Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Comparison with other personal unions

Something I though could be interesting is to look at is how this personal union differs from any others. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has a somewhat similar/ somewhat varied relationship since the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles Federation at the end of 2010.(Dutch Curacao, St Maarten now independent) Namely, some isles are now semi-independent countries, on equal footing with the Netherlands itself. But they differ because they consider theirs a single Kingdom with separate Parliaments as opposed to this, which is more like separate Kingdoms along with separate Parliaments almost... They still share a single Netherlands "Dutch" citizenship/Passport whereas these Realms each have their own citizenships/passports. It's an interesting way the two monarchies have done things. This personal union has less political ties than the Netherlands it would seem. However in ways it isn't because the U.K. and Canada were discussing the relevancy of merging their High Commission buildings around the world as a cost savings measure. CaribDigita (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, yes, and pertinent to the topic Commonwealth realms. Is there a source to permit inclusion in this article or another, avoiding SYN? Membership of EU also affects questions of sovereignty of UK and Netherlands and overseas territories, in international and local law (citizenship, diplomatic practice etc.) of an as yet uncertain and speculative kind, which some governments may prefer to obscure for reasons of political expediency. Comparison is also awkward, due to Common law character of monarchy in Commonwealth realms, without adequate sources to cite. In short, the present sections on "Relationship of the realms", "The Crown in the Commonwealth realms" and "Historical development" seem to cover these aspects as well as can be expected, subject to updating. Qexigator (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There was recently some debate here about whether or how to discuss the nature of the Realm of New Zealand, which was originally a unitary realm and is now a federal realm consisting of New Zealand, the Cook Islands and Niue, very similar in structure to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and, to a lesser degree, the Kingdom of Denmark. At that time, it was not agreed that that question should even be mentioned in this article. My opinion, even though I didn't like the way the discussion was conducted, was that that was not an unreasonable conclusion: any detail about the topic most properly belongs in the Realm of New Zealand article, since it was an internal development of the realm which did not affect its position as a realm within the Commonwealth, though I also felt that it would have done no harm for the changes to be mentioned briefly here, on the grounds that they show that a realm can change its nature substantially without affecting its position as a realm within the Commonwealth.

I don't see why we should discuss the Netherlands but not New Zealand, which is actually a Commonwealth realm whose nature has substantially changed to become something like the Netherlands. However, if the nature of the New Zealand realm was included, then I think it would be appropriate to point out the analogies to the Netherlands and Denmark.

A 20th century analogy to the Commonwealth realms, which relates to all of them, is the personal union between the kingdoms of Denmark and Iceland between 1918 and 1944. This was very similar, if not identical to, the relationships established between the Dominions and the UK by the Statute of Westminster. If the Netherlands is mentioned as a comparison, I think that this union should be too. It would be very relevant historically if it had any influence on the claims the Dominions made for a seat at the Versailles conference of 1919, though I don't believe it did. --137.110.32.63 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The main point (as I see it) is that the Commonwealth realms are not in a "personal union" in the way of the European dynasties and royal houses, including the monarchies of England, Scotland and Ireland, They have evolved as described in the article. Is there any authentic source to show that the constitutional theory and practice which influenced constitutional development from Briish colony to dominion to realm was actually influenced by what is mentioned above? Such as parliamentary debates? If there were, then perhaps that could be mentioned more suitably in some other article. Qexigator (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as the Netherlands is concerned, or the current structure of the Danish monarchy, chronology shows that it can only be the other way around -- the evolution of Commonwealth realms might possibly have influenced the changes in Dutch and Danish structures. I have no idea whether that is so. As far as Denmark and Iceland are concerned, it's chronologically possible but I don't know of any evidence, and I think it's unlikely. But the question of influence isn't why CaribDigita made the proposal, [s]he was only suggesting a comparison. --2602:304:7882:60E9:39AA:5C20:3FD7:1AA8 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point about chronology. Experience, at Wikipedia and generally, shows that there can be a healthy tendency among participants for picking up, and picking on, different aspects of a given topic: the positive and negative of pickiness in general. Hence, policies about OR, SYN, UNDUE etc. which are likewise liable to pickiness in the drafting and the application. That sometimes grates, unless seasoned with humour and common sense. Thus, my comment was not unaware of, but by way of set-off against, making such a comparison here or elsewhere if not adequately sourced. Qexigator (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Line of succession"

Mies: inappropriate for an article on multiple countries, many with their own lines of succession[1]. I am puzzled: is not the current line of succession identical for every one of the realms? The generic article on succession has little, if any, relevance here? Please let me know if I have missed something. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The line of succesion is indeed identical for all the realms. The article you linked to, though, is specifically for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom doesn't decide the line of succession for all the realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I have not missed something: the generic article is of no specific use in connection with Commonwealth realms, while LoS undoubtedly is. Perhaps you have not looked at it recently, but its opening sentence says in terms: "The line of succession to the British throne is the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and the other 15 Commonwealth realms". That, surely, meets the point?. Qexigator (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It is incorrect; I just said the United Kingdom doesn't decide the line of succession for all the realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What in either article is "incorrect"? Neither says or implies, as far as I know, that the UK decides the line of succession in other realms, nor would they if linked. The fact remains that the current line of succession is identical in all of them. Qexigator (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The line of succession to the British throne is the the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and whichever other realms have whomever is monarch of the UK be their monarch. The line of succession to the British throne is not the same thing as, for example, the line of succession to the Australian throne. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that he line of succession as described and listed in LoS is identical for all Commonwealth realms, is your point that LoS states, or could be supposed by a reasonably intelligent reader to imply, that the UK decides the line of succession in other realms? If so, can you pinpoint the ambiguity and offer a way for this to be avoided? Qexigator (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The ambiguity lies in linking words about a common line of succession used by all the realms linking to an article on one realm's line of succession. The UK's line of succession is not shared by all the other realms. The way to avoid that is to not link to the article on the UK's line of succession. Alternately, the opening sentence could be reworded to say: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and royal line of succession parallel to those of the other realms." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Qexigator that the cited text doesn't say or imply what Miesianiacal has read into it. However, it could be emended to include an explicit statement preventing anyone from drawing the same inference. E.g.: "The line of succession to the British throne is the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom. By convention, established by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and reaffirmed by the Perth Agreement in 2011, the same line of succession applies to the other 15 Commonwealth realms and can only be changed with the agreement of all 16 realms." A bit wordy, especially for an intro, but it makes the point if it really needs to be made. 2602:304:7882:60E9:8017:F3FE:8020:BC38 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ummm....am giving those recent comments time for consideration, and may be others will comment if so inclined. We seem to agree that some sort of tweak would improve. Qexigator (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

--Mies: You must know very well that a link to Constitutional monarchy on its own without LoS instead of (as now) Order of succession would, if anything, be less apt to the topic here: it is too generic, the lead has a list which begins with Andorra and ends with UK (as if exemplifying: the first in time shall be last to be named), and the article concerns itself with discussing absolute monarchy, parliamentary republics and executive monarchy. It is surely plain enough to us and to readers that the fact that the realms have identical lines of succession is due specifically to the progression from British colony to SoW dominion to independent realm, each with the same person as monarch (today, E II) and prospectively continuing with the same line of succession as agreed by governments of the realms (Perth Agreement and current legislative activity). If such a point as you seem to postulate is worth making here it would be better made clearly and concisely and in a way proportionate to the topic. I am doubtful about introducing "parallel". In this sort of context it tends more to opacity than explanation - grammar? rhetoric? universe? boundary (as in 49th parallel north or Canada–United States border)? Did you know that it sounds as if you are banging drums of some kind: royalist, republican, anarchist, sui generist...? Qexigator (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The sentence makes it blatantly obvious what is parallel to what. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perth Agreement

Would the article suffer if and shares a common royal line of succession with the other realms were omitted from the first sentence of the lead? Editors will be aware that the succession is mentioned in three of the sections, quoted below. Those passages suggest that there should be something in the lead to cover them, but not extend them or imply something beyond them. The present lead uses a phrase taken from a Canadian article about the Queen's attire at her coronation in 1953 and when she visited Canada in 1957. The next section mentions the Perth Agreement, and this appears to be the passage which is the more relevant for the lead, being up to date and a fact of government intent among all the realms. When omitting the quoted words, a simple sentence could be added in the lead: "By the Perth Agreement of 2011, the governments of the realms acknowledged that a proposed change in the royal succession would be made in accordance with the constitutional law of each realm."

Sections mentioning succession -

• in the section "Relationship of the realms": The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy,[7] the succession, and the Queen herself; the person of the sovereign and the Crown were said in 1936 to be "the most important and vital link" between the realms. The supporting citation [7] is of an article in a Canadian journal from 2004, and, like other such expressions of learned or other opinion about constitutional theory, may need to be reconsidered in view of the Perth Agreement of 2011 as a matter of later fact.

(The cited paper was a revised version of a paper accepted for presentations at the Courtauld History of Dress Society Annual Conference entitled “Fashion and the British Empire”, London, Saturday 26 July 2003 and at the Universities Art Association of Canada Annual Conference in a session entitled “What Lies Beneath: Clothing, Textiles and the Body” Saturday November 8, 2003. Its headnote mentioned that it looked at two initiatives intended to extend the notion of shared status beyond its legal dimension. The first was the Canadian tour of the Coronation Robes under the administrative responsibility of the National Gallery of Canada in 1954-55; the second was the opening of Canada’s Parliament in 1957 by Queen Elizabeth II.)

• in the section "The Crown in the Commonwealth realms": ...after the first realms were established in 1931, the preamble of the Statute of Westminster laid out a convention that any alteration to the line of succession in any one country must be voluntarily approved by the parliaments of all the realms. [† 9][34][35] This convention was first applied to the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, and was reasserted by the Perth agreement of 2011, in which all 16 realms agreed in principle to change the succession rule...

• in the section "Historical development": The first prominent example of this arrangement working in practice came with the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936,[46] for which it was necessary to gain the approval of all the Dominions of the Commonwealth before the resignation could take place;[59] Canada, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State even passed unique legislation to solidify the changes in succession within their jurisdictions.[† 17] Qexigator (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The mention of the succession was entered into the lead because, some time ago, it was decided that having Elizabeth II as monarch was not the only qualification for a country to be a Commonwealth realm; more specifically, the Commonwealth realms will remain Commonwealth realms after the demise of the present monarch. It, thus, has a valid reason for being there, besides also serving the more mundane purpose of meeting Wikipedia's guidelines on article leads.

But, are you proposing some alteration to the wording of the lead here? You mention how the succession is brought up in other sections of the article; but, to what end? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is to let the lead be up to date, factual and better aligned to the actual content of the present text of the article, and read as follows:

• A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch. From 1992, there are sixteen Commonwealth realms. By the Perth Agreement of 2011, the governments of the realms acknowledged that a proposed change in the royal succession, would be made in accordance with the constitutional law of each one of the realms." Qexigator (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO the phrase about line of succession in the lead sentence is perfectly fine as is and doesn't need amplication. However, if it is agreed to change it along the lines suggested, I have a problem with the proposed additional sentence, because it appears to suggest that the Perth Agreement was doing something new in acknowledging that all realms would have to agree on changes to the shared line of succession. This has always been the case since the realms were created in 1931, as is made clear in the section "The Crown in the Commonwealth realms". Perhaps something like: "The realms share a common line of succession, as their governments most recently acknowledged in the Perth Agreement of 2011 concerning a proposed change to the line of succession]."

That said, this would not solve Miesianiacal's problem as he has stated it. When he says "The UK's line of succession is not shared by all the other realms." or "The line of succession to the British throne is not the same thing as, for example, the line of succession to the Australian throne." he is denying that there is a shared line of succession. This is a claim which no amount of wordsmithing about the shared line is going to satisfy. To my knowledge his belief is flatly wrong, and I think he needs to justify it, for example by naming at least one individual in the UK line of succession who is not also in the Australian line of succession at the same place, or vice versa. The closest I can come to his claim is the fact that the shared line of succession is established by different legislation in the different realms, but all the current and proposed legislation makes it very clear that the actual line of succession is in fact shared. 2602:304:7882:60E9:14D6:95D9:3B7E:D3D3 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That proposal has four problems: One, it removes having a line of succession parallel to those of the other realms from the criteria that defines a Commonwealth realm. Two, it contains an inaccuracy: the constitutional laws of those realms that are not Britain have no bearing on the line of succession to Britain's throne (the subject of the article linked to behind "the royal succession"); the line of succession to the British throne can be amended according to the UK's constitution only. Three, the Perth Agreement (let alone the prime ministers' acknowledgement of already known fact) has nothing to do with what defines a Commonwealth realm. And, four, it still links to the article on Britain's line of succession behind "the royal succession", as though it were the UK's line of succession (which is solely within the jurisdiction of the British parliament) that is the one line of succession governing the succession to the thrones of all the other realms.

There's nothing wrong with the lead as currently worded. If there's some problem with the current link behind "line of succession", change it to Order of succession#Monarchies and nobility or Order of succession#Primogeniture. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

On the question of terminology for denoting the single line of succession for the several realms ("shared" etc.), it must be better to rely as little as possible on sources other than the constitutionally weighty, such as those made in or out of any of the parliaments by persons having constitutional responsibility, in other words, responsible ministers or in judgments made in courts of competent jurisdiction. Have any of these used "parallel"? These articles are not improved by flying kites. At present, agreement in principle has been expressed by heads of government and the government of each realm is responsible for seeing the commitment through. There is no need in this article to say much about whatever differences of opinion may obtain within each particular realm: there are other articles for that. My concern has been, and remains, that 1_it would be better to have the link made to the aptly specific Line of succession to the British throne than to the overly generic Order of succession, and 2_the lead should make reference to the Perth Agreement of 2011, which is intended to make the first change in the line to occur in the present reign, and for which the legislative process is now under way. The article as a whole accounts for the constitutional position in more detail, and there is small reason to suppose that the brief mention proposed for the opening paragraph would mislead. Qexigator (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There's still been no explanation as to why words relating to sixteen countries must link to an article that is "specific" (to use your own word) to the United Kingdom only.

The Perth Agreement isn't even yet mentioned in the body of this article. There's thus no sense in discussing how to or even whether or not to include it in the lead at this point in time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mies: it might help if you looked at the article before making such a comment. Did you not notice that I mentioned above that PA is in the section "The Crown in the Commonwealth realms"? and hence my proposal for it to be in the lead. Does Homer nod? Could you reconsider, please. Qexigator (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So it is in the article body. Well, given it has as much attention as the Abdication Crisis, the former deserves mention in the lead just as much the latter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No: let's catch up with the course of events. The Perth Agreement is the latest confirmation, current etc. There is no need to recite the Abdication event in the lead as well. Qexigator (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to mention either, given the current wording. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In reality all the realms do share a common line of succession and this is achieved by voluntary agreement between them. This is adequately covered in the article as it stands, and I agree with Miesianiacal that the intro doesn't need to change.

However, I'm really having a hard time understanding Miesianiacal's problem with the link Qexigator suggests. Apparently changing the linked article's content, as I suggested, isn't an option worth discussing, so the problem is just that the title of the linked article, about the UK succession, is felt to be inappropriate for the link. However, none of the generalized links Miesianiacal suggests are adequate for explaining succession in Commonwealth realms. I can see two other ways to avoid linking to the UK succession article.

• Don't link at all. Given what's already in this article, do we really need a link?
• Link to the UK succession article indirectly via an article with a "neutral" title that links to the UK succession article. Since no existing article seems appropriate for an indirect link, this could be done by creating a new article called something like Succession in Commonwealth realms. This article explains that they all control the line of succession within themselves and have voluntarily agreed to a common line of succession. It might explain the SoW, the abdication, regencies and GGs, Perth agreement, differences in constitutional mechanisms for change etc, or it might refer back to this or other articles for that. It concludes by saying that the details of the UK succession, which by sheer coincidence is that of all the realms, can be found in the UK succession article. (Forgive the slight sarcasm -- I really think this is a non-issue, but to the extent that it is an issue the suggestion is serious.)

2602:304:7882:60E9:14D6:95D9:3B7E:D3D3 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I could settle for no link at all as the preferable option. But would reword to read more simply : "...and has a royal line of succession in common with the other realms" instead of "...and shares a common royal line of succession with the other realms". Then leave it to the body of the article to explain in more detail with reference to Abdication event and PA. For "in common" a google search[2] produced "have something in common (with someone) [for groups of people] to resemble one another in specific ways. Bill and Bob both have red hair. They have that in common with each other. Bob and Mary have a lot in common. I can see why they like each other". That should suffice for any one needing guidance, and mutes any slight ring of law of property connotations connected with law of inheritance. Qexigator (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your slight tweak to the wording makes sense. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy of population figures

No doubt I’m the wrong person to break this news, but there are some real problems with the population figures in this article.

• The sum of the figures in the table is 135 million, not the stated 137 million
• The country profiles at the Commonwealth secretariat website, which is the cited source for the table, gives numbers as of 2010, not 2012, and they are consistently lower than the numbers in the table
• The CIA Factbook of 2011, which is the cited source for the total of 137 million, is no longer available online. The 2013 edition gives estimates for individual realms as of July 2013, and they are also consistently lower than the numbers in the table.

--2602:304:7882:60E9:39AA:5C20:3FD7:1AA8 (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a good point, but let corrective figurework be left to others better at it than...Qexigator (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely at least one of the editors who believe that this is valuable information has an interest in ensuring that it is consistent and that it correctly reflects a single reliable source..... --137.110.32.63 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see there are no takers. No doubt it's more fun to argue about this stuff than to do the work (surely consistency, accuracy and reliability cannot be as unimportant as relevance apparently is???). If you had listened to me in the first place this problem wouldn't have arisen; as it is, if you are not going to save yourselves from the consequences of your folly then I guess I'll have to. I'm going to base myself on the Commonwealth secretariat figures of 2010, partly because this is a Commonwealth article, and partly because it reduces pressure to keep these figures aligned with a source that changes every year. I think I'll also add a brief comment about changes in numbers of realms, which is clearly a relevant statistic. 2602:304:7882:AF39:5D1A:969D:DB1D:391E (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Be fair, we are diligent in revising according to our aptitudes - it's better that way: cats, dogs and uncaps. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well at least you made an excuse. None of the others who made such a big fuss about this issue could be bothered even to do that. Caps, dogs and uncaps indeed! 2602:304:7882:7B99:5400:6D1F:E8D5:CE0 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Which governor-general or Australian state governor is not appointed by the Queen?

Yesterday I made two small changes to the section "Monarch's role...". I changed the sentence "In the other realms, the Queen normally exercises only those powers related to the appointment of her viceroys (a governor-general in all cases, and a governor in each of the Australian states), usually on the advice of the prime minister of the country or state concerned..." to read

"In the other realms, the Queen normally exercises only those powers related to the appointment of her viceroys (a governor-general in all realms, a governor in each of the Australian states, and the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands), usually on the advice of the prime minister of the country or state concerned..."

Consequently, I also removed the inclusion of the Queen's Representative as an additional viceroy in the sentence towards the end of the paragraph reading "Otherwise, all royal powers, including the Royal Prerogative, are carried out on behalf of the sovereign by the relevant viceroy, which, apart from those already mentioned, include a lieutenant governor in each province of Canada (appointed by the Governor General of Canada) and the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands, who is appointed by the Queen herself.", changing it to read:

"Otherwise, all royal powers, including the Royal Prerogative, are carried out on behalf of the sovereign by the relevant viceroy, which, apart from those already mentioned, include a lieutenant governor in each province of Canada, appointed by the Governor General of Canada."

The changes consist of (1) replacing the phrase "in all cases" by "in all realms", and (2) grouping the Queen's Representative with the other viceroys appointed by the Queen herself. The first seemed to me to be an obvious correction and the second an equally obvious improvement in the logical structure of the paragraph, both so obvious that there should have been no dispute. However, Miesianiacal reverted them on the grounds "not in all realms; prior placement was entirely appropriate".

While the separation of the Queen's Representative from other directly appointed viceroys is quite obviously not appropriate, I'm not going to argue the point: instead I'm just moving it into the category of logical reorganization that is going to require group work, which I identified as one of the structural problems of the article in an earlier posting. However, the other point is worth discussion now.

In the first place, it is not correct that "governor-generals in all cases" means that "all viceroys appointed by the queen are governor-generals" as the sentence's grammar requires. Indeed, the phrase is immediately followed by the negating case of six directly-appointed viceroys (the Australian state governors) who are not governor-generals. Therefore the word "cases" is wrong, and it must be changed to a word or phrase that is more restricted in scope. Since governor-generals are the viceroys in all realms, and since no other type of viceroy is a governor-general, "all realms" is the obvious and natural correction.

However, there is apparently also an issue of fact which, if true, prevents us from using "realms" without further qualification. Miesianiacal claims that the governor-general is not appointed by the Queen in all realms. To my knowledge, this claim is false. While the methods by which the Queen receives advice differ between realms, she actually makes the appointment for all governor-generals herself. So I ask Miesianiacal to be more specific about this claim: please name the realm or realms with a governor-general who is not appointed by the Queen. (If the claim is true, then the realm or realms should be identified in the article.)

Incidentally, there is another correction needed. The heads of government in Australian states are not prime ministers. They are premiers. 2602:304:7882:60E9:14D6:95D9:3B7E:D3D3 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all realms have a governor-general, contrary to your assertion "a governor-general in all realms". Hence, the use of "a governor-general in all cases", "cases" referring back to "the other realms" at the opening of the sentence, other to what being made clear by mention of "the United Kingdom" in the preceeding sentence.

The Queen's Representative is problematic. It's true the Queen's Representative is appointed by the Queen (as Queen of New Zealand, specifically), but the Cook Islands are not a Commonwealth realm. In fact, the result of earlier discussion here was that the Realm of New Zealand itself, of which the Cook Islands are a part, is not a Commonwealth realm. Remembering that, I'm inclined to remove mention of the Queen's Representative altogether from this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general. That is clearly stated in this very sentence, by the introductory phrase "In other realms". But at least it appears that you are not actually denying that all governor-generals are in fact appointed by the queen, which is what your editorial comment implied. I now understand your problem to be that you think that the phrase "in all realms" somehow reintroduces the UK. Is that correct?

You are wrong about the scope of "all cases". It is not a qualifier to "other realms". It is part of the definition of a viceroy in whose appointment the queen plays a role. So "governor-general in all cases" is not correct, and "cases" must go.

While I think you are splitting the very finest of hairs here, would the phrase "in all realms which have a governor-general" satisfy you? "in all realms except the UK" could possibly be read as implying that the UK has a GG who is not appointed by the Queen....

As to the Cook Islands, if the Queen's Representative should be excluded because the Cook Islands are not a realm, why is that not an issue for the governors of Australian states, which are also not realms?

I don't propose to reopen the NZ argument, which I understood to be primarily about whether it was more appropriate to refer to the country or the realm (more hair-splitting), but I didn't see any consensus that the realm of NZ is not a Commonwealth realm. Some editors felt that it was, others that it wasn't, and yet others thought the question was open. No-one cited any governmental or academic support (that I saw at least) for the notion that the Realm of NZ was not a Commonwealth realm, and the notion is certainly counter-intuitive.

My own opinion, FWIW, is that the nature of the realm has changed from being unitary to being (con)federal, that the existence of the QR and the explicit positioning of the GG of NZ as the queen's viceroy in Niue is de facto recognition of this, and that the continued representation of the realm by the PM of NZ at CHOGMs is fully in accord with the current constitutional structure of the realm. Thought experiment: if the Cook Islands chose to break the association, but made no other substantive change, which it could do at any time, do you seriously think it would not then be accepted as a fully-fledged Commonwealth realm with the QR just changing title to GG? So I think that the QR should stay as an identified viceroy of an entity that is part of a Commonwealth realm until there is actual agreed evidence that it is not one, and do not agree to removing mention of the QR. 2602:304:7882:60E9:14D6:95D9:3B7E:D3D3 (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody could prove it is a Commonwealth realm. Without a reliable source saying it is, it doesn't get counted here as one.

Australia is a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I must confess to being terribly confused now. Our article mentions NZ in many places, but nowhere is it suggested it is not a Commonwealth realm. Everything leads one to the conclusion that it is one. What am I missing? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure... Perhaps the difference between New Zealand and the Realm of New Zealand? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mies, could you kindly provide the link where it was concluded "that the Realm of New Zealand itself ... is not a Commonwealth realm". I seem to have missed it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This thread is about the phrase "in all cases" which is wrong in context and must be changed. The questions on the table are (a) what exactly is Miesianiacal's problem with the obvious change to "in all realms" and (b) whether that problem can be fixed by changing it to "in all realms which have a governor-general" or some third alternative.

If we're going to reopen the status of the Realm of New Zealand please create a separate thread for that. I've already said that I am not proposing to argue for the change I had suggested about placement of the QR as a viceroy, and that I do not agree to the current mention being removed. That's all that's relevant here. 2602:304:7882:60E9:14D6:95D9:3B7E:D3D3 (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"In all cases" is not wrong in its context. I've already explained why "in all realms" in that location makes the entire sentence incorrect. "in all realms that have a governor-genereal" would work, but is a needlessly wordy and repetetive change, given what I said in my opening sentence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thus spake the LORD, whom all shall fear and obey. "Eppur si muove", spake the heretic: "in all cases" most certainly is wrong in its context and I've explained why.

Why not be constructive? The way forward here is for me to accept, as I have already done, that you have a problem with "all" in "in all realms", and for you to accept that I have a problem with "cases" in "in all cases", even while retaining our personal opinions that the other guy has no idea what he's talking about. We then try to find a formula that is acceptable to both parties. Fine, "in all realms which have a governor-general" is too long for your taste. Since you didn't present an alternative, I will. How about "in these realms"? or "in the realms"? Or even "in realms"? 2602:304:7882:60E9:DD16:D241:A09:196C (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So Miesianiacal's idea of reaching agreement is to make a unilateral change? And what kind of of improvement is "in all,"?? "In all what" for God's sake??? That's about as clumsy a solution as I can imagine and I do not agree to it. And he could at least have fixed the state "premier" problem, which is a straightforward matter of fact.

Two can play at that game. Unless I get an actual discussion including either agreement or a reasonable counter-proposal, I'm going to change "in all," to "in these realms", which he has no rational reason to object to. 2602:304:7882:7B99:5400:6D1F:E8D5:CE0 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Calm the fuck down. I was playing with the wording, left the edit window open for some time while I was doing other things (you know, 'cause my every waking minute isn't dedicated to Wikipedia), and forgot I'd made that minor change when I came back and made the grammar corrections and saved the page. Christ.

And please stop linking my username in every post you make regarding me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I should refer to "he who shall not be named"??? And leaving the edit window open still means you were in the process of making an edit without having reached agreement. If this were a one-off I'd be more forgiving, but you have a strong track record of laying down the law about the most utterly trivial of matters, so I'm not: you meant to do what you were doing, and that forced me to force you to back off. I note that you still haven't either accepted one of my proposals or proposed an alternate.

So, are you willing to find a mutually acceptable formula, or not? 2602:304:7882:7B99:9CF9:E17B:A46D:A171 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I said please don't link my name; which is obviously quite different to please don't write my name. (Every single time you link it I get a notice.)

My participation in this discussion pretty well dispels your implication that I'm not being constructive; my criticism of your proposed changes has been entirely constructive, regardless of whether you sarcastically denigrate it or not.

If you want me to propose something, well, how about this?:

"While this remains the case for all the Commonwealth realms, their sovereign resides predominantly in her oldest realm, the United Kingdom, and thus carries out her duties there mostly in person. The Queen appoints viceroys to perform on her behalf most of the royal constitutional and ceremonial duties in the other realms: in each, a governor-general to personally represent her nationally, as well as a governor in each of the Australian states. These appointments are all made on the advice of the prime minister of the country or state concerned, though this process may have additional requirements."

"Prime minister" and "premier" are synonyms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This may be a duel or duet, and risky to interpose a comment, but, coming from somewhere near the Greenwich meridian, not far from Lord's and the Oval, hoping not to offend persons residing in or visiting Commonwealth realms to east or west or any other place of the Commonwealth of Nations, over which the sun is ever rising as it sets and overhead always:_ We have and can all learn from each other, and sometimes scrutiny of Wikipedia articles may show how terms are being used by others on this planet. So I commend for your attention:

• "Premier" is also the title of the heads of government in sub-national entities, such as the provinces and territories of Canada, states of the Commonwealth of Australia, provinces of South Africa, the island of Nevis within the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and the nation of Niue. In some of these cases, the formal title remains "Prime Minister" but "Premier" is used to avoid confusion with the national leader.

--To that extent, synonyms certainly, and interchangeable, but by custom is not premier in use as an official title in the Commonwealth of Australia. Yes, you knew that already. Let's not quibble about that and other like things.[3] (hat tip to Gazz., of Oz[4] --Qexigator (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

At last, an actual editorial discussion. A very welcome change.

I'm basically happy with that proposal, except for the "premier" point: trust me, you will get some very funny looks or a swift correction if you tell a Tasmanian, say, that her state government is headed by a "prime minister". Perhaps "prime minister" and "premier" should be capitalized, as formal titles, to avoid any charge of using unnecessary synonyms. (Indeed, why not capitalize "Governor-General" and "Governor", since these terms are their actual titles?)

I have some minor style issues. It would flow better if "on her behalf" were moved to after "duties". The phrase "to personally represent her nationally" is clumsy (split infinitive, double adverb); I would prefer something like "as her personal national representative". Also, however it's worded, that phrase unbalances the GGs and the governors, which would be fixed by adding something like "as her representative in each of the Australian states". Alternatively, although neither is my preference, we could make the states the subject of a separate sentence, or we could strike the GG phrase, so the text reads: "in each, a Governor-General, as well as a Governor in each of the Australian states." So how about:

"While this remains the case for all the Commonwealth realms, their sovereign resides predominantly in her oldest realm, the United Kingdom, and thus carries out her duties there mostly in person. The Queen appoints viceroys to perform most of the royal constitutional and ceremonial duties on her behalf in the other realms: in each, a Governor-General as her personal national representative, as well as a Governor as her representative in each of the Australian states. These appointments are all made on the advice of the Prime Minister of the country or the Premier of the state concerned, though this process may have additional requirements[<note as now>]." 2602:304:7882:7B99:29D9:39A:81DE:2CF3 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the premier/prime minister thing is unnecessary repetition, but I'm fine with the proposal, nonetheless, save for the improper capitalisation. We have to adhere to WP:MOSCAPS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll implement it without caps (except for "Queen" of course). Check out the various "Premier of <Australian state>" articles at your leisure. 2602:304:7882:7B99:29D9:39A:81DE:2CF3 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Now there's just the matter of the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to apply WP:MOSCAPS to the "queen's representative", be my guest (so long as you also do it to "counsellors of state"!), I'm not fussed either way. If you are now open to repositioning the queen's representative to a place amongst the other directly-appointed viceroys, per my original edit, well I still think that's the right thing to do so I have no problem with that either. OTOH if you want to eliminate the reference, which means reopening the Realm of New Zealand debate, I say let that particular sleeping dog lie until someone can provide some real evidence one way or the other. I have the distinct impression that no-one who actually matters (e.g. in the NZ government or the Commonwealth Secretariat) even recognizes the question. 2602:304:7882:7B99:240B:828F:7765:C9DD (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking for consensus

Weve been discussing the Realm of New Zealand for a very long time now. I feel that most of us are in agreement on a couple of points.

1. The Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth Realm
2. The Realm of New Zealand is not a sovereign state.

Could I get the thoughts of other editors on these points, please? --Pete (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Your feeling is wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pete. Japinderum (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that both of those points are contentious. New Zealand as an independant state is, by definition, a Commonwealth Realm. The other dependant/semi-independant/independant states within this broader 'realm' are not mentioned as Commonwealth Realms in and of themselves, by any definate or reputable source. In any event, I still maintain that we should sort out exactly what constitutes the Realm of New Zealand on the Realm of New Zealand page, before inundating this talk page with something very specific that doesn't even apply to the page's subject as a whole. Trackratte (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The "definition" is quite shaky. We actually don't have a source about a definition, but a list and a remark - out of which we make (OR, SYNTH, POV, common misconception, you name it) the definition ourselves. Nobody says that CI and Niue are commonwealth realms. We have an explicit official source stating that "Cook Islands and New Zealand [the state] are parts of the Realm of New Zealand" (see above sections). Regarding sorting out whether the Realm of NZ is a Commonwealth realm - so far there is no definite answer to that, but even it isn't it should be mentioned here (albeit not listed as a Commonwealth realm). You know the compromise note I proposed about that. Japinderum (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelao may have great autonomy, but they are still included in New Zealand however broad that term might be interpreted. They are not independent states and therefore not Commonwealth realms. They are part of a commonwealth realm. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The term "Commonwealth realm" (nevermind with a capital "R") has no legal or constitutional status. It is an unofficial term largely derives from Wikipedia; until which it was either unheard of or very rare. The term "realm" of course has a long history but "Commonwealth realm" is basically a Wikipedia invention. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Funny how it's used in all sorts of official government sources, then, isn't it? (That's not to say it's an official term, but it is employed in official media.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

On that point, there seems to be no problem in this article. The lead states that the phrase "Commonwealth realm" is an informal description, not an official term. All the countries which are so called are realms and all are members of the Commonwealth, and they are listed as such at the article's reference 1. An earlier version was "The qualified term Commonwealth realm is not official, and has not been used in law; rather, it is a term of convenience for distinguishing this group of realms from other countries in the Commonwealth that do not share the same monarch" (eg, Dec 2009[5]), and before that "The realms originally were Dominions - a term which has never been officially revoked. Since the 1950s it has been replaced by use of the word realm in order to reflect the equal status of each country. The classification is informal and unofficial" (eg, November 2008[6]). Concerning status of Niue, and noting status of NZ has been discussed from 2006 at Talk:Dominion of New Zealand, concur with Track. above (13:41, 15 November 2012). Qexigator (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Qexigator and others. This 'problem' is of our own making. We are using the informal term 'Commonwealth realm' to mean a single sovereign state whose head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, and then flustered that some states don't fit the definition. But we invented the definition.Gazzster (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(Hello, Gazz!) But, we didn't invent it. "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch."[7] The same is used in a number of sources, many of which themselves support this article. Same with the common lines of succession bit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

G'day Mies! Thanks for that link. Yes, the definition is clear is clear. And in the list of realms http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/QueenandCommonwealth/WhatisaCommonwealthRealm.aspx this strange federation some call the 'Realm of New Zealand' is not listed. Good one, Mies. As far as I can understand, the states in 'free association' with New Zealand, together with New Zealand, constitute the Crown of New Zealand. Gazzster (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Some one has cited that a fluffy British monarchy website (with lots of pictures) uses the term "Commonwealth Realm" explaining what it is. Does that count as law or give the term any formal legal meaning? The only thing that strikes me about it is that the website in question was written long after Wikipedia popularised the use of the term "Commonwealth Realm". The author probably looked up Wikipedia for ideas....That's not a serious source. I invite all concerned to identify a legal statute or constituion describing any state as a "Commonwealth Realm" or "Commonwealth realm". I'd be fascinated to look at any such source. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that 'fluffy' is a sound analysis, but I suspect we will search in vain for a 'legal' definition, whatever that means. 'Commonwealth realm' is more or less a replacement term for 'dominion'. In the meantime, why not go by the list that HM the Queen of the 16 monarchies publishes?Gazzster (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead of this article makes it pretty clear: "The phrase Commonwealth realm, however, is only an informal description; it is not an official term." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes to Gazz. and Mies. whether or not French.'s conjecture is the case. Qexigator (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Re. statement that: 'Commonwealth realm' is more or less a replacement term for 'dominion'. No it isn't. "Dominion" was a formal legal term. The Irish, to some extent, fought a Civil War over the word. "Commonwealth realm" is a term invented on WP without any legal standing. Agreed that the article is clear about it; I think this discussion began because of the way questions were put. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Re. "I suspect we will search in vain for a 'legal' definition, whatever that means." Admitted, it may be hard for you if you don't have any legal understanding to really grasp any of this. Believe me, terms can have legal definitions. Certainly "Dominion" was and is a legal term, referred to in statutes, constitutions, case law and interpreted by Old Owls. "Commonwealth realm" has only ever been interpreted by Wikipedians...! Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"...more or less..." can be taken to mean what it said. Noted that French. has reiterated an undisputed point, made a presumption about the deficiency of others' knowledge relative to his own, and has used "...to some extent..." in a way that seems to make little sense here and has little to do with improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Dominion" was not a formal term. It was a label that didn't appear in law except for in Canada's constitution and the monarch's title after 1901, wherein "realm" has been used (in the present titles) as the replacement for "dominion" since 1953. Outside of that "Dominion" was an informal name for first the areas of the Empire with a certain degree of self-governance and later for those independent countries in the Commonwealth, other than the UK, that shared the same monarch.

I think it's time Frenchmalawi provided some more substantial evidence that "Commonwealth realm" was a neologism invented by Wikipedians, other than his own personal opinion, that is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why ask? Could it make any difference, other than a sentence added to that effect in the article, for information? On connotations of "dominion" please see below (Was Ireland ever a "Commonwealth realm"?}. Qexigator (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting remarks were made about the term "dominion" to the effect that it was an informal term. I disagree entirely. Reference was made to the Canadian constitution where that term was used. That of itself hardly suggests it was "informal". Moreover, it was a term used in the Sovereign's title. Moreover, refer to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 which emphasises the term dominion: "1. Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace order and good government of Ireland and an Executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State." The Ireland Act 1949 also, as I mentioned above, expressly stated from the relvant date Ireland ceased to be part of "His Majesty's dominions". There is nothing informal about any of this. I challenge any one to come up with an equivalent source referencing any country as "the Commonwealth [R/r]ealm of [Canada or wherever]". But as others have pointed out, "Commonwealth realm" is an informal term invented here - it it has earlier usage, let's identify it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Was Ireland ever a "Commonwealth realm"?

My view is that:

• "Commonwealth realm" is a term that was invented on Wikipedia;
• be that as it may, it is still a term and according to Wikipedia it has the following meaning:

"A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and a royal line of succession in common with the other realms."

We ought to either change the definition of the term or change the content of the article. This is because Ireland, according to British law, ceased to be one of His Majesty's "dominions" in 1949 (see Ireland Act 1949). Note also that the reference to "His Majesty" is a reference to "His Majesty" having the same title everywhere in his then Empire. Before it declared itself a republic, no law anywhere ever referred to the Irish Free State or modern Ireland as a "realm". IFS/Ireland was always referred to as a "dominion". I am interested to hear editors' reasoned views. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps something could be added in the article to clarify the position of Ireland, leaving the details to be found in Republic of Ireland and connected articles. Qexigator (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm would be an invented and non-official term. Commonwealth realm is simple explanatory prose in the same way as describing a grouping of countries as Communist republics, Democratic realms, American territories, British colonies, etc. Subsequently, I don't see what the fuss is about trying to tie in an explanatory phrase to legal terminology. Second, I fail to note the distinction between classifying Ireland (formerly) as either a realm or a dominion, as I don't see one. A realm is defined as a kingdom, where a kingdom is defined as a country, state, or territory ruled by a king or a queen (google define). What a state calls itself in official resources or in their own laws is irrelevent to it's classification from a political science standpoint. Any country in possesion of a monarchical political system is by statement of fact, a realm. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea for example, has no mention of Communism in any of its laws or its constitution, but that does not change the fact that it is a Communist country. The German Democratic Republic may be another example. Third, from what I understand, Dominion was coined by the fathers of Canadian Confederation from a desire to use the word Kingdom, and being politically restrained from doing so, chose Dominion as a creative way of saying the same thing. Within the context of the Commonwealth, I understand Dominion, Kingdom, and Realm to amount to the same thing. trackratte (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, especially in connection with the development of the monarchy of England, the United Kingdom and the present day Commonwealth. Let us not be unmindful that, while "realm" and "kingdom" in most contexts are interchangeable, one is closer linguistically to Norman French and the other to Anglo-Saxon. In present day spoken and written English realm has the advantage, like (monarchy from classical Greek) of avoiding the male "king-" when the country may have a female monarch, and a speaker or writer may choose to use one word or the other according to context and purpose. To that extent they are at least qualitatively different, and the difference is not necessarily fussy or pedantic or irrelevant for the study of political science. "Dominion" has the distinct linguistic use in official Latin for the (feudal) English "lordship" or "overlord", as in the Lordship of Ireland asserted by Angevin kings of England, until Henry VIII was declared King of Ireland by act of the English parliament. This later gave some kind of precedent for Canada, but had some decidedly negative connotations for many of the people of Ireland. Qexigator (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, when I refer to dominion, I'm referring to it's modern Commonwealth usage (according to Wikipedia, "autonomous Communities within the British Empire"), which is to say in contemporary usage, an autonmous realm under Queen Elizabeth II. Whether or not the term holds negative historical connotations for certain groups within Ireland held from the time of King Henry VIII is, I think, extraneous to the purposes of this article. While the origins of the words 'kingdom' and 'realm' are interesting (honestly, not sarcastically or diminutively), I still don't see how that changes their current meaning from a modern day technical point of view. While I respect the fact that one may be used over the other for purposes of political correctness, I still fail to see how realm, kingdom, and dominion would be any different for our purposes here (to write from a technical, political science point of view with regards to the classification of a grouping of countries, ie. autonomous countries holding Elizabeth II as soverign). I would subsequently conclude that while Canada, for example, is legally a 'Dominion' (legal usage), it is also a 'realm' (official usage), as well as a 'kingdom' (although never commonly or officially used, technically accurate). I don't see how the same conclusions wouldn't be drawn for any of the present or former Commonwealth realms (post 1926 conception of the term), including the case of Ireland above, as brought forth by Frenchmalawi. trackratte (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the point of my comment has been missed, due to some failure of mine. Please consider more carefully the influence in 20c. and today of negative historical connotations for certain groups within Ireland held from the time of King Henry VIII and the precedent for statesmen of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the resulting present day illusions (and possibly truths) connectecd with nationalism, historiography, political realities and constutitional theory and practice, especially with regard to Ireland, Canada and all countries of the Commonwealth. This did not spring from nowhere in, say, 1931, or upon the happening of any event at any later date, mindful that the lineage of all Commonwealth countries inescapably reaches to the coronation of William I in Westminster Abbey, which is one reason for feelings of disaffiliation among some of the people of Ireland and of Scotland, and may be Wales also. This is not properly ignored by pretensions to technical political science, whether of a Marxist or any other kind. Perhaps it can be agreed that traditionalism is a part of political reality, can be exploited by nationalist agitation and is not excluded from political science worth the name. I am looking forward with interest to further comment from French. and others. Qexigator (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

By the definition of a Commonwealth realm, the Irish Free State would meet the criteria between 1931 and its becoming a republic in 1949. It would be a bit anachronistic to apply the term "Commonwealth realm" to the country, since "Dominion" was still in use at that time. But, it could be added to the list of former Commonwealth realms with an explanatory note. This article's history section does go back to the even earlier Dominion status of some of what are today Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes to that, if I am understanding it aright (subject to remarks at Talk:George VI, Ireland). Qexigator (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Commonwealth realms" from 1931?

How can it stand that the article says the first Commonwealth realms date to 1931. Just who was a realm in the 1930s or 1940s? The Sovereign had only one titile in those days. There was no separate "Queen of Canada" or the like. I think, the Wikipedia term "Commonwealth realm" ought to have a clear meaning and refer to a separate "realm" sharing a common monarch. That wasn't the case in the 1930s and 40s. 1952 saw the change. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That brings to attention what looks like another discrepancy. According to "Current Commonwealth realms" the lead "The number of Commonwealth realms has fluctuated from the four established in 1931", but under "Dominions emerge" we find "...new developments were explicitly codified in 1931 with the passage of the Statute of Westminster, through which Canada, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State all immediately obtained formal legislative independence from the UK, while in the other Dominions adoption of the statute was subject to ratification by the Dominion's parliament. Australia and New Zealand did so in 1942 and 1947..." Qexigator (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a set of criteria that define what is today called a Commonwealth realm. That same set of criteria applied, between 1931 and the late 1940s to early 1950s, to countries that were then, other than the United Kingdom, called "Dominions". (Use of the term "realm" became more common and it made its way into the monarch's title precisely to end the unequal terminology applied to countries that were equal in status.) If there's some issue with the sentence "The Statute of Westminster created the first Commonwealth realms in 1931...", changing that to "The Statute of Westminster created the first of what are today called Commonwealth realms in 1931..." would easily rectify it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But then is it clear enough to which "four" "Current Commonwealth realms" the lead refers to? Qexigator (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the article makes that clear. The lead is only a summary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, lead: no problem; but had missed noticing "The number of Commonwealth realms has fluctuated from the four established in 1931..." when it was slipped in at 15:58, 30 May 2013[8] by an editor who had been raising a question about "statistics". Now tweaked. Qexigator (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean that we can't agree how many were created in 1931 so we have to fudge the text? The four I had in mind were Canada, Ireland, South Africa and the UK. The SoW enabled Australia, Newfoundland and New Zealand to establish themselves as realms but it did not do it for them. We can choose to argue about the UK; my reasoning was that the language of the SoW established the equality of status of these three dominions with the UK, but the intent, and as expressed in modern terms and in consistency with the notion of equality of status, was to establish the equality of each of the four realms with the others.

While we're on this topic, what does the "Date" column in Table 1 actually mean? It describes how the dates are determined, but the closest it comes to a definition is that the date is the date the monarch became head of state as a result of one of these events, which is somewhat circular. It would seem that we really want the date at which the country became a CR. The functional difference, if you accept the above reasoning, is that we could now give a date fow the UK, which is currently an anomaly in not having one.2602:304:7882:9F79:F833:4861:2E9A:D4FC (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Former dominion which never became a realm

Country	From	To	Original republican system	Method of transition	Royal Standard
Ireland	1931	1949	Parliamentary republic	Act of parliament

Under British law, Ireland ceased "to be part of His Majesty's dominions" on 18 April 1949. Because of this, it never became a separate realm as different "realms" were not recognised within the Empire at the time. This too was reflected in the King's title which on the date Ireland ceased to be a dominion was the same title everywhere, being "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India". That title reflected the fact that there were no separate realms within the Empire at the time.

Back to discussion

I think a lot of good points have been made and taking those into account, I have suggested the above. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What criteria are we using here? In my mind, we are collecting a group of countries based on today's definitions and criteria. Subsequently, I see the above proposal as logically incongruous. Dominion, within the context of the Commonwealth, is the dominion (control) of the sovereign. Realm is a kingdom. A kingdom has a monarch as 'head of state'. What I think it all boils down to is that Ireland at the time was, technically speaking, a monarchy, but operating as a republic (if I understand correctly, the King was left to represent the country as head of state for the purposes of foreign affairs and international representation). To be honest, I don't have any emotional interests in the topic (while I think I'm beginning to appreciate the reasons why some do), but based on the info that I have seen, I cannot see how Ireland could have logically been a Commonwealth Dominion with a King (if only nominal or supernumerary), yet somehow not be technically defined as a realm. I would leave it in the same former realms table, but have a suitably thorough explanation provided, and if absolutely necessary we can even mark that the point is a contentious one due to reasons of varying interpretation, historical values, etc. trackratte (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The content seems to be correct as information and explanation (but may need some refinement) and should be included in the article somehow, as footnote maybe. Broadly agree with Track., but let me add that "Commonwealth" also has historic connotations in the lineage of the English/British constitution which lingered on (but negativity may have dissipated by now), especially in connection with Cromwell and Ireland: see, eg., "British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and Protectorate" 1638-60"[9] and Commonwealth and Protectorate. There is still the question about "Current Commonwealth realms" the lead , which states "The number of Commonwealth realms has fluctuated from the four established in 1931". This is either incorrect or unduly tendentious and should be clarified to improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Now tweaked out. Qexigator (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Trackratte has it right; separating the Irish Free State (not Ireland) out is incongruous with how the other former realms/Dominions are dealt with. India had after 1947 all the criteria for what we today call a Commonwealth realm but became a republic before the word "realm" fully replaced "Dominion", and it remained in the "Former Commonwealth realms" list while Ireland, which in analogous to India in that it had the qualities of a Commonwealth realm before the term "Commonwealth realm" came into common use, is removed (and thereby given some unclear special status).

If some explanation as to why India and Ireland are in the list is required, then it's best given in a note. Otherwise, we need to establish when either the word "realm" replaced "Dominion" in common parlance within the Commonwealth or, to be extremely literal, when the exact term "Commonwealth realm" came into existence and eliminate all reference to any country that became a republic or a monarchy under another royal house before that date. I'd prefer the first option: an explanatory note (without the inaccuracies in Frenchmalawi's paragraph above). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Republic of Ireland, "realm" is not a word that can be found in the article. Nor in Irish Free State, to which our article, rather bizarrely, links. I'm reminded here of the military cemeteries found in the Anzac area of Gallipoli, where the live soldiers spent their time clinging precariously to trenches on the sides of ridges, while the Turks held the high ground. In death, the same soldiers were buried in land they never held (well, not for more than a few moments), and the defeated Turks had no choice in the matter. Calling the Irish Free State a realm when it never actually held that Title seems to me to occupy the same sort of ground as the late diggers. Perhaps we should call in those who know best. ----Pete (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a title. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: "...explanation as to why India and Ireland are in the list... best given in a note" (Mies.). On the question of common parlance, I have found no mention of Commonwealth in a print set of Encyclopædia Britannica 1950 ed., but there is a mention in the annual supplement for 1963, to wit:

• vol.6, 1950 " COMMONWEALTH, a term generally synonymous with commonweal, i.e., public welfare, but more particularly signifying a form of government in which the general public have a voice... used in a special sense to denote the period in English history...[of]...the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell. ...also the official designation in America of the States of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky. The Commonwealth of Australia is the title of the federation of Australian colonies carried out in 1900. The associated self-governing communities of the British empire are also described as the British Commonwealth of Nations."
• 1963 supp. " COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS. The community of independent nations and their dependencies, bound together by allegiance to the British monarch or by recognition of the British monarch as head of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth comprises: 9i) the United Kingdom and its colonies and other dependencies; eight other realms in each of which the British monarch is head of state - Australia, Canada, Ceylon, Jamaica, Kenya, New Zealand, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, and dependencies; (iii) six republics - Cyprus, Ghana, India, the Federation of Nigeria, Pakistan and Tanganyika - and an elective monarchy (Malaysia), an independent sovereign state (Uganda) and a sultanate (Zanzibar) - all recognizing the British monatch as head of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth covers about one-quarter of the area of the world and contains about one-quarter of its population.... By the end of 1963 the number of independent members ofthe Commonwealth had risen to 18." ... The article includes a tabulated list (6 columns) headed "COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS". The first column is the name of the country, the fourth is "Status". United Kingdom is first in the list, status "kingdom". The countries listed as "realms" were: Australia, Canada, Ceylon, Jamaica, Kenya, New Zealand, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago.

We can at any rate safely affirm that "Commonwealth realm" was not a Wp neologism, but it was being applied to countries other than UK. Qexigator (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that helps us. When the word "Commonwealth" began to be used hasn't so far been in question. It dates back to the Balfour Declaraion of 1926: "They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."[10] Rather, people seem to think India and Ireland don't warrant mention here because they became republics before the word "realm" came to replace "Dominion" around the early 1950s. It may be of worth to note, though, that by 1952 the term Commonwealth country was seen in some government papers.[11] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The best confirmatory sources would be parliamentary and government records such as the one you have linked. The En.Brit. quote shows that not later than 1963 "Commonwealth realm" was in general use beyond official circles, but, until the contrary is shown, not before 1952. Thus there could be added to the article: "By the latter half of the 20c. the phrase "Commonwealth realm" had come into general use." This does not resolve the Ireland or India question, but rebuts the supposition that it is a Wikipedia invention. Qexigator (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, something along those lines somewhere in the article would be appropriate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The need for a term other than "dominion", which implied that the non-UK realms were somehow different in status from the UK, was recognised within the Commonwealth over 60 years ago, and thus is why the term "realm" was adopted in the royal title -- not because there was any actual change in status of any of the dominions/realms involved since the passage of the Statute of Westminster. Further, as has been pointed out here many times, and as the article goes out of its way to make crystal clear, the term "Commonwealth realm", as defined and used here, is (unlike "dominion" or "realm") never used as a legal term but only as a descriptive one, which identifies certain sovereign states sharing a monarch. As such, Ireland met that definition as of 1931. "Commonwealth realm" may well be a Wiki-neologism, but its ready adoption by the monarchy and in the press indicates that it meets a real need to distinguish these realms as a group which is distinct from, say, Malaysia or Saudi Arabia or Denmark. The fact that it was not used in 1931 is irrelevant: it's a well-defined term, in current usage, and Ireland after 1931 meets the definition. That's all that matters.

The same remarks apply to India from 1947-1950, and, since Pakistan never changed the royal style, could arguably apply to Pakistan from 1947 to 1956. 2602:304:7882:9F79:F833:4861:2E9A:D4FC (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment can't say I care much but at rate it sounds like one would have to start including Cyprus and Palestine and Egypt and Afghanistan and perhaps going further back Normandy. Making up one's own definitions isn't really what Wikipedia s about. Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No, one would not. Those were never independent countries under the shared monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So we're talking about places that had their own rule but were controlled by Britain but we're not including protectorates only those formally called dominions and we're not listing those that were amalgamated with others? And it definitely doesn't include the United States. Would that about cover it? I think citation needed, is there any citeable source that corresponds with this classification? Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you took the time to read and absorb the first sentence of the article. You would then understand that we're talking about countries which are a "sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and a royal line of succession in common with the other realms". Neither Cyprus nor Palestine nor Egypt nor Afghanistan nor Normandy nor the United States meets these conditions. One can quarrel with certain aspects of this definition -- I don't like its emphasis on Elizabeth II for example; "the current head of the house of Windsor" or similar would be better -- but the meaning is clear to anyone paying attention. It's a legitimate topic for WP, and the topic needs a name. I don't understand why we're even talking about this, it should be a complete non-issue. 2602:304:7882:9F79:4CD9:7A93:1EC:CB78 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the Commonwealth of Nations says Ireland was never a member of the commonwealth because it never ratified the Statute of Westminster whereas the Republic of Ireland article says it technically was a member. Normally I'd consider the article specifically about the commonwealth as more reliable but here I believe it is wrong and Ireland was technically part of the Commonwealth for a time, but it certainly is debatable. If a decision is it should be included then it should be included properly because it satisfies the inclusion criteria. This article could certainly do with splitting the first line, it is just too messy and long winded and doesn't make much sense. Dmcq (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ireland was never part of the Commonwealth; it left when it became Ireland. While it was the Irish Free State, between 1931 and 1949, however, it was "a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that [had George VI] as its reigning constitutional monarch and a royal line of succession in common with the other [Dominions]." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not every one can be an expert on Irish history...so I sympathise with you but you are wrong. The Irish Free State ceased to exist in 1937. Ireland has existed since then and was a Commonwealth member. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, passive aggressive sarcasm. How classy.

Well, my mistake notwithstanding, between 1931 and 1949, the Irish Free State/Ireland was "a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that [had George VI] as its reigning constitutional monarch and a royal line of succession in common with the other [Dominions]." It left the Commonwealth upon the passage of the Republic of Ireland Act in 1949. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The definition needs work. If the Irish Free State - which is what we link to - was never described as a realm during its existence then we can hardly call it one now. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis of discussion so far

Here is my synopsis of where people stand so far:

• @Trackette - He queries was Ireland a monarchy (Tackette suggested it was). No. Ireland was just a dominion. It had no separate monarchy. It was never a realm with its own separate monarchy, like the Monarchy of Tuvalu today etc.
• @Person who said - Splitting Ireland from India is incongruous. Agreed. I never thought of that. Clearly India was never a realm either and should be treated the same way as Ireland.
• @Qexigator cites a 1963 source which doesn’t use the composite term “Commonwealth realm” to assert the relative antiquity of the term...and claim that this “rebuts the supposition that it is a Wikipedia invention.” I don’t understand that. The source doesn't even use the term.
• @MIESIANIACAL cites the Balfour Declaration which never referred to the members of the then Commonwealth as realms. I don’t understand that.
• @2602:304:7882:9F79:F833:4861:2E9A:D4FC, to my mind, made two main remarks. First he made the most interesting remark. In short he said that the change in titles wasn’t what created the “Realms” (plural); They were already realms before the titles changed. This is an interesting theory but ignores that they were never called “realms” and were not legally realms”. The second point he makes was made by others too. He says the term is only descriptive (not a legal one – agreed) so that its ok to use it. I don’t understand that at all. If a country was not a realm. It can’t have been a “Commonwealth realm” just as if a fruit was an orange, it can’t have been an apple. Legal or descriptive, either way it would be totally inaccurate. *MIESIANIACAL was I think trying to make a similar point when he said “Commonwealth realm” was not a “title”. What matter, “title” or “description”, either way its not accurate to refer to a place that was never a realm as a realm , Commonwealth realm, non-Commonwealth realm or any other...
• @Pete - ”Calling the Irish Free State a realm when it never actually held that Title seems to me to occupy the same sort of ground as the late diggers. Perhaps we should call in those who know best.” I am fully in agreement with Pete. MIESIANIACAL quibbled with Pete’s use of the word “Title” there. What matter. If it was a description, Ireland was never described as a “realm” either....

I hope the above helps...I think we need to agree some principles. I think these are that we have to agree:

• (1) were Ireland and India ever "realms" and were they ever described as "realms"? What sources back that description up.
• (2) if they were not realms, should we call them former "realms"?

Many thanks.Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not find the "Synopsis" helpful. It is little better than superficial and lacking in historical perspective. It admits to failing to grasp the limited but pertinent point about looking at a source such as 1963 En. Brit., let alone the Balfour Declaration. There is more than one way to account for the historical development of the country and people of Ireland and their constitution and government. Ireland had been the first Dominion under the crown of England, before becoming a separate kingdom with a parliament under Henry VIII. Later, after the union of the two kingdoms of England (with Wales) and Scotland, and after the secession of certain of the colonies in North America, Ireland's sovereign status changed again on becoming united with England and Scotland under one crown and one parliament. In the course of the 19c., demands and proposals for Irish home rule became increasingly intense. Meantime and into the early 20c., occurred the formation and independence of the federations for the peoples and countries of Canada and Australia, and for South Africa and New Zealand. None of that is happening in one country in isolation from developments in the others, or the events and developments in the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe, in North America (emerging from its own civil war and engaging in colonial wars), or elsewhere (middle East, Russia, China, India, Japan, Africa, South and Central America). The facts of the decades from 1860 to 1960 do not fit neatly into a simplistic scheme influenced largely by later developments unmindful of the formative years. We, now and here, are continuing the editorial work to refine as best we can what editors have achieved so far, much of it to a degree of accuracy which might surprise some less well-informed newcomers. Qexigator (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they were ever described as realms, legally or otherwise. If a country has a monarch, it's a realm, plain and simple. As I've already mentioned, the lynchpin of this entire argument is, did Ireland have a King? Any other arguments are largely just skirting the issue. The Irish head of state wikipedia article that Frenchmalawi references in note 2 of his proposal states "The state known today as Ireland is the successor-state to the Irish Free State ... The Free State was governed, until at least 1936, under a form of constitutional monarchy; the King had a number of important duties, including exercising the executive authority of the state ... in 1936, the Free State constitution was amended to remove all of the functions performed by the King except one, that of representing the state abroad. The outcome ... was that, while he was mentioned nowhere explicitly in the constitution, Irish ministers continued to sign international treaties in the King's name, and the King continued to accredit Irish ambassadors, and receive the letters of credence of foreign diplomats." So, judging from the evidence presented, including from within the proposal itself, did Ireland have a King after 1931? Yes. Therefore, Ireland was, by definition (see realm), a realm.trackratte (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer if any decision was based on sources that directly supported whatever was said. It really isn't up to us to make deductions that extend longer than one sentence never mind long paragraphs. Dmcq (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Source 1 Irish free state. Source 2, pick any dictionary you choose. Second, normally the onus is on those wishing to change the status quo to prove the point, not the other way around trackratte (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The official website of he British Monarchy says Ireland was in the commonwealth and is a reliable source. Have we got a reliable source saying it was not part of the commonwealth? Dmcq (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

...who says they weren't? That's not the argument being discussed. trackratte (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Nations article says ...however, the Statute of Westminster 1931 was never ratified by Ireland, and the Commonwealth considers that the Republic of Ireland was never a member of it. Dmcq (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

True, and an excellent point. I was trying to say that that is not the argument here on this page, but it is a good point to edit on that article, or bring it up on its talk page. trackratte (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a practical solution would be to ommit Ireland from the list of former Commonwealth realms, but without making a judgement one way or another. Then a note about its anomalous situation could be appended to it.Gazzster (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Gazz, I like where your head's at, but I can't get over the simple logic of the situation. What do you find, specifically, so anomalous about Ireland's situation from 1931 to ~1936 vis à vis the criteria we are applying? As the Irish Free State article explicity states, the "Free State was governed, until at least 1936, under a form of constitutional monarchy", ipso facto a realm. Unless someone can definitively prove through respectable references that Ireland had zero connections to a monarch from 1931-1936, in which case that argument would be best done in the Irish Free State talk page, and if successful, could then be reflected here and not before. trackratte (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, where's the source saying Ireland was a Commonwealth realm? It all looks very shakey to me. --Pete (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1. What's your unsupported A, B, and C? 2. There are multiple examples of sources in the discussions above, one such being six lines above your comment. As far as I'm aware, the fact that Ireland was part of the Commonwealth is not even a point up for dispute within this discussion. trackratte (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the Irish Free State/Ireland was part of the Commonwealth. It was until 1949. The issue is one of two parts: 1) was the Irish Free State/Ireland "a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that [had the monarch of the UK and the other Dominions] as its reigning constitutional monarch and a royal line of succession in common with the [UK and the] other [Dominions]"? And 2) does that qualify it (and, by extension, India) to be included in the list of former Commonwealth realms, despite the fact that "Commonwealth realm" did not replace "the United Kingdom and the Dominions" until after Ireland's departure from the Commonwealth?

To answer 1): Yes, it was. The Irish Free State/Ireland had a monarch until 1949. The Statute of Westminster 1931 applied to the Irish Free State/Ireland: "In this Act the expression 'Dominion' means any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland"; and so, all the references to Dominions in the SoW included the Irish Free State (later Ireland), including within the clause (S.4) that disallowed the UK parliament from legislating for a Dominion without that Dominion's consent, just like for every other Dominion. The IFS/Ireland was hence as sovereign as the other Dominions after 1931 (perhaps moreso, since it had full ability to amend its constitution, unlike Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). This was demonstrated when His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 was passed: it did not apply to the IFS because of S.4 of the SoW and the absence of any approval from the Irish government for that law to have force in and become a law of the IFS. Instead, the IFS passed its own legislation recognising the abdication the following day, making it so that, for one day, Edward VIII was King of the Irish Free State while George VI was king of all the other countries of the Commonwealth. Thereafter, George VI remained King of the Irish Free State and later Ireland (with a diminishing role) until the pasage of the Republic of Ireland Act in 1949.

That leads me to conclude that, per 2), the Irish Free State/Ireland (and India) should be included in the list of former Commonwealth realms, since it met the criteria of what we today call a Commonwealth realm. The fact about changing terminology since 1931 can (and probably should) be addressed somewhere in the article, either in the body or in a note, or both. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"...what we today call a Commonwealth realm...". There's your synthesis right there. That definition is sourced where, precisely? Before we can call the Irish Free State a former realm, we must have a contemporary source saying it. Otherwise, we have a circular argument in which our own made-up definition is the key element. If we go down this path, we can redefine (say) an abacus as a personal computer and while we may argue that this is so and have all sorts of clever definitions, the end result is that we are misdirecting our readers. Do we have a contemporary source saying that the Irish Free State is a Commonwealth realm? I may have missed it, but I don't think we do.

I personally feel very uncomfortable about this. To my mind it's like the Mormons waiting until some unbeliever is dead and then retroactively converting them by proxy. If the Irish Free State wasn't a Commonwealth realm while it was extant, then it cannot be declared one when it is extinct. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@Messianical - no one is suggesting Ireland wasn't under a King until 1949. But it wasn't a realm so had no separate "King of Ireland" like nowadays we have a "King of Tuvalu". No one is suggesting the Statute of Westminster didn’t apply to Ireland either. I think suggesting the Irish Free State’s position during Edward VIII succession debacle means it was a “realm” is original research and not backed up by any sources.

@every one These are how I see the issues:

• (1) Was Ireland a “dominion” within the Commonwealth? I say yes. Lots of sources confirm this. Does any one disagree?
• (2) Was Ireland a “realm” within the Commonwealth? I say no. No sources say it was. Does any one disagree?
• (3) Are “realm” and “dominion” interchangeable terms, as Messianical suggests? I say no. No source says they are interchangeable terms. Does any one disagree?
• (4) If Ireland wasn’t a realm, how can we now properly describe it a former “Commonwealth realm”?

@Messianical – You are pushing to keep Ireland and India listed as former “Commonwealth realms”. Could I ask you to specifically and narrowly address questions (1), (2) and (3) in a Yes/No format. You can set out your reasoning as much as you like but I ask you to come down on a Yes/No basis as I have. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misframing the argument. No one is saying that realm and dominion are the same thing. Dominion and republic are mutually inclusive in general. However, monarchy and republic are mutually exclusive, one can not be both at the same time. So the fact that Ireland was a dominion is firmly established and no one is arguing otherwise. The argument is was Ireland a realm. So,

• (1) Yes. Not in dispute.
• (2) Yes. It had a King, and it was in the Commonwealth, both of which you have already admitted.
• (3) No they are not interchangeable terms, which is irrelevant to the discussion in any event.
• (4) Ireland was an independant or quasi-independant monarchy within the Commonwealth in much the same way as Canada, Australia, NZ, etc, ipso facto a Commonwealth realm.

To address the accusations of OR: OR = ‘A and B therefore C’ where ‘A + B = C’ is unsupported. In our case A=monarchy and B=republic. So the central argument is, A or B?

Argument advanced for status quo: A then A.

Argument that proposal is advancing: B then B, or maybe A and B therefore not A but B.

First, A and B are mutually exclusive and cannot exist within the same set. Thus, the A and B therefore not A but B argument is fallacious (Ireland was a monarchy and a republic, therefore not a monarchy but a republic) and rendered invalid.

The central Wikipedia article to this discussion (Irish Free State) states that Ireland at the time in question (1931 to ~1936) was a monarchy (not B). If this fact is in dispute, then it needs to be resolved over there on that talk page before we can continue here. So, the argument of B then B is eliminated, unless it can be proven otherwise on the Free State talk.

The status quo argument of A then A is not OR, but simple logic, or a truism. Translated to English, Monarchy then Monarchy, Realm then Monarchy, Monarchy then Realm. It is all synonym, A is A.

To summarise: ¬B, so {B ⇒ B} is false, {A ^ B ∴ ¬A, B} is false. A, so {A ⇒ A} is true.

Either status quo (with explanatory note), or someone proves B. trackratte (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Trackratte - Thanks for answering. You said (1) Yes. Ireland was a Dominion inthe Commonwealth; (2)Yes. Ireland was a realm in the Commonwealth; and (3) "Dominion" and "realm" are not interchangeable terms. If "dominion" and "realm" are not interchangable terms (agreed) how can you say Ireland was both? Surely it was one or the other? Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Logic like that is OR, we shouldn't be making logical deductions. I do agree though that most sources say the Irish Free State was in the Commonweath and had a King, whatever it means to have a King when the government has no duty of loyalty! In The official website of he British Monarchy it says "Also listed is their constitutional status. 'Realm' indicates a Commonwealth country which has The Queen as Sovereign, while 'monarchy' indicates a Commonwealth country which has its own monarch as Head of State." and it includes for instance Canada as a realm. Now using logic one could say then Ireland had its own monarch who happened to be the same as the UK one most of the time but for one day they were different. Well in fact we have a whole article about various points of view at Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949.

But as to the questions I would say the sources support (1) Yes though Commonwealth of Nations says they are not acknowledged as ever having been members (2) No by this articles current definition but very debatable since Australia and Canada are now realms according to the website I cited (3) Debatable because they were both dominions (4) was the Commonwealth of Nations set up properly before it became a republic?, isn't that what the debate is about trying to extend back current definitions? Don't you have to use some other term because realm because in the current definition it certainly does cover what were dominions? Why not just base this all on what the Queen's website says or something a bit better than people arguing with logic symbols? (actually in standard logic if something is false it implies everything and B→B is always true) Dmcq (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I evidently did a very poor job of illustrating my point (my apologies), which is that the proposal is OR and demonstrably illogical, whereas the status quo is not a logical deduction but a provable truism (as long as the premises are true). The premises being that Ireland was in the Commonwealth, had a king, and was a monarchy. Realm and kingdom are interchangeable terms according to the dictionary. Any country with a king is a kingdom, once again, in the dictionary. So, if you agree with the premises (which I understand everyone to have already done), then we all agree that Ireland was a realm within the Commonwealth. Unless of course, you don't like the term 'realm' for personal or historical reasons (understandably), in which case it is a matter of personal preference and not one of definition. So, from my vantage point, I don’t see any reason not to conclude that Ireland was at that time a realm within the Commonwealth. trackratte (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm happy for that to be in but my main point was that really the article should be based fairy directly on sources rather than on logic., I think it is okay to say realm but I would like to see a reliable source that says that or something very close to that. Dmcq (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"The premises [sic] being that Ireland was in the Commonwealth, had a king, and was a monarchy." Ireland didn't have "a King". There was no King of Ireland. Ireland had the "Imperial" King so to speak. He was the same legal person as in everywhere in the then Empire. Today a realm like Canada does not have the same King as the UK. The legal person is different. It is the King of Canada. You don't seem to understand this. That,in simple terms, is the difference between a "dominion" and a "realm". Ireland was a "dominion" and was under the "Imperial King" but didn't have its own separate King (shared or otherwise) as the realms do today. Frankly, we shouldn't have to discuss this. You should have to provide sources for your claim that Ireland was a realm. Standard Wiki procedures should be followed. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that hits the nail square on the head. The Queen has a title "Queen of Australia", so Australia is one of her realms. But there was never any title "King of the Irish Free State". The wording was, I think, "King in Ireland", and the meaning was heavily qualified. --Pete (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First, the 'then Empire' didn't exist in that way from the time in question (1931-1936). Second, if the King of Ireland 'was the same legal person as in everywhere else' then how did Ireland have Edward VIII as king while every other country within the Commonwealth had George VI as their monarch (if only for a short period)? Third, the Irish Parliament at that time was independent of that of the UK, and consisted of the King and two houses. Which was the same situation in the other realms as well. Fourth, no other realm had a "Queen of Australia" or "Queen of Canada" either, they all shared a common monarchy, and were all Commonwealth realms. Unless you're arguing that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were not Commonwealth realms in 1932?

For Ireland the British Monarch was “a King who functions entirely, so far as Irish affairs are concerned, at the will of the Irish Government, and that was the summing up of the whole aim and the whole result of the conferences of 1926, 1929, and 1930: that one had to get completely rid of any power, either actual or feared, that the British Government had in relation to this country. In substitution for that under the Treaty there was accepted the monarchy, as I say, a monarchy in every respect, in relation to Irish affairs, subject to the control of an Irish Government. That is the result of the 1926, 1929, and 1930 conferences”. (Development of Dominion Status 1900-1936 by Robert MacGregor). This is what's know as "His Majesty the King in Right of Ireland". The quoted statement reads true for any of the other realms as well, replace Ireland with Canada and you have an accurate description.

"Today a realm like Canada does not have the same King as the UK". We're not talking about today, we're talking about 1931-1937. Or are you saying that in 1931 Canada had it's own King of Canada independent of the UK, but Ireland did not? Based on what? Ireland and Canada (and Australia and NZ) in 1932 were constitutional equals. They all shared the British monarchy at the time, that was the entire point ("united by a common allegiance to the Crown", 1931 SoW). However, they ceased to be part of a larger empire and became independent equals within a larger Commonwealth. Whether the monarchy was British at the time or not does not affect their status as Commonwealth realms. None of the realms evolved to the point of having their own separate monarchies until much further on, but it is not the fact of having an independent monarchy which qualifies a country as a Commonwealth realm. It's by being a monarchy within the Commonwealth that is the qualifier, which Canada, Australia, NZ and Ireland all were in 1932.

Yes, standard wiki procedures should be followed. The onus is on those wishing to change the status quo, not the other way around. You have to provide sources proving that Ireland was not a realm within the Commonwealth. trackratte (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No. that's not how it works. We don't need to find sources to say things are not. We need to find sources to say things are. Before we can describe the Irish Free State as a "former realm", we need a source saying that it was. Not in confected hindsight through some chain of logic. an actual contemporary source. Where is it? --Pete (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree sources are what's wanted. As to the arguments about realm or monarch the Statute of Westminster 1931 article says "In the Irish Free State, the laws allowing for the abdication of Edward as king of Ireland were not passed until the day following each of the other realms, which technically meant that the state had a different monarch for twenty-four hours" Thus using logic one has to say the Imperial monarch was not the same as the monarch of the Irish Free State except by coincidence. I really do think we should just abandon all this arguments about what follows according to each person's sensible and obvious reasons and just put in citations which fairly directly back up the text. Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of us are getting far too concerned about a 'problem' arising from a technicality. Does the fact that the Irish Free State had a different King for 24 hours really mean that it had separated from the rest of the Empire? I don't think so. If it does, why did Ireland ratify the abdication at all? Clearly it had no intention of leaving. We should not make too much of one of those anomalies of history.Gazzster (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If that’s the case, the problem is really the definition according to the British monarchy website, as it states “A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch”. The lead itself is slightly misleading as it uses "Elizabeth II" and not "The Queen" as in the reference. So, it depends on how we read the definition. For the purposes of defining a Commonwealth realm in accordance with the definition, does “The Queen” mean monarch (the position of the monarch, so Elizabeth II, all of her predecessors, and all of her successors) or does it simply mean Elizabeth II herself as an individual? I’ve been operating this entire time under the assumption that it means monarch (current, former, and future), and not only Elizabeth II (current). ie I've been reading the definition as I would read any legislation, legal text, or textbook, where all mention of the Queen is interpreted as the position of monarch, and not just the individual person him or her self.

So, according to my reading of the definition: Are there acceptable sources stating that Ireland, at any time in its history, was in the Commonwealth and had a British-lineage monarch? Yes? Then it is a Commonwealth realm. No? Republic or other. Of course we know that Ireland had a British king, and was in the Commonwealth, thus my conviction that the conclusion of Commonwealth realm is self-evident.

However, if we read the definition as applying to only Elizabeth II herself (which I think would be unusual, but still legitimate), then yes, India and Ireland would have to be stricken from the list. This would also mean that the official term ‘Commonwealth realm’ did not apply before 1952.

This still leaves me troubled by the fact that when Canada and the others became part of the Commonwealth in 1931, they were realms by virtue of the meaning of the word ‘realm’ in the English language. Remember at the very beginning of this discussion we stated that we were using the term Commonwealth realm as descriptive English and not as an official or legal term. So, in 1932, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and NZ were all, in plain English, Commonwealth realms.

So, are we going to clarify the lead to read monarch and not Elizabeth II (the definition itself uses Queen, not Elizabeth II) and interpret it in such a way as to include all ‘realms that were in the Commonwealth', or are we going to interpret "The Queen" as meaning specifically and only Elizabeth II? trackratte (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, that's what we have to decide. Are were talking about the name or the substance? If we are talking about the name 'realm', we can only refer to Lizzy 2, who was first styled 'Queen of X, and her Realms, etc', and of course her successors. If we mean the substance, ie., an independent state having the same monarch as the United Kingdom, we can go back to the federation of Canada if we want.Gazzster (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@Trackratte - I want to clarify for you. Canada and Australia etc. were not realms in the 1930s and 1940s either. Like Ireland, they were dominions.

@Trackratte - Again, please provide sources for your claim that Ireland was a realm? Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@Gazzster - "If we mean the substance, ie., an independent state having the same monarch as the United Kingdom, we can go back to the federation of Canada if we want." Are you suggesting it would be ok to describe Ireland as a realm even if no one can provide sources saying it was? How can you justify that? If it wasn't a realm, how can we describe it as a "Commonwealth realm"?Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Gazz, I'm not sure where you or others are leaning on this, but I would be more inclined to interpret 'Queen' as monarch, simply because that's the way it is written and interpreted in all legislation and legal texts, and most academic texts as well. For example, the Constitution Act 1867 uses Queen throughout (referring to Queen Victoria at the time), but it is a given that the word 'Queen' in the text applies to all of Canada's subsequent kings, now Elizabeth II, and all of her heirs. So that's my vote on the matter.

French, I'm confused about your stance. I fail to see how being a dominion precludes being a realm. Canada was and still is both. The meaning of 'realm' within the English language is clearly outlined in the dictionary. What do you think realm means? Please share your definition. But moving forward, what's your input on how the definition should be interpreted as per the comments above? That way we can try and come to a consensus and move on. trackratte (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@Trackratte:

I'm confused about your stance. I fail to see how being a dominion precludes being a realm. Canada was and still is both.

You cannot be a dominion and a realm at the same time; they are two different things. Just like you cannot be a monarchy and a republic at the same time - these concepts are mutually exclusive.

Canada was a dominion. So was Ireland. Canada became a realm. Ireland never did.

This is about as simple a way as I can to explain it: If the United Kingdom became a Republic tomorrow; Canada would still be Monarchy. The office of the Queen of Canada is completely and totally and utterly separate to the office of the Queen of the United Kingdom. This is because Canada today is a realm with its own Monarch, the Queen of Canada. It so happens that the Queen of Canada is a person who holds several different offices. She is also the Queen of the UK, Tuvalu and other realms. In the old days, when Canada was a dominion, there was no such thing as a Queen/King of Canada. The monarch in those days held one single office. Not 16.

If you disagree with what I am explaining, please let me know and we can tease it out more. If we cannot reach agreement on these funamental basic points, we cannot get anywhere with this discussion because concepts are muddled up. A realm is not the same thing as a dominion; Canada is not today a dominion - it is a realm and Ireland never became a realm; no doubt if it hadn't gone for republic status it probably would have become one. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, from what I have seen, Canada was and still is a dominion, and a realm, and a kingdom, even though dominion is rarely, and kingdom never, officially used.

• From Name of Canada wiki page: "Dominion and Dominion of Canada remain official titles of the country".

• From Toronto Sun: "In 2008, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, then in charge of heritage, registered the Maple Leaf Tartan with the Scottish Tartan Authority under the name Dominion of Canada. The move reserved all rights to the tartan to the Government of Canada."
• From FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCES 1906 – 2004: Were titled "Dominion-Provincial Conference" until 1961.
• From the 2007 Government of Canada publication, National Flag Day, p.9: "Dominion of Canada. The issue of our country’s legal title ... the term dominion ... is one of the very few, distinctively Canadian contributions in this area. It remains our country’s official title."
• From Government of Canada Language Portal: "A Mari usque ad Mare has been the official motto of the Dominion of Canada for nearly a century" (motto adopted in 1921).
• From Termium, Government of Canada Translation Bureau: "Canadian negotiators settled on the name 'Dominion of Canada'...Never before had the term dominion been used to designate a state. This word was not new, however. Before 1867, it was defined as any place to which the British Crown extended, and its etymological meaning evoked a sense of subservience. Tilley and the other Fathers of Confederation broadened the meaning of the word, making it a virtual synonym for sovereign state."

So as we can clearly see, the Dominion of Canada is still current as of today, it is simply not used to the same extent as it was in the past (Prime Minister Louis Saint-Laurent stated in the House of Commons in 1951 that the word 'Dominion' should no longer be used in official documents and legislation due to French/English divisions, and as an exact translation of dominion doesn't exist in French, however, no law or government has ever repealed Canada's status or title of dominion).

Now from the dictionary:

• ‘Sovereign’: “A supreme ruler, esp. a monarch.”
• 'Dominion': "The territory of a sovereign or government"
• 'Realm': "A kingdom"
• 'Kingdom': "A country, state, or territory ruled by a king or queen. A realm associated with or regarded as being under the control of a particular person or thing."

So, a country with a king or a queen is by definition a realm (literally, the word realm is right there in the definition of kingdom), and its territory is, by definition, a dominion.

1. If you think that realm and dominion are mutually exclusive terms, your problem is not here, but with the English language. Lobby your preferred dictionary, and once they've changed their definitions, come back here and make your case.
2. If you think that Canada is not a dominion, lobby your local MP (if you're Canadian) and have a new law passed in Parliament, come back here and make your case.
3. If Ireland had a king, it was a kingdom, was a dominion (SoW 1931, modelled after the Canadian term 'Dominion', a “synonym for sovereign state” or kingdom), and was a realm. trackratte (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an illustrative example:

To me this is like if we had a hypothetical list called “Canadian first ministers” that included all of the first ministers within Canada since 1840. Then someone comes on stating that the term first minister does not apply to person X, Y, and Z, and then demands proof in the form of a reference that explicitly states “First Minister Trudeau” (for example) in order to prove that he belongs on the former first ministers list. Lacking such a reference, this person then insists that Trudeau cannot be included within a ‘first ministers list’ because he was not a first minister but a prime minister, ignoring the fact that both terms mean the same thing in the English language.

A country with a king is a realm by definition. So I don’t see how one can admit that Ireland had a king, yet refuse to acknowledge that it was a realm. This is akin to acknowledging that Canada had a king and was in the Commonwealth in 1932, yet saying it was not a monarchy (and then demanding for an explicit reference stating “The Commonwealth Monarchy of Canada” as proof). trackratte (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi is entirely wrong to think the Irish Free State/Ireland was not independent past 1931. It was as independent as all the other Dominions at that time; as I said, perhaps even more so, since the British parliament didn't retain the power to amend the IRF/Ireland's constitution, unlike Canada and Australia. I mean, has he/she even read the article?: "Though no formal mechanism for tendering advice to the monarch had yet been established... the concepts [of the Dominion governments gaining a separate and direct relationship with the monarch, without the British Cabinet acting as an intermediary, and the governors-general acting solely as a personal representative of the sovereign in right of that Dominion] were first put into legal practice with the passage in 1927 of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, which implicitly recognised the Irish Free State as separate from the UK, and the King as king of each Dominion uniquely, rather than as the British king in each Dominion... These new developments were explicitly codified in 1931 with the passage of the Statute of Westminster, through which Canada, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State all immediately obtained formal legislative independence from the UK... [T]he government of Ireland was confident that the relationship of these independent countries under the Crown would function as a personal union." (I'm curious as to how he/she reconciles their aforementioned inaccurate belief with the facts around the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936. How ever did the IRF reduce the King's role in its constitution without having the parliament at Westminster, to which he/she thinks the IRF was still subject, make the required changes?)

Frenchmalawi is also mistaken to think what the countries were collectively called has any bearing on their state of independence from the UK. Immediately after the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, Canada was one of the Dominions and (as already mentioned, unlike the IRF/Ireland) its constitution remained amendable only by the parliament of the UK (though, only at Canada's request and with its consent to the changes). That situation remained unchanged until 1982, some three decades after the term "realms" replaced "UK and the Dominions". This "Dominion" versus "realm" argument Frenchmalawi keeps turning focus to is nothing more than a red herring.

Thus, the IRF/Ireland and India met the criteria that by the 1950s defined a Commonwealth realm (as Canada obviously did even pre-1982), though those countries became republics before the 1950s began. Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to include them as former Commonwealth realms, only with an explanatory note about how they wouldn't have ever been called Commonwealth realms. This is not at all inconsistent with much of the "History" section of this article, covering, as it does, the Dominions after 1931, including the IRF/Ireland and India. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Track. Pete and others, and noting Gazz.05:50, 23 June - name and substance: At the time, the terms "dominion" and "realm" would not have been considered indifferently. Those who took part in the Imperial Conferences and the declaratory and enabling legislation connected with the Statute of Westminster will have been aware that from one political event or set of events to another questions of the statehood of dominions or realms in connection with the monarch of the United Kingdom have at least two aspects influencing each other: the technical (including legalistic, constitutional, diplomatic), and the sentimental (allegiance, patriotism, nationalism, loyalty, honour). The multitude of events of 20c. in the periods of and between the two World Wars include the condemnation of Roger Casement (d.1916) and of Erskine Childers (d. 1922), and the neutrality of Ireland under President de Valera (bn. New York, educ. Ireland, "second in command of the Easter Rising... imprisoned rather than executed because he was an American citizen",[12] d. 1975). Could Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India or South Africa, like Ireland, have maintained a separate neutrality, without an agreed or contested secession? For an encyclopedia, dictionary definition is not enough, nor logical analysis alone, nor editor's educated hunch. Precedents and obsolescence affect legislation, practical politics and the judgment of courts of competent jurisdiction. Qexigator (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Qex, while I appreciate that there are certainly a vast variety of political and emotional nuances, historical or otherwise, attached to certain words, titles, or groupings, this encyclopedic entry is only concerned by fact. I don't see how any of that has any particular relevance to this particular situation, since this is a contemporary grouping based on contemporary criteria through the application of historical fact, and not on the perceived sentiments of any given group.

As I see it, there are two criteria to be on this list: One, be a member of the Commonwealth, and two, share the person of the monarch as sovereign. I mean the referenced official definition is simple enough ("A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch."), where there is only one criteria , have the Queen as monarch. Which is simple enough, but how do we apply it in an historical context? As I've been droning on about for quite some time now, if we want to stick purely to the official requirement, do we interpret 'Queen' as monarch, or as only to the present incumbent herself? Since a standard reading of this phrase applied to any of the Commonwealth countries in 1931, I see no reason not to say that, at the time, they were Commonwealth realms, since factually they were even if the term wasn't used at the time. If we only apply the common usages of the time, then how do we determine when a given country became a Commonwealth realm? The Royal Style of the monarch may be one suggestion, but such a style does not legislate for or create the title or style of countries. It only formally and officially recognises what the monarch shall be called within the current state of affairs at the time of its passing. Even the 1931 SoW only officially recognises the existence of a situation which up until that point had already existed for years (from British National Archives: "In 1931 the Statute of Westminster officially gave the Dominions the full power to rule themselves, although in practice they already did this.”). Even so, the SoW provides a firm and official date from which to draw.

If we take the unusual and unique approach of interpreting 'Queen' as only and particularly Elizabeth II, then nearly all of the dates in the table would have to change (for example, Canada would no longer be 1931) according to some other firmly defined and referenced criteria. trackratte (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm grateful to all for their informative contributions. I think we can say that the Irish Free State was a Dominion but not a Realm. I'm uncomfortable with the use of the word "realm" in an informal sense here. We have the realms of fantasy and faerie, for example, which are not part of the Commonwealth, but entered from time to ime in Wikipedia. Other realms may be found here if we search for them. --Pete (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been established that it was a Commonwealth realm in all but name; not even name, more designation. "Commonwealth realm" can be used in nothing but an informal sense. Have you read the lead? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course. That's the problem. It talks of statutes and technicalities and dates, giving the reader an impression that it is NOT used in an informal sense. We need sourced information, and without a non-synthesised contemporary source saying that the IFS is a realm, we can't say that it is a former realm. Not without ditching the formality and technicality that runs all the way through the article. --Pete (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The article makes clear, right from the lead, that the term "Commonwealth realm" is not official. It is, however, obviously used to designate an actual, specific thing.

Regardless of other questions your statement the IFS raises, how can the IFS both be a realm and a former realm?

I'm wondering if you've missed the three or four times I've said the IFS/Ireland's and India's place in the former realms list should be accompanied by a note explaining that both countries became republics before the word "realms" came to replace "UK and the dominions". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither the realms of fantasy nor of faerie meet the referenced definition of Commonwealth realm that apply to this article. Ireland does. Whether Ireland itself used that title at the time is irrelevant, I have never heard any of these countries using the term even today. The point is it is an informal, descriptive term for a grouping of countries that has an officially sourced and referenced definition for us to apply, of which all the countries on the list meet. From the British National Archives: "Most of Ireland (26 counties) was to become the Irish Free State. This was to be a Dominion like Canada". Is anyone arguing that Canada was not a Commonwealth realm in 1931? And if so, explain how they do not meet the definition used and referenced here. Further, as Mies has stated, the particular case of Ireland and its usage will not be lost to the reader as it will be duly explained in a note.trackratte (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If the term "realm" is being used in an informal sense, then why do we have an article full of technical details? We spend a lot of our time here arguing over arcane details - the "Realm of New Zealand" discussion is a case in point. No, we are not talking about "realms" in an informal way. We are talking about "Realms" as the new term for what were once "Dominions". There came a time when the term changed and the Irish Free State was not part of that change. --Pete (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

One criterion for the article: If the historic aspects of the use of "dominion" and "realm" such as I have mentioned are adequately accounted for elsewhere, and can be referenced in this article by "For... see ..." or "See also.. ", then use of explanatory note(s) such as Mies. has mentioned could suffice here. On the question whether or not it is accepted, as a matter of fact, that the current usage (outside Wikipedia) is to include Ireland in a list of former Commonwealth realms, the search has been on for some time for a suitable source. I do not see that it is for "us" to determine this question without a supporting source. Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Pete, you speak of this change that Ireland was not part of as if it were some piece of official legislation that was passed after Ireland had left and thus legally does not apply. This is not the case. The concepts remain the same, only the common methods of labelling this same concept have changed. Such changes in our language for certain concepts universally apply to those concepts regardless of past usages. The criteria that I outlined above continue to apply in the same way, regardless of the label you choose to use. Call it whatever you like, call it XCountries, the same criteria equally applies to every country on this list. In terms of the label applied, there is no difference between Canada or Australia or Ireland in 1931. By your logic, the Wikipedia 'List of Joint Premiers of the Province of Canada' should be empty, as these individuals were never referred to as such during their time, but as Premier and Deputy. Once again, such a list has been created to group together a list according to a concept with a set criteria, and then labelled using descriptive English. It's just in our case here, this informal label happens to be officially sanctioned and referable. trackratte (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We cannot have this article simply pretend that the Irish Free State/Ireland and India never had anything to do with this subject. What they were--two of a group of independent countries within the Commonwealth sharing one person as their respective monarch--warrants their inclusion in this article, even if what that group of countries was called was not called what it is today (the title of this article) until those two countries ceased to meet the criteria required to belong to the group. If we're going to organise things so strictly semantically, Ireland will have to be removed from the list of former members of the Commonwealth of Nations (it left the British Commonwealth), the first three sections of History of Canada moved somewhere else or deleted (Canada didn't exist until 1867), etc., which, of course, would be silly to do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing is full of inconsistencies. If we are going to do it properly we should explain them all in a transparent fashion. Just sweeping them under the carpet won't do. To my mind, the question is whether we can say that a Dominion equates to a Realm. I don't think it does, on technicalities expressed above. Saying that in the case of the Irish Free State we are using lower-case dominion and realm is sweeping the tricky bits out of view. We are doing no service to our readers if we gloss over details. Now, I appreciate that with Canadian Premiers, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but unless we can find a contemporary source describing the Irish Free State as a Commonwealth Realm, then we are making things up that never were. --Pete (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In my view, Pete/Sky overstates the problem, while Track. and Mies. are close enough for a note to be drafted that smooths the squarish corners to fit the roundish hole or vice versa if preferred, without pretending the given facts are squarer or rounder than they have been or now are. Qexigator (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In my view, we need a source. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find where it was proven a Dominion in the Commonwealth between 1931 and approximately 1952 was any different to a realm in the Commonwealth between approximately 1952 and today, quite contrary to the content of this well sourced article. Can you point out specifically where that was achieved?

Nothing is made up and nobody is proposing that anything be made up. If there's any confusion caused by some small omission, that can be rectified by replacing the omission with some explanatory note or paragraph or re-arranging the list of former Commonwealth realms in some way. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The title has changed. Are you saying that a Dominion == a Realm? Or are you saying that a dominion == a realm? --Pete (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Pete. If Ireland was a "realm", provide sources to back this up. If it wasn't, it can't be described as a Commonwealth realm. There was some discussion around whether the description is formal or informal. An apple is still an apple whether it is red or green. Calling Ireland a "Commonwealth realm" amounts to calling it a "realm". It never was. It could be called be called, informally, a "Commonwealth dominion" if people liked. It is not my preference to do so but maybe that is a compromise. We could have a list of "Commonwealth dominions" that never quite made it to realms...This isn't something I really agree with but I throw it out as a compromise. I had toyed with the idea the other day. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The term dominion is an official or legal term as enshrined in statutory law. Realm is the non-statutory term used today to describe a concept, as well as to readily identify a specific grouping of countries under one, simple term.

By your logic the List of Canadian monarchs would be one person long, instead of the 24 it is now, since the legal title "King of Canada" or "Queen of Canada" wasn't used at the time, and there are no sources stating that it was, because it wasn't. To take Frenchmalawi's quote from above and swap out Ireland with Francis, and realm with king: "Calling Francis I a 'King of Canada' amounts to calling him a 'king'. He never was. He could be called, informally, a 'Canadian monarch' if people liked". As you can see, this line of reasoning makes no logical sense. This line of reasoning is being portrayed as holding merit only by twisting the meaning of the word 'realm' to mean something completely different than it does, contrary to the references I've provided (since I assume English is a first language to all of use, this should be a non-issue).

Grouping together items within a given set according to contemporary critia is common and accepted practice, as you can see here (GC). In this way the monarchs of France, England and Scotland, Great Britain, United Kingdom, and Canada, are all grouped together under one list as "Kings and Queens of Canada". In the same way for this list, all the countries to which the set criteria apply are grouped together here under the simple term "Commonwealth realms".

Alternatively, in an attempt to resolve this pedantic conundrum, I vote to change the name of this article to “List of countries which were at some point in their history part of the British Commonwealth or Commonwealth of Nations, and shared in common the person of the monarch as their sovereign, today what is now commonly referred to as the Commonwealth realms”. Although a bit long, this way the lists stay the same, we will not have to endlessly argue about what countries became ‘realms’ on what dates and by what criteria, and everyone can be satisfied. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I sense some Sayre's law kicking in. trackratte (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see a lot of hand-waving, but I see no source. We need a source. --Pete (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance, "Locke presented this type of argument as a form of eristic debate in which participants wrangle over the issues without substance in evidence, but to "drive each other" to accept a point." I think it's become time where, as in Parkinson's law of triviality, we "end by asking the Secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting". I agree with Qex's comment below. trackratte (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)