polynesia; North America into Caribbean and Northern America; and UK in either Western/Northwestern Europe or something). Leventio (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Given a choice, I would delete the new column - region/sub-region. IMHO, it doesn't add much, accept confusion. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

On reflection, I've reverted and removed the column until there's consensus. It seems a pointless addition resulting in unnecessary debate. Adds nothing. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, while we're on the topic of needless columns... In the same vein, is there a reason why we list out populations? In the same manner of how I don't see listing regions as helping to contextualize the topic, I don't see how listing populations helps contextualize the topic (like, does the reader really need to know the population of Belize to understand what a CR is?) Leventio (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I disagree with that. It absolutely does provide context for readers to see which realms are substantial and which are just a few thousand people. It gives a profile of the wide range within the organisation. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can get behind that rationale. Leventio (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

(Same editor as starting this long slow loop back to the status quo, per wiki tradition.) I think population is indeed in exactly the same conceptual category. Both are helpful in putting each element of the set in some sort of context with the others. Both have useful "tabular" properties: being able to group the regions, being able to sort the populations. In contrast, the prime minister column is a random additional factoid, and the governor-general is a bizarrely out of logical and expositional order inclusion. Sensibly it should include both the former, and exclude both (or certainly one of) the latter. 109.etc (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually honestly, the more I think about it, the more I cannot get behind that rationale, as that is essentially the same argument being presented for the regions column. The only difference in rationale you've provided compared to the one for the regions column is that one is only giving a "profile of the wide range" of localities, while population gives a "profile of the wide range" of sizes in population. I reiterate again, neither of these are providing any real context to the article topic itself (that is, what is a CR).

Quite frankly, much like geography, population plays no role in a country's status as a Commonwealth realm, nor does it affect their relationship with one another. Whether or not a country is "substantial" or "just a few thousand people" is completely irrelevant to contextualizing the topic in itself (the fact that Tuvalu has a tiny population compared to the UK plays no role in their status of CRs, nor does the size of a population change the dynamics of how the concept works). It has no direct role in the concept itself, and like with regions, populations do not provide any real context as to what a CR is. Honestly, I'd see it as akin to just listing the "total area" of a country (which I'd guess if someone wanted that included could argue it "profile of the wide range" of the geographic sizes of countries that the term encompasses).

With regard to describing the variety of CRs that exist, I think the section lead that the table is in already adequately provides a "profile of the wide [population and geographic] range within the organization", making it unnecessary to include a population/region columns in the table itself. Leventio (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the population column. If it's kept? it needs to be updated. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

More concretely: as the governor-generals are only even discussed in a much later section, what say we split the table into two parts? The "geographical" stuff where the existing table is, and the "political" where the GG explanation puts it in proper context? 109.etc (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

additional columns

What do you think about introducing additional columns into the table in the Current realms section? I mean the following:

• Area
• GDP
• GDP per capita
• HDI
• Governor general since
• Prime minister since

Moreover, for population/ area/ GDP, I'd like to have a total row showing the sum for all the realms alongside with percentage of the global population/ area/ GDP. Grillofrances (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion that occurred above may be of interst to you (Talk:Commonwealth realm#Realms by region).

While there isn't agreement on what sections should be included, there is a general sentiment that the columns should serve some purpose in contextualizing the topic itself (Commonwealth realms), and not just be a list of loosely associated facts about a particular state (stemming from WP:NOTCATALOG). In saying that, from that last discussion, an (informal) understanding was sort of established that we should try to avoid adding columns that would cause unnnessary debate over their necessity/utility. Leventio (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

IMO it's better to remove columns about governor general and prime minister, replacing them into area & GDP to:

• allow sorting showing which countries are bigger/ more powerful
• have more stability

If we decide to keep governor general, and PM, IMO it should contain their photos. Grillofrances (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, to reiterate my argument last time, I believe providing a listing of populations and area sizes serves little purpose in fleshing out the concept of what a Commonwealth realm is. All the realms are equal in status, and their size/population plays no bearing in how these Commonwealth realms operate/how their relationship is with one another. IMO, these details is essentially adding trivial fluff that serves no purpose in better informing the reader on the concept of a CR, and if the reader was that curious on the details of the specific country (i.e. demographics, geography), they can click said link to read about that specific country. We do not need to cram all that detail into this article (after all, this is not a list article like List of sovereign states... which for that matter also keeps its parameters limited).

With regards to the PM and GG stuff, I honestly do not care about their inclusion (I can see the rationale for both sides, at least for the GG). But I do not think it requires a photo. Listing their names is sufficient. Leventio (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

map with names

What do you think about modifying the map showing the realms to include every realm name, possibly also with the flag?

I mean, for large countries to place such details within a given country territory while for small ones to have an arrow linking details with the territory.

Then, we could see in one place the location of every realm. Grillofrances (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean something like this: Grillofrances (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

With all the 15 realms, it looks in this way: Grillofrances (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I just updated the article, adding this map under the previous map. Grillofrances (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it's unnecessary and untidy clutter. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Need for lede to explain that ‘Commonwealth realm’ is not a legal term or used in any law

I’ve added the above back into the lede; so important. It’s currently discussed as if the term was a real, formal legal term. It isn’t. This explanation restores what was in the lede for many years. Frenchmalawi (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)