This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Currently there is a lot of instability, reverting, ramming through new content without consensus, and insertion of verifiability tags which are all clear indications of a lack of consensus. As a result, the last stable version should remain (there is no deadlines here) until all parties involved can arrive at a suitable consensus. At this point, it is not exactly clear to me what the issues are but I can attempt a list. Regardless, policy is clear that the last stable version (status quo) remains in place until a consensus can be established at the Talk (i.e. here).
As I see it, there are two major issues that new editors are taking issues with (feel free to add/correct):
A. An apparent need to render clear that this is not a legal topic. However, my perception is that this is not the actual issue, instead the actual issue being that this topic was initially created based on editorial whim (i.e. this topic was created by Wikipedia editors, as opposed to documenting an already existing topic (i.e. this topic was not encyclopedic at time of creation).
B. The need to "slim down" (i.e. simplify) the article, but for the purposes of scope for this section here, we are only concerned with simplifying the lead.
The last stable version of the lede is : "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch and head of state. Each realm functions as an independent co-equal kingdom from the other realms."
For point A, I would offer that no legal topic disclaimer is needed as the article does not purport itself to be one, and if we were to put such a disclaimer in all non-legal topic articles this would affect millions of articles. For example, the word "country" and "head of state" are not legal terms either (in the two sources listing legal terms I linked to in its section above) but we clearly do not need such a disclaimer there, and the same logic applies here.
For point B, I agree. trackratte ( talk) 13:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
As an involved editor I would like to motion closure on this point as, regardless of the applicable points brought forward above, it is clear that there is no consensus for this change (the insertion of a 'legal term disclaimer'). While debate may obviously continue, it appears to me that we have reached the point in talking in circles and where perhaps our collective efforts are better placed on moving on towards tackling Point B (simplification of the lede). trackratte ( talk) 12:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Last stable version: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state [1] in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch and head of state. Each realm functions as an independent co-equal kingdom from the other realms." [1] Together with associated states and dependencies.
By way of kicking off this section, I would offer the following points:
1. A definition must be verifiable. Given the challenges that have occurred here, I believe that one or more references to this definition are now required. Someone has mentioned above that the official commonwealth site, or the official UK Monarchy site defines the term, as a result I suggest that the ref be inserted and the lede be adjusted accordingly (i.e. be either exact or nearly so since we are defining a term here when we say 'A Commonwealth Realm is...') to avoid OR. EDIT: not saying that references must be cited in the lead sentence, that's a separate issue, merely that sources must be used to generate the content (i.e. verifiability).
2. "in which QEII is the...monarch and head of state". The term "head of state" is included within the definition of monarch and is therefore superfluous (Monarch: "a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor"). Therefore, in the interests of simplifying the lede I suggest that "and head of state" be removed. A bluelink can be provided for "monarch" to any reader wishing to explore that term further.
3. "reigning constitutional monarch". If she is the monarch then she is reigning (i.e. we would not mention her if she were not, and it would be illogical to have a 'QEII is the unreigning monarch') so once again "currently reigning" seems redundant. Further, given the topic and the wider area in which it is nested in, "constitutional" is likely a bit extraneous as well given that there are no, and never have been, any absolute monarchs within the Commonwealth. Given this is a fairly niche sub-topic, I cannot see how one could read this article without understanding that the UK, Canada, Australia, etc are democracies (i.e. are not totalitarian dictatorships).
4. The footnote attached to "sovereign state" seems overly pedantic for the lede sentence and to me seems extraneous here as it is a given that a "sovereign state" includes all of its 'holdings'. If such fine-grained nuance is required, it is best placed further are in the article body and not in the very first sentence.
5. The second sentence, while I understand its importance, is somewhat redundant in the sense that "sovereign state" is included in the definition in the first sentence, so a sovereign state, by definition, is an "independent co-equal" with other states.
6. This addresses, I believe, all of the issues brought forth in points 1-5 above. Further, keep in mind that I am intentionally just trying to speak to the first one or two sentences here so we can resolve that before moving on to the rest of the lede for practical purposes to facilitate discussion. trackratte ( talk) 12:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The above are the more reliable sources that have been presented in the discussions so far. Regarding the composition, some are ambiguous, some explicitly include the UK, and some explicitly don't include the UK. (Different pages on commonwealthofnations.org do both.) None comment on legality, although one notes it is formal and mostly obsolete. CMD ( talk) 16:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
A couple of extracts from UK statutes conferring indepdence that don’t include the supposedly official “Commonwealth realm” term still refer to dominions:
Solomon Islands Act 1978 - “On and after 7th July 1978 (“Independence Day”) the territories which immediately before that day are comprised in the Solomon Islands protectorate shall together form part of Her Majesty’s dominions under the name of Solomon Islands; and on and after that day Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of those territories.”
Ghana Indepdence Act 1957 - “The territories included immediately before the appointed day in the Gold Coast ... shall as from that day together form part of Her Majesty's dominions under the name of Ghana...”
Frenchmalawi ( talk) 18:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Under United Kingdom law the expression ‘His/Her Majesty’s dominions’ means “all territories which ‘belong to’ the Crown or are in the ‘ownership’ of the Crown”. [3] There is rarely any doubt under United Kingdom law, assuming the facts are established, whether a territory is within His Majesty’s dominions. [4] It is necessary to show only that title is vested in the Crown. [5] There have been occasional cases where the kind of title that the Crown had raised doubts about whether the territory in question formed part of His Majesty’s dominions. Such cases include certain lands leased to the United Kingdom in the region of Hong Kong, certain lands leased in Wei hai wei and Cyprus. [6] Until the Solomon Islands Act 1978, the territory comprising the Solomon Islands was not part of Her Majesty’s dominions. Are you disagreeing with me on that? In other words, Her Majesty did not ‘own’ or have ‘title’ to that territory. Do you disagree with me on that? It was the Solomon Islands Act 1978 - an Act of the United Kingdom parliament on which the people of Solomon Islands had no say [though they may very well have been perfectly happy with its terms] - that changed the status of the territory comprising the Solomon Islands to territory that formed part of Her Majesty’s dominions. It annexed the territory to Her Majesty’s dominions. Beforehand, Solomon Islands was merely a United Kingdom protectorate, not territory over which Her Majesty exercised sovereignty. Do you disagree with any of that? We are discussing the nature of the term “Commonwealth realm” which in your comments you have claimed is “a class of Commonwealth member states”. Of course, no constitution, no law, nothing anywhere officially categorieses any state whatsoever as a “Commonwealth realm”. That is not the case with respect to dominions. All of the supposed “Commonwealth realms” form part of Her Majesty’s dominions. That is and remains the legal position. The Solomon Islands Act is a very good illustration of that fact. While the principal purpose of the statute was undoubteldy to confer what’s generally described as ‘indepedence’ on Solomon Islands, in order to do so, the United Kingdom needed to first annex the territory to the Crown. Without having done so, the United Kingdom itself could not confer on the new government of the territory concerned sovereignty over the territory in question. The new government would need to look to others. Please let me know what you disagree with in any of this.
Frenchmalawi ( talk) 02:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Universally, territories under the Crown are “Her Majesty’s dominions”. In most of the indepdendence statutes, there was actually no need to provide as much. That’ because the territories concerned were already within “Her Majesty’s dominions”. For example, Barbados or Jamaica. In the case of Solomon Islands, the territory needed two be annexed to the Crown in order, in short, for good title to be conferred on its government. The point about the Solomon Islands statute is that it illustrates the extreme limitations of this so called “Commonwealth realm” concept that is bandied about on Wikipedia as if it had a formal meaning. The Solomon Islands Act was the last example that I have identified of the UK annexing territory to the Crown. As before, there could be another later one that I haven’t identified. In any event, it was done DECADES after ‘Commonwealth realms’ are supposed to have come into being but the UK didn’t, in the SI Act, purport to create a new ‘realm’, nevermind a ‘Commonwealth realm’.
Anyway, the point I think that gave rise to our immediate current exchanges is that you’d claimed that the term ‘dominion’ was obsolete when it very clearly is not obsolete. And I’ve provided an example of how it is not obsolete and in the article we ought to be explaining that any territory that is a supposed ‘Commonwealth realm’ (yes I can’t hide my disdain for this term that has no legal meaning) is part of ‘Her Majesty’s dominions’. And, indeed, all the complexity of explaining that.... Essential reallly to debunk the illusion that even you were under as to dominions being a term that’s obsolete etc. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 02:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Errantius. The point is simple. The article ought to explain that all of these so called realms are part of Her Majesty’s dominons. Do you disagree with that. Hi Qexigator. Are you suggesting that the term Her Majesty’s dominions no longer forms part of United Kingdom law? I’ve had this out with Errantius (above in the chain) so my view that it is not is already explaied. If you agree with me that it is still part of the law, ought this not to be explained in an article concerned with countries that form part of Her Majesty’s dominions? Frenchmalawi ( talk) 12:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The current article dates the creation of the United Kingdom from 1707, but that's only the creation of Great Britain: the modern UK dates from 1 January 1801, when the Act of Union 1800 (and the equivalent from the Irish Parliament) came into force. The former kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland were both subsumed into the UK from that date. (It should be 1801, not 1922, because while Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922 so far as UK law is concerned, Northern Ireland remained in the UK under the Union of 1801 - so while the boundaries of the state changed in 1922 and its name caught up in 1927, its legal identity did not.) I would suggest '1707' be replaced with '1801' on this basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.127.199 ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I've marked as dubious a list of things the monarch does in the realms. She doesn't actually make decisions on or do any of them. They are done in her name by others and decided by others. DrKay ( talk) 17:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Please update all the maps in these categories: [6] and [7] to reflect that Barbados is now a republic within the Commonwealth. Peter Ormond 💬 05:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
What about the theoretical possibility that a sovereign state could have Elizabeth II as monarch without being in the Commonwealth? Like a modern King of Hanover.
jnestorius( talk) 15:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The royal title for St Kitts and Nevis has been changed from the usual form, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of [...] and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth" to a shorter form. I reverted that, but it has been restored - citing an election notice issued by the Governor-General of St Kitts. This appears to be taken from Monarchy of Saint Kitts and Nevis#Title, which cites two election notices.
This referencing seems insufficient. The G-G alone can't determine the title and presumably is quoting from a statute made by the National Assembly under the 1983 Constitution (which itself does not contain the title). But I can't find such a statute. If there is none, the G-G may be using a short form conventionally employed—in which case, however, the full title would still be correct here. Errantios ( talk) 01:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This may not be the case in Australia. Not certain about the other realms. GoodDay ( talk) 05:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The list and the map in the list section includes Dominions. The explanation in note 3 is not prominent enough and it should be stated explicitly in the sub-heading and the caption. Otherwise, it's unsourced original research and should be removed. DrKay ( talk) 07:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose to add the following columns to the "Current realms" table:
Like e.g. G7#Member_country_data and BRICS#Member_countries tables have a plenty of columns (though here maybe we don't need some of them).
Moreover, I propose to add photos of the current governor general and prime minister. Grillofrances ( talk) 02:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Commonwealth realm → Commonwealth Realm – Incorrect grammar in current title. EmilySarah99 ( talk) 07:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
In the section “relationship of the realms”:
…there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate, or even whether personal union is applicable at all.
I'm not sure that the source says what this summary claims it does: the sentence in question is “[the Commonwealth] is no longer a federation, nor a military alliance, nor a personal union, as it now includes republics”, which I read as applying to the Commonwealth as a whole. That is, the Commonwealth as a whole cannot be a personal union because it contains republics, but that does not mean that the monarchies in the Commonwealth are not in personal union with one another. aaltotoukka ( talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
BTW - Though there's an off-wiki source provided. It might be helpful to add a footnote, explaining why the United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general. GoodDay ( talk) 21:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
We'll just let the readers figure it out for themselves, I guess. GoodDay ( talk) 23:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The number of these is long enough that they're a bit of a laundry list, and I think might be clearer with some geographical structure. An extra section doing that might be useful, but currently I'm leaning towards just adding a "region" field -- "Europe", "Oceania", "Caribbean", etc -- to the main table of them. Any thoughts either -- or indeed some other -- way? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 23:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
More concretely: as the governor-generals are only even discussed in a much later section, what say we split the table into two parts? The "geographical" stuff where the existing table is, and the "political" where the GG explanation puts it in proper context? 109.etc ( talk) 05:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
What do you think about introducing additional columns into the table in the Current realms section? I mean the following:
Moreover, for population/ area/ GDP, I'd like to have a total row showing the sum for all the realms alongside with percentage of the global population/ area/ GDP. Grillofrances ( talk) 19:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
What do you think about modifying the map showing the realms to include every realm name, possibly also with the flag?
I mean, for large countries to place such details within a given country territory while for small ones to have an arrow linking details with the territory.
Then, we could see in one place the location of every realm. Grillofrances ( talk) 19:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I’ve added the above back into the lede; so important. It’s currently discussed as if the term was a real, formal legal term. It isn’t. This explanation restores what was in the lede for many years. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 10:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Rhodesia was never a Commonwealth Realm. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=†>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=†}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Currently there is a lot of instability, reverting, ramming through new content without consensus, and insertion of verifiability tags which are all clear indications of a lack of consensus. As a result, the last stable version should remain (there is no deadlines here) until all parties involved can arrive at a suitable consensus. At this point, it is not exactly clear to me what the issues are but I can attempt a list. Regardless, policy is clear that the last stable version (status quo) remains in place until a consensus can be established at the Talk (i.e. here).
As I see it, there are two major issues that new editors are taking issues with (feel free to add/correct):
A. An apparent need to render clear that this is not a legal topic. However, my perception is that this is not the actual issue, instead the actual issue being that this topic was initially created based on editorial whim (i.e. this topic was created by Wikipedia editors, as opposed to documenting an already existing topic (i.e. this topic was not encyclopedic at time of creation).
B. The need to "slim down" (i.e. simplify) the article, but for the purposes of scope for this section here, we are only concerned with simplifying the lead.
The last stable version of the lede is : "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch and head of state. Each realm functions as an independent co-equal kingdom from the other realms."
For point A, I would offer that no legal topic disclaimer is needed as the article does not purport itself to be one, and if we were to put such a disclaimer in all non-legal topic articles this would affect millions of articles. For example, the word "country" and "head of state" are not legal terms either (in the two sources listing legal terms I linked to in its section above) but we clearly do not need such a disclaimer there, and the same logic applies here.
For point B, I agree. trackratte ( talk) 13:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
As an involved editor I would like to motion closure on this point as, regardless of the applicable points brought forward above, it is clear that there is no consensus for this change (the insertion of a 'legal term disclaimer'). While debate may obviously continue, it appears to me that we have reached the point in talking in circles and where perhaps our collective efforts are better placed on moving on towards tackling Point B (simplification of the lede). trackratte ( talk) 12:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Last stable version: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state [1] in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch and head of state. Each realm functions as an independent co-equal kingdom from the other realms." [1] Together with associated states and dependencies.
By way of kicking off this section, I would offer the following points:
1. A definition must be verifiable. Given the challenges that have occurred here, I believe that one or more references to this definition are now required. Someone has mentioned above that the official commonwealth site, or the official UK Monarchy site defines the term, as a result I suggest that the ref be inserted and the lede be adjusted accordingly (i.e. be either exact or nearly so since we are defining a term here when we say 'A Commonwealth Realm is...') to avoid OR. EDIT: not saying that references must be cited in the lead sentence, that's a separate issue, merely that sources must be used to generate the content (i.e. verifiability).
2. "in which QEII is the...monarch and head of state". The term "head of state" is included within the definition of monarch and is therefore superfluous (Monarch: "a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor"). Therefore, in the interests of simplifying the lede I suggest that "and head of state" be removed. A bluelink can be provided for "monarch" to any reader wishing to explore that term further.
3. "reigning constitutional monarch". If she is the monarch then she is reigning (i.e. we would not mention her if she were not, and it would be illogical to have a 'QEII is the unreigning monarch') so once again "currently reigning" seems redundant. Further, given the topic and the wider area in which it is nested in, "constitutional" is likely a bit extraneous as well given that there are no, and never have been, any absolute monarchs within the Commonwealth. Given this is a fairly niche sub-topic, I cannot see how one could read this article without understanding that the UK, Canada, Australia, etc are democracies (i.e. are not totalitarian dictatorships).
4. The footnote attached to "sovereign state" seems overly pedantic for the lede sentence and to me seems extraneous here as it is a given that a "sovereign state" includes all of its 'holdings'. If such fine-grained nuance is required, it is best placed further are in the article body and not in the very first sentence.
5. The second sentence, while I understand its importance, is somewhat redundant in the sense that "sovereign state" is included in the definition in the first sentence, so a sovereign state, by definition, is an "independent co-equal" with other states.
6. This addresses, I believe, all of the issues brought forth in points 1-5 above. Further, keep in mind that I am intentionally just trying to speak to the first one or two sentences here so we can resolve that before moving on to the rest of the lede for practical purposes to facilitate discussion. trackratte ( talk) 12:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The above are the more reliable sources that have been presented in the discussions so far. Regarding the composition, some are ambiguous, some explicitly include the UK, and some explicitly don't include the UK. (Different pages on commonwealthofnations.org do both.) None comment on legality, although one notes it is formal and mostly obsolete. CMD ( talk) 16:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
A couple of extracts from UK statutes conferring indepdence that don’t include the supposedly official “Commonwealth realm” term still refer to dominions:
Solomon Islands Act 1978 - “On and after 7th July 1978 (“Independence Day”) the territories which immediately before that day are comprised in the Solomon Islands protectorate shall together form part of Her Majesty’s dominions under the name of Solomon Islands; and on and after that day Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of those territories.”
Ghana Indepdence Act 1957 - “The territories included immediately before the appointed day in the Gold Coast ... shall as from that day together form part of Her Majesty's dominions under the name of Ghana...”
Frenchmalawi ( talk) 18:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Under United Kingdom law the expression ‘His/Her Majesty’s dominions’ means “all territories which ‘belong to’ the Crown or are in the ‘ownership’ of the Crown”. [3] There is rarely any doubt under United Kingdom law, assuming the facts are established, whether a territory is within His Majesty’s dominions. [4] It is necessary to show only that title is vested in the Crown. [5] There have been occasional cases where the kind of title that the Crown had raised doubts about whether the territory in question formed part of His Majesty’s dominions. Such cases include certain lands leased to the United Kingdom in the region of Hong Kong, certain lands leased in Wei hai wei and Cyprus. [6] Until the Solomon Islands Act 1978, the territory comprising the Solomon Islands was not part of Her Majesty’s dominions. Are you disagreeing with me on that? In other words, Her Majesty did not ‘own’ or have ‘title’ to that territory. Do you disagree with me on that? It was the Solomon Islands Act 1978 - an Act of the United Kingdom parliament on which the people of Solomon Islands had no say [though they may very well have been perfectly happy with its terms] - that changed the status of the territory comprising the Solomon Islands to territory that formed part of Her Majesty’s dominions. It annexed the territory to Her Majesty’s dominions. Beforehand, Solomon Islands was merely a United Kingdom protectorate, not territory over which Her Majesty exercised sovereignty. Do you disagree with any of that? We are discussing the nature of the term “Commonwealth realm” which in your comments you have claimed is “a class of Commonwealth member states”. Of course, no constitution, no law, nothing anywhere officially categorieses any state whatsoever as a “Commonwealth realm”. That is not the case with respect to dominions. All of the supposed “Commonwealth realms” form part of Her Majesty’s dominions. That is and remains the legal position. The Solomon Islands Act is a very good illustration of that fact. While the principal purpose of the statute was undoubteldy to confer what’s generally described as ‘indepedence’ on Solomon Islands, in order to do so, the United Kingdom needed to first annex the territory to the Crown. Without having done so, the United Kingdom itself could not confer on the new government of the territory concerned sovereignty over the territory in question. The new government would need to look to others. Please let me know what you disagree with in any of this.
Frenchmalawi ( talk) 02:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Universally, territories under the Crown are “Her Majesty’s dominions”. In most of the indepdendence statutes, there was actually no need to provide as much. That’ because the territories concerned were already within “Her Majesty’s dominions”. For example, Barbados or Jamaica. In the case of Solomon Islands, the territory needed two be annexed to the Crown in order, in short, for good title to be conferred on its government. The point about the Solomon Islands statute is that it illustrates the extreme limitations of this so called “Commonwealth realm” concept that is bandied about on Wikipedia as if it had a formal meaning. The Solomon Islands Act was the last example that I have identified of the UK annexing territory to the Crown. As before, there could be another later one that I haven’t identified. In any event, it was done DECADES after ‘Commonwealth realms’ are supposed to have come into being but the UK didn’t, in the SI Act, purport to create a new ‘realm’, nevermind a ‘Commonwealth realm’.
Anyway, the point I think that gave rise to our immediate current exchanges is that you’d claimed that the term ‘dominion’ was obsolete when it very clearly is not obsolete. And I’ve provided an example of how it is not obsolete and in the article we ought to be explaining that any territory that is a supposed ‘Commonwealth realm’ (yes I can’t hide my disdain for this term that has no legal meaning) is part of ‘Her Majesty’s dominions’. And, indeed, all the complexity of explaining that.... Essential reallly to debunk the illusion that even you were under as to dominions being a term that’s obsolete etc. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 02:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Errantius. The point is simple. The article ought to explain that all of these so called realms are part of Her Majesty’s dominons. Do you disagree with that. Hi Qexigator. Are you suggesting that the term Her Majesty’s dominions no longer forms part of United Kingdom law? I’ve had this out with Errantius (above in the chain) so my view that it is not is already explaied. If you agree with me that it is still part of the law, ought this not to be explained in an article concerned with countries that form part of Her Majesty’s dominions? Frenchmalawi ( talk) 12:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The current article dates the creation of the United Kingdom from 1707, but that's only the creation of Great Britain: the modern UK dates from 1 January 1801, when the Act of Union 1800 (and the equivalent from the Irish Parliament) came into force. The former kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland were both subsumed into the UK from that date. (It should be 1801, not 1922, because while Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922 so far as UK law is concerned, Northern Ireland remained in the UK under the Union of 1801 - so while the boundaries of the state changed in 1922 and its name caught up in 1927, its legal identity did not.) I would suggest '1707' be replaced with '1801' on this basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.127.199 ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I've marked as dubious a list of things the monarch does in the realms. She doesn't actually make decisions on or do any of them. They are done in her name by others and decided by others. DrKay ( talk) 17:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Please update all the maps in these categories: [6] and [7] to reflect that Barbados is now a republic within the Commonwealth. Peter Ormond 💬 05:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
What about the theoretical possibility that a sovereign state could have Elizabeth II as monarch without being in the Commonwealth? Like a modern King of Hanover.
jnestorius( talk) 15:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The royal title for St Kitts and Nevis has been changed from the usual form, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of [...] and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth" to a shorter form. I reverted that, but it has been restored - citing an election notice issued by the Governor-General of St Kitts. This appears to be taken from Monarchy of Saint Kitts and Nevis#Title, which cites two election notices.
This referencing seems insufficient. The G-G alone can't determine the title and presumably is quoting from a statute made by the National Assembly under the 1983 Constitution (which itself does not contain the title). But I can't find such a statute. If there is none, the G-G may be using a short form conventionally employed—in which case, however, the full title would still be correct here. Errantios ( talk) 01:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This may not be the case in Australia. Not certain about the other realms. GoodDay ( talk) 05:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The list and the map in the list section includes Dominions. The explanation in note 3 is not prominent enough and it should be stated explicitly in the sub-heading and the caption. Otherwise, it's unsourced original research and should be removed. DrKay ( talk) 07:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose to add the following columns to the "Current realms" table:
Like e.g. G7#Member_country_data and BRICS#Member_countries tables have a plenty of columns (though here maybe we don't need some of them).
Moreover, I propose to add photos of the current governor general and prime minister. Grillofrances ( talk) 02:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Commonwealth realm → Commonwealth Realm – Incorrect grammar in current title. EmilySarah99 ( talk) 07:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
In the section “relationship of the realms”:
…there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate, or even whether personal union is applicable at all.
I'm not sure that the source says what this summary claims it does: the sentence in question is “[the Commonwealth] is no longer a federation, nor a military alliance, nor a personal union, as it now includes republics”, which I read as applying to the Commonwealth as a whole. That is, the Commonwealth as a whole cannot be a personal union because it contains republics, but that does not mean that the monarchies in the Commonwealth are not in personal union with one another. aaltotoukka ( talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
BTW - Though there's an off-wiki source provided. It might be helpful to add a footnote, explaining why the United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general. GoodDay ( talk) 21:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
We'll just let the readers figure it out for themselves, I guess. GoodDay ( talk) 23:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The number of these is long enough that they're a bit of a laundry list, and I think might be clearer with some geographical structure. An extra section doing that might be useful, but currently I'm leaning towards just adding a "region" field -- "Europe", "Oceania", "Caribbean", etc -- to the main table of them. Any thoughts either -- or indeed some other -- way? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 23:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
More concretely: as the governor-generals are only even discussed in a much later section, what say we split the table into two parts? The "geographical" stuff where the existing table is, and the "political" where the GG explanation puts it in proper context? 109.etc ( talk) 05:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
What do you think about introducing additional columns into the table in the Current realms section? I mean the following:
Moreover, for population/ area/ GDP, I'd like to have a total row showing the sum for all the realms alongside with percentage of the global population/ area/ GDP. Grillofrances ( talk) 19:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
What do you think about modifying the map showing the realms to include every realm name, possibly also with the flag?
I mean, for large countries to place such details within a given country territory while for small ones to have an arrow linking details with the territory.
Then, we could see in one place the location of every realm. Grillofrances ( talk) 19:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I’ve added the above back into the lede; so important. It’s currently discussed as if the term was a real, formal legal term. It isn’t. This explanation restores what was in the lede for many years. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 10:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Rhodesia was never a Commonwealth Realm. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=†>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=†}}
template (see the
help page).