Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move.--Húsönd 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


The word "realm" in "Commonwealth realm" is a common noun and should not be capitalized, any more than one would capitalize Commonwealth Country or Commonwealth Citizen. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It's a specific title that differentiates Elizabeth II's realms within the Commonwealth of Nations from, say, Letsie III's realm of Lesotho. --G2bambino 01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - it seems logical to me that it should be "Commonwealth Realm", however I can't find definitive proof from British government web sites to back that up. -- Hux 07:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (Note: changed from oppose - see note below.)
There is no basis in English grammar for capitalizing the word "realm" in Commonwealth realm. The Commonwealth realms are a class of entity, not a specific entity. Therefore, they fall squarely into the definition of a common noun. Can anyone show me even one example outside Wikipedia of a publisher or a government capitalizing Commonwealth realm within the body of a non-legal text? (I doubt you'll find one even in a legal text.)
With regard to G2bambino's comment, why capitalize Commonwealth realm but not the realm of Lesotho?
Jonathan David Makepeace 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
By this logic it is wrong to capitalize "Act" (as in "Act of Parliament"), yet you'll find that it's always spelled "Act" in every official document and competent historical reference. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but the reasoning you give is certainly flawed. (And the Lesotho thing is more than likely a simple oversight.) -- Hux 07:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It is wrong to capitalize the word "act" in the phrase "an act of Parliament." One would capitalize it only in certain contexts. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my point: it is correct to capitalize it in some contexts but not in all contexts. "Realm", when used in the context of the official Commonwealth designation (implying specific constitutional meaning), should be capitalized, and since attaching it to the word "Commonwealth" inherently puts it in such a context, the phrase should be written, "Commonwealth Realm". It's the same reason why we write "United Kingdom" and not "United kingdom". -- Hux 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that "Commonwealth Realm" [sic] enjoys some kind of official designation? When did an official body award that designation? One capitalizes "United Kingdom" because it is the short form of a country's name. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Buckingham Palace itself doesn't even capitalize the expression. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Buckingham Palace is not the final arbiter here. Clearly there is some inconsistency, as can be seen by searching for "Commonwealth Realm" on all ".gov.uk" sites. I'm going to change my vote above because I'm not as confident that there is definitive proof here. -- Hux 07:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I just did a search for "realm" on ".fco.gov.uk" and, as you can see, in every instance of the word in the context of a Commonwealth Realm it's spelled "Realm". I'm inclined to rely on the FCO for guidance on this over Buckingham Palace, so I'm leaning more strongly to the argument that it should always be "Commonwealth Realm" when using the phrase in full. -- Hux 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Would those who argue that "Commonwealth Realms" [sic] is an official title please cite the authority that gave them that title? Jonathan David Makepeace 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - I agree with Jonathan here. I also notice that this is going to be an edit war if not stopped. Please try to fix it. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalization in general

{{RFChist}}

Further to the above proposal, and to John David Makepeace's edits and Bastin8's reverts, I'd like to get some opinions on capitalization of various terms in general, becuase there's definitely some disagreement. A few opinions:

  • "Commonwealth Realm", should always have both words capitalized.
  • "Commonwealth", when used as shorthand for the official title, "Commonwealth of Nations", should be capitalized, but when referring to commonwealths in general it should be lower case.
  • Ditto, "Realm", "Statute", "Act", "Dominion", "Parliament", etc.
  • BUT: "monarch" and "monarchy" should always be lower case because neither is an official title.

Are we generally agreed on this or am I looking at it differently from most? I ask because I've seen some instances of capitalization on these articles that seem a little...haphazard to me! ;) -- Hux 11:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, but question the final point re. "monarch." Of course, talking about a general monarch or monarchies (ie. "a monarch reigns over a realm" and "European monarchies were overthrown by fascist movements") should not be capitalized; but, when speaking of a specific monarch or monarchy (ie. "Queen Elizabeth II is the British Monarch" and "the British Monarchy is over 1000 years old") should the words not be capitalized? It is the Canadian Monarchy, but a monarchy; no?
Specifically related to "Dominion": JDM has been arguing for the de-capitalization of the word at the article Dominion as well. --G2bambino 13:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think it is "the Canadian Monarchy", is it? Like I said, as far as I'm aware, "monarch" and "monarchy" are not part of any official titles in the Commonwealth, so on that basis they shouldn't be capitalized. Compare with "queen", which is definitely capitalized when part of a title. -- Hux 08:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the points regarding Commonwealth, realm, statute, etc. (even monarchy), but I will observe that despite the name of this article, and the recent category name change, all the royal website's references to "Commonwealth realms" use that capitalisation. The form with both words capitalised quite possibly originated in Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall that there was a discussion about this very topic some time ago wherein capitalized versions were found outside Wikipedia; though I think it was within very lengthy debates about other topics and may not necessarily have taken place at this talk. Thus, it's been difficult for me to dig up again. --G2bambino 15:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There are definitely capitalised versions outside Wikipedia. There may even be capitalised versions that weren't influenced by Wikipedia. That is a fairly minor point. The real question is whether these uses are more correct that the capitalisation used by the royal website and other British government sites. JPD (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, capitalization on the royal Web site is haphazard, perhaps because the editors have been exposed to too many legal texts that capitalize all nouns, whether proper or common. Jonathan David Makepeace 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but in this case, it consistently supports your view. By the way, I think the issue that is debated is whether "Commonwealth Realm" is a proper noun, or a modifier and a common noun. Merely asserting that it is one or the other doesnt' really solve the dispute. JPD (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll repeat what I wrote above. Because "Commonwealth realm" is a class of entities, not a specific entity, it falls squarely into the definition of a common noun. Jonathan David Makepeace 16:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There are "Commonwealth realms" - countries within the Commonwealth that have a monarch - and there are "Commonwealth Realms" - countries within the Commonwealth that have Elizabeth II as monarch. As a specific title, in this case "Commonwealth Realms" is a proper noun. --G2bambino 17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops - I hadn't seen the section above. Returning to the question of whether it is a specific title, my memory is that in the many discussions, we did establish that the term "Commonwealth realms" was used to a limited extent before Wikipedia, and Gbambino and others argued against various other ideas (sometimes in the same discussion as already mentioned) by making use of a distinction between "Commonwealth Realms" and "Commonwealth realms", conveniently ignoring the fact that our indepedent sources used the term "Commonwealth realms" to refer to they were calling "Commomnwealth Realms". The distinction being made was in my opinion OR, and we should not make use of it, however useful it is. After all, it is not all that unusual for two-word terms to be defined in specific ways that aren't obvious just from the two words. JPD (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (Obviously, my memory differs from G2bambino's - I could well be wrong. It would help if one of use managed to find these discussions. JPD (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Yes, it would be useful if we could dig out the old discussion. Either that or dig out all the references again. I do recall the Buckingham Palace website being cited as a place where "Commonwealth realm" was used, but I also seem to remember other sources being brought up wherein "Commonwealth Realm" was the format.
In the meantime, there is the issue of user comprehension: if we do go with "Commonwealth realm" here, how will we differentiate between the Commonwealth realms and the Commonwealth realms? --G2bambino 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The term "Commonwealth realm" is specific to those countries of which the British monarch is head of state. Other monarchies within the Commonwealth are not Commonwealth realms. However, even if they were, why would one capitalize only the ones of which Elizabeth II is Queen? Because she's white? Jonathan David Makepeace 17:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
WTF?? Any country that's a kingdom is a realm - look up the word "realm" in a dictionary. Thus, any country in the Commonwealth that's a kingdom is a Commonwealth realm. But "the Commonwealth Realms" is the name given to the group of realms in a personal union. If there were other personal unions within the Commonwealth, perhaps it would be different; but there aren't, so it isn't. --G2bambino 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to quote the relevant page on the royal Website:
Some countries within the Commonwealth have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs. They are known as Commonwealth realms.
Note, however, that they mistakenly capitalized "the" before "Queen." Suffice it to say that, while Buckingham Palace may not know when to capitalize things, they are usually right when they don't.
Jonathan David Makepeace 18:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the Buckingham Palace website has already been raised, both here and at the previous discussion about whether or not to capitalize "realm" in this context. --G2bambino 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When you guys talk about this, one should look into it on here 1st (Capitalization & Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)) to get a better understanding of how to go about solving the matter. That-Vela-Fella 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To expand a little on the third point I made above, the capitalization of "realm", when used on its own, seem to be quite a subtle thing. Obviously it should always be capitalized when used as part of an official title (e.g. "the Realm of New Zealand"), or with reference to specific constitutional implications (e.g. "Fiji became an independent Realm in 1970"). However, I would argue that "realm" should not be automatically capitalized even when used with reference to Commonwealth Realms (as opposed to other realms). For example, I think it should be, "all the realms were legally equal in status", because that in that sentence the word, "realm" is being used more generally, as shorthand for a group of countries, rather than as shorthand for their official titles. Similar rationale should be used for words like "statute", "act", etc., as well, I think. -- Hux 09:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely a matter of style. The version of English that JDM is promoting would not capitalise realm in the Fiji example you give, but the FCO does. The same goes for Statute, Act, etc, where legal documents use different conventions to those used in other context. Given the style used by the FCO, it's hardly surprising that the FCO also capitalise Realm in the phrase "Commonwealth Realm" although other sources (including government sources) do not. The only question for us is which style is the one that is used in Wikipedia.
As for the idea that th capital is needed to distinguish two different sorts of realms, as I have said before, it would hardly be the first time the a two word term has a special meaning not immediately obvious from the combination of the words. The group of monarchies in the Commonwealth is not the sort of group that would usually be referred to anyway. At any rate, it is not all clear that without any definition given, "Commonwealth realm" would mean "a realm that is a member of the Commonwealth" as opposed to, say, "a realm of the Head of the Commmonwealth". JPD (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"The only question for us is which style is the one that is used in Wikipedia." I would say that where there are multiple options where one provides clear utility to the reader, then we should go with that one. (What I said above about when to use "realm" and "Realm" is a good example of that, I think.) If there are two (or multiple) variants, neither of which are particularly superior to the other when it comes to utility, and there is not clear evidence that it should be one or the other, then I think we should leave them alone and respect the status quo. If both variants appear in the same article then the variant that appears most often should be considered the default and the other variants changed to conform to it, i.e. kind of like what we do when there is a mix of, say, British English and American English in an article.
Does that work? -- Hux 12:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has offered even a shred of evidence that "Commonwealth Realm" is an official title accorded to the realms of which QE2 is Queen. Indeed, the Website for the only authority who could grant that title, i.e., the Queen, does not capitalize it, despite the fact that it capitalizes all sorts of things normal people wouldn't. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Nobody has offered even a shred of evidence". Are we reading the same page here, because I could swear that if you search this page for the text, "It's a proper noun in reference to a specific group of monarchies", you'll find some evidence.
"the Website for the only authority who could grant that title, i.e., the Queen". The Queen is not the authority that can grant this - the governments of the Commonwealth Realms have that power because despite the requirement of the royal assent, by convention she does what she's told by her governments. If we're going to rely on online sources for this then the best sources would be things like the FCO, the British High Commission, or some other government source whose job it is to deal with Commonwealth related issues. -- Hux 08:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No, there hasn't been any evidence that it is an "official title", just evidence that it is a term used by official bodies. The only evidence for capitalisation is from sites that capitalise many things that aren't proper nouns and Wikipedia wouldn't capitalise, so it isn't evidence that it is a proper noun at all. Anyway, there is no reason to rely on online sources. JPD (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, there are three levels of reliability here (from lowest to highest): 1) no evidence, 2) evidence of use by official sources, 3) evidence from those sources that it is an official title. I propose that in the absence of #3 it is reasonable to rely on #2. Given that #2 provides us with conflicting usage, we must then decide which usage to follow. In my opinion, the FCO and the British High Commission are better sources to follow since they are directly concerned with Commonwealth affairs. Further, given that we've already agreed above that there is a difference between "realm" (general) and "Realm" (specific, with constitutional implications), the phrase, "Commonwealth Realm" clearly implies a specific, constitutional reference, hence both words should be capitalized.
"there is no reason to rely on online sources" This assertion is absurd. If those online sources are the websites of government agencies that are specifically tasked with dealing with Commonwealth issues, then there is every reason to rely on them. -- Hux 10:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was fairly clear that my reply to your "If we are going to rely on online sources" meant that we do not need to rely only on online sources, not that they are not reliable. At any rate, while the FCO may be the agency most involved in "Commonwealth affairs", that is not really their focus, and none of the examples you have provided have been in that context. (They are parts of general descriptions of a particular country. In fact, it is telling that the FCO only use the term in the description of one of the 15 other countries, and most of the British High Commissions were not included in your search.)
But that's not the important point. Your #2 and #3 are not different levels of reliability, they are evidence of different things. There is no evidence that it is an official title. (This should be spelt out in the article, by the way.) There is evidence of official use. The official use we have seen varies in capitalisation, only capitalising in contexts where legal-style capitalisation is employed. We do have a choice as to which usage, but since it is only a matter of style, that choice should be based on our in-house style, not by choosing which other websites to follow.
I do not at all agree that there is a difference between "realm" and "Realm", except possibly when used as an abbreviation of a longer title, or when used in similarly in legal documents. If Wikipedia does not in general use that style, then it shouldn't here. JPD (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, nobody has yet outlined how to differentiate between a Commonwealth realm under Elizabeth II and a Commonwealth realm under another monarch if we go with "Commonwealth realm" here. Or, are the anti-capitalization proponents under the impression that we'll be adding Lesotho, Brunei, Malaysia, Tonga and maybe Samoa to the list on this page?
I think Hux has it perfectly right on this one: "'Realm', when used in the context of the official Commonwealth designation (implying specific constitutional meaning), should be capitalized, and since attaching it to the word 'Commonwealth' inherently puts it in such a context, the phrase should be written, 'Commonwealth Realm'. It's the same reason why we write 'United Kingdom' and not 'United kingdom'." --G2bambino 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, G2bambino, noone has yet given a compelling rason why "Commonwealth realm" would be understood to mean "a realm which is a member of the Commonwealth" as opposed to, say, "a realm of the Head of the Commonwealth", which are equally likely meanings given only the meanings of the two words. The use of nouns as adjectives in this way is never straightforward, especially when we are dealing with words like "realm" which are rarely used outside specific contexts anyway. The idea that "Commonwealth realm" includes Lesotho etc. has never been advanced outside discussions like this on Wikipedia, and has no basis.
In your second paragraph, you draw attention to the real issue, and then contradict yourself. The "kingdom" is capitalised in "United Kingdom" because "United Kingdom" is itself a proper noun, a specific (shortened) title of one country. It is not at all because the word "kingdom" is capitalised in contexts that imply specific consitutional meaning. This issue is not whether "Commonwealth R/realms" is an official title, which it isn't, but precisely whether or not the single word "Realm" should be capitalised in the contexts you describe. Apart from the fact that it isn't at all clear what you mean by "official Commonwealth designation" or "specific consitutional meaning", the capitalisation in sentences like "Fiji became an independent Realm in 1970" is nothing more than a particular (valid and sometimes convenient, if slightly archaic) style, that is not universally used. In particular, it is not the style generally used in Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
JPD: As has been said, the word, "realm", is synonymous with "kingdom" and is a general term that encompasses any kingdom. On the other hand, "Realm", within an article about the Commonwealth, has specific constitutional implications, chief among them being that Elizabeth II is its head of state; if a Commonwealth nation is not, specifically, a "Realm" then she is not its head of state. The two variants have subtle but important differences in meaning that need to be respected, especially in articles whose raison d'être is the discussion of Commonwealth, constitutional issues.
G2bambino's point - that because there is a difference between "realm" and "Realm" there is also a difference between "Commonwealth Realm" and "Commonwealth realm" - is perfectly sound. However, I would argue that the latter phrase should simply be avoided, so as not to confuse. We can very easily substitute it with a phrase like, "realms of the Commonwealth". -- Hux 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk about a red herring. As I've already explained elsewhere: "realm" and "kingdom" are synonyms. Therefore, all kingdoms within the Commonwealth are Commonwealth realms. However, within that category, there is a more specific sub-grouping of countries with a certain common characteristic that have been collectively, and uniquely, defined by a title: the Commonwealth Realms; perhaps not officially - ie. not through any law - but it seems a common nomenclature used in foreign offices, embassies, the Commonwealth Secretariat, etc. "Realm" in this sense, therefore, does not stand on its own as a common noun; it is always joined with the word "Commonwealth" to form the "title" for the specific group of countries under EIIR, "Commonwealth Realms." I believe this is what Hux was referring to with the United Kingdom analogy. --G2bambino 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
For at least the third time: It is not clear to me that even "Commonwealth kingdoms" must mean "kingdoms that are members of the Commonwealth". This is nothing more than your assertion, which is even less valid when using the word "realm", which has different connotations combined with the same basic meaning. (Note that a quantum group is not even a group) I understand the distinction that you are making, I just don't agree that the term "Commonwealth realms" has the natural meaning that you claim. Yes, "Commonwealth Realms" is used as a term/title to refer to the more specific subgroup, but is often (perhaps even originally) used as a term/title in that way without the capital R (including in Hansard, the royal website and so on, with the Commonwealth Secretariat not using the term at all online). It is not used only as a "title" for a specific group of countries, but as a term that can refer to any of those countries. It is precisely that difference that makes the UK analogy fail. A technical term with a specific meaning is not the same as a title. Most terms like that are not capitalised. Argue for a change in the style we use if you think it is convenient, but don't pretend that the term is something it isn't. JPD (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
JPD: "It is not clear to me that even "Commonwealth kingdoms" must mean "kingdoms that are members of the Commonwealth"." In all seriousness, what else could it possibly mean? Does the phrase, "Seville oranges" similarly cause you to doubt that it is referring to "oranges of the variety known as 'Seville'"? -- Hux 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless I already know that there is a variety of oranges known as "Seville", I don't know whether "Seville oranges" are any oranges from Seville, or a particularly variety of oranges, known as "Seville". By G2bambino's logic, it couldn't possibly be referring to a variety, unless we say "Seville Oranges". Thank you for the illustration. JPD (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be obtuse; replace "Seville oranges" with "Granny Smith apples" then. And your logical argument fails because there is no distinction between "apple" and "Apple" (or "orange" and "Orange") in any contextual use of those words. And in any case, wouldn't this article be the perfect place to explain to the reader the difference between "realm" and "Realm", thus negating the argument that the reader might be ignorant of that difference? -- Hux 12:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"Granny Smith apples" is unambiguous, so it is clear that we are talking about the name of a particular variety. It is also natural for "Commonwealth realms" to be the name of a partiuclar variety of realm, but you and G2bambino are arguing instead that it must refer to realms in the Commonwealth, and that if it were a name, both terms would be capitalised. As demonstrated by your examples, that is not how names work, even when there is ambiguity.
As for my argument, you still haven't understood it. I am not arguing that a reader may be ignorant of the difference between "realm" and "Realm", I am arguing that even this is not one of the contexts where such a difference should exist. Of course, much of the evidence you give for the difference existing even in other contexts is flawed, but that is beside the point. JPD (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, it's this simple: there is a useful, semantic difference between "realm" and "Realm". I'm not arguing about whether or not "Commonwealth Realm" is an official title (I've already said that I'm unsure whether it is one, due to conflicting usage on government websites), but given that "Realm" refers specifically to the sixteen countries in the Commonwealth that have Elizabeth II as their monarch, as distinct from the other monarchies that don't, it is reasonable and accurate to use the phrase, "Commonwealth Realm" to refer to them and it is reasonable for the article that describes precisely this situation to be titled, "Commonwealth Realm". I'm having a really hard time seeing why this is so amazingly objectionable. -- Hux 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What else could a Commonwealth kingdom be other than a kingdom within the Commonwealth? Unless one could describe the Commonwealth of Australia as a commonwealth kingdom; but that seems a bit odd. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the point of this debate. If you agree "Commonwealth Realms" is used as a title of sorts for a sub-group of kingdoms within the Commonwealth of Nations, then the crux of the issue ends up being conflicting sources which write the term with both the capitalized and non-capitalized version of "realm" (the only Hansard version I've seen capitalized it). Given conflicting information, it's then essentially left to us to decide which format to follow; which is essentially what Hux said above.
It seems you support that "Commonwealth Realms" - with the capitalized "realm" - can be applied as a "title" to the group of particular nations - should "Commonwealth Realms" therefore be the title of this article? - but the term "Commonwealth Realm" cannot be used for each of those nations individually, only "Comonwealth realm." I can see a parallel between this and the States of Australia: one would speak of the "Austrlaian States," but would say Queensland is an "Australian state." But this still leads me to again question: how do we differentiate between a generic realm of the Commonwealth and a specific Commonwealth Realm? --G2bambino 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not at all clear what "Commonwealth" means as an adjective. It's not clear that "Commonwealth kingdoms" means anything at all. With realm, it is even more complicated, as I have already given a perfectly good alternative meaning. If that meaning doesn't also work for "kingdoms", then we have proved that the words are not perfectly synonymous. I don't agree that it is a title - it is a technical term, whether referring to the group or a nation individually. I would say "the Australian states". In fact, that is what Wikipedia consistently does when talking about the Australian states. We don't follow sources on matters of style, we follow our style guide. That is what I said in reply to Hux above. (By the way, you mean the only Hansard version you remember - a British Hansard quote with small "r" was quoteed in archive 4 or 5 in a discussion you took part in.)
I still don't see why we need to differentiate between a realm in the Commonwealth (a realm of the Commonwealth makes no sense at all) and a Commonwealth realm. Commonwealth realm is a technical term that has never been used to refer to Malaysia, etc. except by you. In the rare case it is worth observing that a country is both a Commonwealth member and a realm in the broader sense, we can call it a realm in the Commonwealth (or better, monarchy/kingdom in the Commonwealth, but only because they are more normal words - I am not claiming the difference is relevant to this discussion). JPD (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
JPD: "It's not at all clear what "Commonwealth" means as an adjective." What else could it possibly mean other than "of or relating to the Commonwealth of Nations", given that "Commonwealth of Nations" is linked in the very first sentence of the article? I mean come on: the context is pretty clear to anyone that understands how to use a web browser.
"With realm, it is even more complicated, as I have already given a perfectly good alternative meaning." What meaning was that? I'm not seeing it.
"We don't follow sources on matters of style, we follow our style guide." But as has been correctly pointed out, the style guide, like every other aspect of Wikipedia, is not something we must stick to 100% of the time. There are occasions when it is better to depart from it. I would strongly argue that "making the article more useful to the reader" (which is what happens when we note the difference between "realm" and "Realm") is a textbook example of that.
"I still don't see why we need to differentiate between a realm in the Commonwealth (a realm of the Commonwealth makes no sense at all) and a Commonwealth realm." Again, as has been explained, a "realm" in the Commonwealth is any kingdom in the Commonwealth, whereas a "Realm" in the Commonwealth is one of the sixteen kingdoms of which Elizabeth II is the monarch. I'm having real trouble understanding how you a) cannot see this distinction, and b) how you cannot see that the distinction is a significant one that any reader of this article would benefit from understanding. -- Hux 12:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is clear that it means "of or relating to the Commonwealth of Nations". But there are ways in which something may be "of" or "relate to" the Commonwealth other than simply being a member. For the third time, a "realm" in a generic sense may relate to the Commonwealth by being a member, or it may relate to the Commonwealth by being a realm of the Head of the Commonwealth, that is, those whose "realm-ness" and membership are related. I don't see why the former interpretation of the phrase is any more obvious than the latter, especially since the word "realm" is usually used to draw attention to the ruler. This is exactly analogous to oranges, which may relate to Seville by being grown there, or originating there. It would be ridiculous to claim that the common meaning of "Seville oranges" refers to those grown there. It is less obvious what the common meaning of "Australian football" is, but the issue here is much less ambiguous than these examples, because there is no evidence that anyone outside these conversations has ever considered "Commonwealth realms" to have the broader meaning that G2bambino ascribes to it, and there is plenty of evidence that people have used it in the manner he wishes to reserve for "Commonwealth Realms".
You are absolutely right that we can choose to use a slightly different style from that described in the MOS (which is not even self-consistent anyway). I believe that the biologists have done so in situations which have some similarities to this. But let us have discussion about the advantages of using a different style, rather than arguments based on nonexistant distinctions between "Commonwealth realm" and "Commonwealth Realm". There is a distinction between monarchical countries in the Commonwealth and Her Majesty's Realms, yes. The sentence you quote does imply that I don't wish to make that distinction, but I hope it is clear from its original context that I actually meant that there is no need to do this when using the phrase "Commonwealth R/realms". That distinction is already made quite easily in many ways. While a "realm" in the Commonwealth definitely could be understood to be any kingdom, and "Realm" has been used in certain contexts to refer to Commonwealth Realms, it is not at all clear that this style has ever been used in order to make this distinction, and it is definitely not the most common way of referring to and making a distinction between the two notions. It is not the common way, and I would say, definitely not the best way, a sentiment with which you seem to agree just below. JPD (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino: "how do we differentiate between a generic realm of the Commonwealth and a specific Commonwealth Realm?" As I suggested above, the best way to do this would be to do exactly what you just did: use phrases such as "realm of the Commonwealth" to refer to places that are not Commonwealth Realms, so as to avoid confusion. -- Hux 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Buckingham Palace has no difficulty with this distinction, and I strongly suspect the Queen would be most perturbed to find people muddling the difference between the Commonwealth realms and the other monarchies within the Commonwealth. It's really quite simple. There are Commonwealth realms, and there are other, indigenous monarchies within the Commonwealth.
Miscapitalizing words doesn't give them any more prestige. It just makes the article look slanted and unprofessional.
Jonathan David Makepeace 23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This is at least the third time in a matter of days that you have cited Buckingham Palace as the authority here. On each of the two previous occasions you've received a reply explaining why the replier disagrees with you, but you have chosen not to address those replies. Why are you now saying the same thing yet again? It adds nothing useful to the discussion. -- Hux 12:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no one has explained why the usage on the Head of Commonwealth's Web site shouldn't be considered, even if it isn't definitive.
But in any case, I cited two different pages, one on which the Head of Commonwealth's site explicitly refers to those countries of which Elizabeth II is Queen (and only those countries) as "Commonwealth realms." The other page shows how the Head of Commonwealth's Web site refers to other monarchies in the Commonwealth. G2bambino asked, [H]ow do we differentiate between a generic realm of the Commonwealth and a specific Commonwealth Realm?" I merely pointed out how the Head of Commonwealth's Web site does it.
I don't respond to every point you make because I would be repeating JPD's excellent points.
Jonathan David Makepeace 00:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan David Makepeace: "Actually, no one has explained why the usage on the Head of Commonwealth's Web site shouldn't be considered, even if it isn't definitive." Firstly, I don't think anyone here has argued that it shouldn't be considered, so that's a straw man argument. Secondly, the objection is to your implication that because it says "Commonwealth realm" on royal.gov.uk, we must use the same format here, as if royal.gov.uk is the final arbiter on this point. I've already given you what I think is a decent reason why that doesn't fly, so I'm not going to bother repeating myself. -- Hux 07:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
JDM, while we seem to agree on several points, I must point out that it is not "miscapitalisation". It is simply using a different style. We are perfectly able to make the decision to use a particular style, and such a decision could not be called original research. Having said that, I think Hux is wrong to think you are saying royal.gov.uk is the final arbiter - it is merely evidence that using "Commonwealth realms", as would be our normal practice, is perfectly acceptable and can work well. Using "Commonealth Realm" could work just as well, even though it departs slightly from the MOS. However, implying that "Commonwealth realm" is wrong, or has a different meaning, would be a bad idea. JPD (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it departs from the MOS then it is wrong within the context of Wikipedia, is it not? So far, the only excuse advanced by those who wish to capitalize it is that it is an official title with a meaning distinct from the uncapitalized "Commonwealth realm." However, they have been unable to show any evidence that the capitalized and uncapitalized versions have distinct meanings or that the capitalized version is an official title. Hence my concern that they are engaged in original research.

However, I now realize that the Queen's Web site probably doesn't capitalize the term so as not to undermine Commmonwealth unity and support for her successor as British monarch to be given the title Head of Commonwealth. This isn't my fight; it's hers.

Jonathan David Makepeace 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"If it departs from the MOS then it is wrong within the context of Wikipedia, is it not?" The MoS, like all guidelines and policies on Wikipedia, is not absolute. In cases where sticking rigidly to it would result in Wikipedia being less useful to the reader, editors should depart from it. This is a very good example of such a case: since "realm" and "Realm" have different meanings, preserving that distinction makes for a better, more useful article.
"So far, the only excuse advanced by those who wish to capitalize it is that it is an official title with a meaning distinct from the uncapitalized "Commonwealth realm."" Nope. That is neither the only argument, nor is an argument that (as far as I can see) anyone is actually making at this point.
"However, they have been unable to show any evidence that the capitalized and uncapitalized versions have distinct meanings" This is not true and you know it. Evidence has been shown that "realm" is different from "Realm" and thus that "Commonwealth Realm" means something different from "Commonwealth realm". For you to say otherwise is disingenuous.
"This isn't my fight; it's hers." Then why on Earth are you - and only you - making such a big deal out of this? -- Hux 06:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hux is absolutely right about the MOS. However, I have to agree with JDM that there has been no evidence provided that "realm" and "Realm" have different meanings. There have been assertions to that effect, and there has been evidence of the word "Realm" being used in a context where it is both capitalised and understood to refer to QEII's realms only, but there hasnt' been an example of one source using "realm" and "Realm" to have different meanings, in other words that the capitalisation is used for the purpose of distinguishing between two meanings. It may be a useful way of indicating a semantic difference, there may even indeed be contexts that haven't been mentioned here where it is used but even if that is the case, I would argue that capitalisation is not the most helpful way to make that distinction in an encyclopedic context. Moreover, such evidence would not affect the overwhelming evidence that "Commonwealth realms" is most commonly used to mean exactly the same thing as "Commonwealth Realms". This really isn't a big issue, and probably wouldn't have generated so much debate if both sides hadn't kept insisting that it is anything more than style. JPD (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

After Hux's edits to the dab, I thought we should open up another (hopefully brief) discussion about its contents. In particular, I re-added the sentence about EIIR being monarch of the other Realms; this was originally inserted, by my understanding, to avoid any misconception that the non-UK countries were under the British Monarch (perhaps Chris Bennett can clarify if I'm wrong). As there is somewhat of a circle of links between here and various other articles, edits to the dab here may also have an effect on the dabs of other related pages. --G2bambino 12:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't track these pages minute by minute, so I haven't seen this partucular reedit. But, yes, my aim, reflected in the current wording, is intended to avoid the misapprehension that non-UK monarchies are in any way subordinate to the UK monarchy.
One change I did revert just now is to restore the phrase "pointers to articles" in place of "information", when refering to the disambiguation page. In the debate about wording of links in DAB links there was much pontification about the need to adhere strictly to WP policy, to ensure scrupulous accuracy in a DAB link. The principle should apply to the wording of the DAB link. There is no actual information about any of the other monarchies on the disambiguation page. --Chris Bennett 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1) The phrase, "...who is separately monarch of each of the Commonwealth Realms", is redundant when the very first sentence in the DAB says that the article is about, "the common features of those countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that have the same monarch" (emphasis mine).
WTF??? If you had problems with the DABlink wording why didn't you raise them when I moved a motion on the text???
Because I wasn't involved in the discussion at that time. I've only been contributing to it for the last couple of days. I am many things, but psychic isn't one of them! -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, please make up your mind whether you think the contents of a DABlink are entirely self-contained or whether they will be interpreted in the context in the article in which they appear. You can't have it both ways as it suits your mood. That wording is there precisely because people like you were taking the position that the contents of a DABlink are entirely self-contained. --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand why you're saying this - I've always argued that DAB links are entirely self-contained and I'm not seeing how anything I've said has been contradictory on that point.
Further, it doesn't make sense to argue that the phrase, "...who is separately monarch of each of the Commonwealth Realms", was put there in accordance with the idea that DAB links are self-contained. The whole point of the "self-contained" argument is that such qualifying text is unnecessary. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2) Like all DAB links, the fact that it says, "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", is purely because that's the title of the page it links to. It implies nothing beyond that. If you disagree with this, please point out how the links in this DAB imply anything about the rulers of Prussia. By your logic, we must change that DAB so that it says, "for the unincorporated community in Pennsylvania, see King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, which has never had a Prussian ruler and is not in Prussia."
And now you are taking the opposite position! I'm sure you have a vast and intimate working knowledge of the arcana of Wikipedia policies, but most readers do not. Pretend you never saw a WP in your life, read the DAB link without that qulifyig phrase, and tell me you don't think it suggests that EIIR is queen of all Commonwealth Realms in her capacity as Queen of the UK.
I don't think it does, personally. But here's the much, much more important point: this article makes it clear that she is not, and the "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" article makes it clear that she is not. If the article consisted of the DAB and only the DAB then you might have a point, but when a major feature of both this article and the "Elizabeth..." article is to precisely explain Elizabeth's constitutional position with regard to the realms, worrying this much about the precise wording of a DAB is just ridiculous. To draw an analogy: let's say you're the mayor of Hicksville and in Hicksville is a signpost pointing to New York. What you're doing here is the equivalent of spending all day worrying about the font of the signpost, rather than, say, making sure Hicksville's roads aren't full of potholes. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll assume you are serious about your king of Prussia example: the words community and Pennsylvania answer the question. There is nothing equivalent in the DABlink here. That's why the phrase is needed. --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
And the phrase, "that have the same monarch", answers the question here. Another example: the Girth article. By your logic, the DAB should read something like, "A girth is also a piece of equipment used to hold the saddle on a horse, although it should not be inferred that the word 'girth' relates specifically to horses". -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
3) Even if someone somehow managed to totally fail at reading comprehension and, in addition, has no clue what a DAB is for, the first three sentences following the DAB make it 100% clear that no such subordination of countries to the UK exists.
Flipping sides again....--Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, how so? -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
4) This article is about the somewhat unusual situation whereby one person is the separate monarch of multiple countries. It is reasonable to assume that people coming here to read it are going to be open to learning this fact if they don't already know, further mitigating that astonishingly unlikely chance of them making the asserted assumption.
If they get far. If they link out through the DABlink then they will also have picked up some bad information unless the DABlink is worded correctly. --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Imo, the chances of anyone making the inference you allege is somewhere between "very slim" and "none". In fact, I'd go so far as to say that when people need an example to define the phrase, "making a mountain out of a molehill", we could point them to this discussion. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And as far as "pointers to" versus "information", that edit would've been completely unnecessary if my previous one had been left alone. I mean seriously, what on Earth was wrong with, "For additional articles that relate to these monarchies, see..."?
Same problem, only worrse. (a) there are no articles at that link, only a list of articles and (b) that wording doesn't warn you that there are no additional articles about some of the monarchies to be found by going to that link. --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: a) The phrase, "For additional articles that relate to these monarchies, see...", is simply shorthand for, "if this isn't what you want, this link will send you in the right direction". To argue that it must be replaced with "pointers to" because the DAB says it goes to "articles" when in fact it goes to a list of links to articles is so pedantic I'm lost for words. Re: b) why on Earth would it need to? The point of the DAB is to attempt to get people to where they want to go. As long as it sends people in a direction that is more likely to provide that result then that's all that matters. Again, the change is needlessly pedantic. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Changing it to refer to "monarchies of some of these countries" (whether it's "information" about them or "pointers to" them) makes no sense because not all the links on that disambig page are for monarchies. The page is about general issues relating to those monarchies and to the Commonwealth Realm situation that are not contained on this article, hence, "For additional articles that relate to these monarchies".
Seriously, this is getting beyond ridiculous. -- Hux 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. This issue is entirely about some people, such as yourself, being overly legalistic and rigid in their application of certain Wiki policies, even when those policy statements themselves admonish editors to be flexible and to use judgement. The primary aims should always be accuracy and readability. Instead we're wasting time threading those camels through needles in order to satisfy unreasonable and dogmatic demands that we conform at all costs to the smallest letter of the law. IMO we found a way to do it that wasn't utterly foul two days ago. Why not leave well enough alone? --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"This issue is entirely about some people, such as yourself, being overly legalistic and rigid in their application of certain Wiki policies". On the contrary, this issue is about you and (G2bambino) obsessing about trivial and utterly pedantic wording choices in the least important part of the entire article and raising a big stink about it whenever anyone simply tries to make the DAB do what DABs are supposed to do: send readers in the right direction as succinctly as possible.
"The primary aims should always be accuracy and readability." When it comes to articles, sure. But when it comes to DABs the primary aim should be utility. The DAB is nothing more than a tool to help readers get to where they want to go.
"Instead we're wasting time threading those camels through needles in order to satisfy unreasonable and dogmatic demands that we conform at all costs to the smallest letter of the law." I am making no such demands with this DAB. I'm simply trying to get you to see that you are wasting way too much time worrying about the tiniest detail in the part of the article where such concerns matter the least.
"Why not leave well enough alone?" Exactly my point! It was fine before, now it's needlessly verbose and needlessly pedantic when such verbosity and such pedantic explanation is neither necessary nor helpful in a DAB. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Getting beyond ridiculous.... yet, it was you, Hux, who edited the dab again.
What are you talking about? I've only ever made two edits to this article, both of which were to the DAB, and both of which were yesterday. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm with Chris Bennett on this one; I'm not sure Hux, that you understand how poorly educated most people are on the Commownealth Realm situation
That's irrelevant because, as I've said already, a) the article right below it is all about the Commonwealth Realm situation, and b) the "Elizabeth..." link explains it as well. The bases are already covered. For some reason, you and Chris Bennett seem to be under the impression that one of the functions of a DAB is to head off any and all possible ambiguity, and I'm entirely failing to understand how you've managed to arrive at that point of view. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
in Canada I can tell you for certain that many people mistakenly believe the country to either still be reigned over by the "Queen of England," or think the prime minister is the head of state (92% at the last poll). The situation of the personal union is complex enough as it is; this plus the fact that the EIIR article is titled as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is exactly what causes false impressions and misunderstanding; yes, people can read into the detail and realise the EIIR article is mistitled, but I think that there should be at least an attempt at some simple clarification before hand. What Chris Bennett proposes is neither unwieldly nor completely useless. --G2bambino 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
DABs are signposts, nothing more. Signposts do not address every possible inference that could be drawn by any possible reader, they simply point the way. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that Chris Bennett (and, again, he can correct me if I'm wrong) is arguing that because of the given circumstances we're dealing with here - a) a complex consitutional/geographical/national situation, and b) an improperly titled Wikipedia article - the clause of WP:DAB that states "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" applies to this particular situation. I tend to agree with him, and can't see what benefit removing the words ...who is separately monarch of each of the Commonwealth Realms actually brings. --G2bambino 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly so. If it were up to me the sentence would read per my original proposed modification: "For information about the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II." Simple, unambiguous, and, unlike the previous statement, accurate. When I first made it I thought it was a trivial and obvious fix. Instead, for nearly a week now, I have had to deal with boneheaded literalism, insisting on the mantra that DABlinks must always have the full article of the referenced title under any and all circumstances whatsoever because It's a Policy. So I proposed the current wording in an effort to find a compromise that would appease this concern and settle the issue. I don't like it, but it does meet the letter of the law, and it is accurate. --Chris Bennett 15:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris Bennett: I accept the reasoning that it's okay to divert from the guidelines in certain cases. I think it's much better to have "Elizabeth II" than to have two separate phrases that specify her precise constitutional position, so I would support your original proposed modification on the basis that I don't see how else this disagreement can be resolved. Will you, in turn, drop the "pointers to" issue? -- Hux 09:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino: "an improperly titled Wikipedia article". When you say, "improperly", are you speaking from a constitutional perspective? Because in terms of Wikipedia, "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is exactly consistent with WP:NCNT. -- Hux 09:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so you have compromised to meet some of Hux's concerns. Now, will Hux compromise to meet yours? Further, I note that Lonewolf has gone very silent on this issue, though he edited British Monarchy today. --G2bambino 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Your noting so is most odd, given that the former is inaccurate, the latter is irrelevant. What is your point? -- Lonewolf BC 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In short, I concur with Hux. I won't go through this dog-fight of a discussion in point-by-point, post-by-post detail because do not think that would be useful. Hux has already said about everything I would. -- Lonewolf BC 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we can assume that if Hux capitulates to some of Chris Bennett's concerns, as Chris Bennett has done for Hux, then you'll follow suit as well? --G2bambino 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think anyone has "capitulated" to meet any of my concerns. My only two concerns here were the last sentence of the DAB ("who is separately monarch of each of the Commonwealth Realms") and the phrase, "pointers to", and nobody is stepping down from either of those, as far as I can see. -- Hux 09:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris Bennett said he bowed to your concern about dabs not piping links or using redirects, or, as he put it, they "must always have the full article of the referenced title under any and all circumstances whatsoever because It's a Policy." Personally, I'm ambivalent to the "pointers to," and am content with the Elizabeth II solution. So, if Chris Bennett agrees with your proposed wording at Talk:Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation), then we'd be well on our way to a final compostion... I hope. --G2bambino 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino: "Chris Bennett said he bowed to your concern about dabs not piping links or using redirects". This doesn't make sense. I'm the one who is bowing to the suggestion that we use the Elizabeth II redirect, rather than stick rigorously to the guideline that says we shouldn't used piped links and redirects in DABs. We obviously can't capitulate on the same thing! But anyway, let's not dwell on this since it's essentially settled. -- Hux 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hux asked me:

Chris Bennett: I accept the reasoning that it's okay to divert from the guidelines in certain cases. I think it's much better to have "Elizabeth II" than to have two separate phrases that specify her precise constitutional position, so I would support your original proposed modification on the basis that I don't see how else this disagreement can be resolved. Will you, in turn, drop the "pointers to" issue?

Of course I'm willing to go back to my original proposal on Elizabeth II ;-) But your determined opposition to it over the last week has left me gunshy. How are we going to ensure that the issue isn't reopened by a member of the Strict Policy Conformance Police?

As to the "pointers to" issue, my Comp Sci background makes me queasy about confusing pointers with objects, but it's the lesser issue. If that's what it takes to really close this issue, then I'll capitulate: replace it by "information". --Chris Bennett 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my BA English background makes me queasy about "pointers to" and since we're dealing with English language composition here, rather than computer programming... ;)
"How are we going to ensure that the issue isn't reopened by a member of the Strict Policy Conformance Police?" Frankly, your attitude here is in need of a rethink. It's clear you've labeled me as an absolutist policy conformist policeman over this single issue, a stance that is neither accurate nor reasonable. I did not adopt my position out of a simple, knee-jerk adherence to guidelines. I adopted it because I think it makes the most sense from a utility standpoint, i.e. the usefulness of Wikipedia to its readers. I simply pointed to the guidelines because it makes sense to stick to them by default, since it avoids having to reinvent the wheel every time. But as you can see, I agree with you that there is room to go against the guidelines in certain situations. So let's have a little more respect around here, eh? -- Hux 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's please move this to Talk:Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation). Chris, I hope you don't mind if I move your above comment there - it is pertinent to the discussion. --G2bambino 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

personal union or shared monarchy

The article states "They are independent kingdoms, and the sovereign is separately and equally monarch of each state; thus, they are in personal union with one another." A personal union however can also come about through the co-incidences of dynastic relations between royal families and can also end because of them (like Britain and Hanover 1714-1837 or the Netherlands and Luxembourg 1839-1890). The tie between the Commonwealth Realm however is of a slightly different nature as one Crown operating seperately and independently within sixteen different legal contexts and with the titles all having a shared element. Therefore I'd prefer the term "shared monarchy" to "personal union"Gerard von Hebel 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go to Personal union, you'll see that the situation with the Commonwealth Realms matches one of the several ways in which a personal union can arise. Therefore, the phrase is accurate. The phrase is linked multiple times in this article, so if anyone is confused by the absence of the specific reason why it is appropriate here then they are free to follow that link and find out more. -- Hux 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We have cited references that refer to the relationship between the Commonwealth Realms as a personal union. I also think it's adequately explained as to how they came to be in this situation. Is this really the first time in history countries have voluntarily aligned themseleves in a personal union? --G2bambino 14:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, a personal union does not only refer to "co-incidental dynastic relations". The Union between Sweden and Norway is usually described as a personal union, although, while not voluntary, it was closer to the situation of the current Commonwealth Realms than to, let's say, the Netherland-Luxembourg union. Blur4760 14:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The Commonwealth Realms have not "voluntarily aligned themselves". They were created like that, and are therefore like that by default. They can voluntarily dissociate themselves, but to remain as they are requires no act of volition on their part at all - it is simply how they were when they came into existence. TharkunColl 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Untrue. The original SoW, which is what effectively created the first Realms, was a direct result of pressure from the Dominions of the day. The independence of Burma established that all colonies which became independent at later dates could choose to become republics, and after 1950 they could even choose to become republics within the Commonwealth.
The phrase "shared monarchy" implies that there is a single monarchy encompassing multiple countries. That is false. There is only a "shared monarch". The moarchies are separate instiotutions. "Personal union" is the correct description of their relationship to each other. --Chris Bennett 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed; and let's not forget when each non-UK Realm patriated its constitution - there was ample ability to choose not to be in a personal relationship at those points. --G2bambino 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On the personal union issue, it is worth noting that every example in history has been inherently unstable. They function either as a temporary phase leading to full union, or they break apart. But then a true personal union is between pre-existing states, which the Commonwealth Realms aren't. TharkunColl 21:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when? A personal union is simply a set of otherwise independent states with a shared head of state. The set of historical accidents leading to that arrangement is irrelevant. I'll grant you that the history leading to the personal union of the Commonwealth realms is unique, certainly on this scale (Austria-Hungary? Denmark+Iceland? are the closest similar examples that come to mind), but that doesn't make it any less a personal union. As to its long-term stability -- I wouldn't count on it lasting more than a generation after the queen's death. --Chris Bennett 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In the first place, every personal union in history has not been inherently unstable (the England/Scotland union appears to be doing just fine after nearly 400 years, for example). But in the second place...so what? What relevance does this argument have to anything beyond a conversational piece? It doesn't seem to be related to any proposed article change. -- Hux 08:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The term "union" implies that the parties to that union already existed. In this case, only one pre-existed and created all the others. I think you're certainly right about its transitory nature though. It is clearly just a phase in the extremely protracted dissolution of the British Empire. TharkunColl 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal union seems more accurate (for example)- in Canada, you've got the Queen of Canada and no other royal title. There's no consort of Canada, prince or princess of Canada (this also shoots down the 'Canadian Royal Family' discription). GoodDay 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Two things: To TharkunColl, saying that we are in "a phase in the extremely protracted dissolution of the British Empire" is a personal prognosis and thus has no implications for a verifiable article (unless attributable to a source). Furthermore, to me union only implies that the partners of a union exist while the union exists, not that they have to exist before the union. For instance, Iceland did not exist as a sovereign state before being created as such by Denmark. Nevertheless, the relationship between the two is commonly refered to as a personal union.
Secondly, to GoodDay, the concept of a Canadian Royal Family was not born in Wikipedia. The Canadian Heritage for instance lists members of the Royal Family ([2], notably Angus Ogilvy, who was never a member of the British Royal Family), the Canadian Heritage Trust uses the word "Canadian Royal Family" ([3]), as does the office of the Governor General ([4]). Blur4760 23:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you really imagine that the inclusion of Sir Angus Ogilvy was a deliberate policy decision, rather than just sloppy research? The fact that he's dead now, yet is still listed as a member of the Canadian royal family should be a bit of a giveaway. So, despite being dead for 2½ years, the fact that he is currently listed on the Canadian heritage website should mean - if that's an authoritative source - that he's still a member of the Canadian royal family, correct? Or perhaps the Canadian doppelganger of Sir Angus, who exists totally independently of his British counterpart, is, by some administrative oversight, not actually dead yet? TharkunColl 11:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1. You are making a Straw man argument. 2. But to humour you, here are some more Canadian government sites that refer to a Canadian Royal Family [5] (although not all of them). 3. And no, I don't think it was sloppy research, because the page distinguishes between private visits by Ogilvy and official visits that were made as a member of the Canadian Royal Family (something that can easily be seen by simply reading the page I provided). Blur4760 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
TharkunColl: Given that there is, without any doubt, such a thing as "the Canadian monarchy", that is constitutionally distinct from any other monarchy, I think it stands to reason that one can legitimately refer to "the Canadian royal family". -- Hux 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Because I disagree fundamentally with your idiosyncratic POV interpretation of the constitutional position, that does not make me a troll. Note - this apparent non sequitur was not intended for the above user (Hux), but was in fact made in reply to this comment by G2bambino, which he removed a few seconds later: "I'm not sure why we should humour Thark any longer; he really is just being a troll, causing undue aggravation here and at a number of other articles." TharkunColl 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This is nauseatingly childish. However, because Thark refuses to accept my retraction of my comment I will protect my reputation and make clear that I removed my comments for various reasons, inlcuding the avoidance of unecessary disruption, before, I thought, Thark had replied. I assert that I will take this particluar incident no further. --G2bambino 16:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. PS. we need a WikiProject for the Commonwealth related pages. It would help coordinate those pages, with guidelines. Thus helping end 'edit wars' and protracted discussions'. GoodDay 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Before we fly off on tangents, perhaps we can get back to issue: is 'personal union' a valid term for describing the relationship of the Commonwealth realms to each other in the person of Elizabeth Windsor? Some maintain that it is not, for the relationship is not analagous to any other historical instance commonly referred to as a personal union. In this they are probably correct. But one could suggest that none of these historical instances are analagous to each other. Compare the 'personal union' between Austria and Hungary and the one between Great Britain and Hanover. In the first, the head of the House of Habsburg (already King of Hungary) was forced to accept the union by necessity. In the second, the sovereign of Hanover succeeded to the throne of Great Britain as a result of an Act of Parliament of that nation. And if we look at other instances, we see varying factors coming into play: dynastic succession, force, election, legislative will, etc.

So I suggest, as others have before me, we look at the term personal union in itself, abstracted from any context. What do the words mean? personal union- the union is in a person, not in a legislative authority. Does that fit the case here? The Commonwealth Realms are all independent sovereign entities, who share the same person as head of state. The description fits.

Now, as to the term shared monarchy: that is, I suggest, more problematic. As others have observed, the term can be taken to mean that there is but one monarchy which exercises sovereignty over 16 nations. And this is, as most of us agree, incorrect. The term can also be taken in another sense; shared monarchy can be understood as abstracted from any particular constitutional role. 'Monarchy' is here the principle of sovereignty exemplified in the person of the head of the House of Windsor. In this last sense, the term is used not only by Wikipedia but by many other external sites. I suggest we can keep on using the term, with an explanation.--Gazzster 23:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer shared monarchy. Here's why, the commonwealth will continue as is (with its ties to the British monarch) upon/after Elizabeth II's death. If it were 'personal union', then that union would end with her death. GoodDay 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The term 'personal union' may imply (but not necessarily, I grant- take the case of an elective monarchy) that the heir to the throne of one country will also succeed to the throne of the other. Under present constitutional law, all of the realms are bound to recognise the lawful successor of Queen Elizabeth. So the personal union would continue. Don't confuse 'Commonwealth' with 'shared monarchy'. They are not the same. There are republics in the Commonwealth.--Gazzster 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant 'Commonwealth Realms' (which aren't republics). Does the 'person' hold it together OR does the 'office', perhaps it's both. Their lies the true answer. Good luck in finding it, folks. GoodDay 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Many personal unions have continued as such after the death of the first monarch, e.g. England+Scotland, England+Hanover, Poland+Lithuania. The term "shared monarchy" only appears once in this article, in connection with changing the line of succession: "Alternatively, a Realm could choose to end its participation in the shared monarchy." This reads a little oddly to me. Perhaps, "Alternatively, a Realm could choose a different head of state."?? --Chris Bennett 00:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Chris Bennett: I agree that it's potentially confusing. Since the section already mentions that it's a personal union, I changed the line to read, simply, "Alternatively, a Realm could choose to end its participation in the personal union." I think that works better. -- Hux 08:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Having said that, I just checked the article more closely and while the phrase "shared monarchy" no longer appears, there are several reference to the concept of the monarchy/crown being "shared". I think this is still problematic since, as noted, "shared" implies that there is one monarchy recognized by all sixteen countries, whereas as far as I'm aware there are sixteen separate monarchies that all happen to be headed by the same person. If I'm right then all those instances of "shared" need to be reworked so as to avoid confusion. Are we agreed on this or have I missed a vital point somewhere? -- Hux 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
While I think it's a reasonable question I am not too concerned about it. The quote from Toporoski embedded in the text makes it pretty clear that the "sharing" of the Crown is a transcendant, almost mystical, concept at this time. I think that's fair enough. --Chris Bennett 14:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good examples, Chris. Last point- yes, but we would have to explain that a realm would have to overturn its own constitutional legislation to change the succession or abolish the monarchy.Under presdent law they are mutually obligated to observe the Act of Settlement.--Gazzster 00:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a discussion of how a Realm could choose a different head of state. I suspect the detailed constitutional mechanics would vary from Realm to Realm. The whole question is hypothetical anyway, so I don;t think it needs extended treatment. --Chris Bennett 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course. Im not suggesting an 'extended treatment.' Only that the statement "alternatively, a Realm could choose a different head of state", is true, but needs to bed qualified. Under present law the realms cannot choose a different successor without overturning legilation.--Gazzster 01:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier in this section, I'm having trouble seeing the need for debate on this particular point. This article links to Personal Union, where it states (emphasis mine):

Personal unions can arise for very different reasons, ranging from near coincidence (a princess who is already married to a king becomes pregnant, and their child inherits the crown of both countries) to virtual annexation (where a personal union sometimes was seen as a means of preventing uprisings). They can also be codified (i.e. the constitutions of the states clearly express that they shall share the same person as head of state) or non-codified, in which case they can easily be broken (e.g. by different succession rules).

Unless I'm mistaken, the Commonwealth situation is covered by the bolded part above, in which case it's accurate to use the term, "personal union" (assuming that the "Personal Union" article is itself accurate, of course). I don't agree with GoodDay's suggestion that if it's a personal union then it would end with Elizabeth's death. Given that all sixteen countries are constitutionally bound to recognize the same rules of succession, the personal union will simply continue to be embodied in her successor, just as it has always done with the English/Scottish union, for example.
"Shared monarchy", on the other hand, is a much more debatable term, plus it's pretty ambiguous so for that reason alone I think we should avoid it. -- Hux 08:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You've all convinced me, I'll go with Personal Union. It's not really a big issue with me. GoodDay 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm/Archive_8&oldid=1085445215"