Talk:Commonwealth realm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LJ Holden (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 7 January 2007 (→‎"Commonwealth Realm" is not a bona-fide term, its a euphemism for Dominion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The "Realm of New Zealand" is not an offical name

AVD - how about the Realm of New Zealand? Let me guess, that term is wrong because you say it is? --Lholden 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah - that one did slip my mind. --gbambino 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html

New Zealand CIA Factbook Entry

long form name: none

short form name: New Zealand


Sorry, LHolden and gbambino, you are both wrong.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA Factbook also claims that the Governor General is Canada's head of state, so I wouldn't count on it as a definitive source. That said, a) Lewis will know better than I what the official name of New Zealand is, and b) this isn't really the place for this discussion. --gbambino 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No "Lewis" does not know better. Additionally, you and "Lewis" entered into this topic. You opened "Pandora's Box", so don't bitch about what comes out eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Realm of New Zealand is the official name for the territory in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. New Zealand is only one nation in the Realm. New Zealand its self does not have a long name Brian | (Talk) 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is the Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependencies.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we've just had this debate on the Dominion of New Zealand talkpage. New Zealand no longer is a Dominion. (see talk page) Brian | (Talk) 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Realm of New Zealand is the territory in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. The Realm comprises New Zealand, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency, and the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue. The legal basis for the name "Realm of New Zealand" comes from:

  • The Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General 1983 uses the term "Realm of New Zealand";
  • The 11 February 1952 Accession Proclamation of Queen Elizabeth II proclaims Her Majesty as sovereign of "...this realm";
  • The Royal Titles Act 1953 proclaimed Her Majesty as "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Her Other "Realms and Territories"; and
  • With the passage of the Royal Titles Act 1974 Queen Elizabeth II's royal title in New Zealand has been “Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her other "Realms and Territories", Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
  • In any New Zealand passports issued post 1978 (after the Citizenship Act 1977) the phrase "The Governor-General in the "Realm of New Zealand" has been used.
  • Section 5(2) Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 refers to “realm”
  • The Interpretation Act says "New Zealand" or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the "Realm of New Zealand"; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency.”

This is just summary of proof that we have dropped dominion, and Realm is the offical name used, and that "New Zealand" as a whole does not have a full name, New Zealand is only one nation in the Realm. Brian | (Talk) 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your above statement,
"have dropped dominion, and Realm is the offical name used"
What this really means is that the successive Governments of New Zealand have chosen to not use the long form name of the Dominion of New Zealand. To re-emphasize we are only talkng about USAGE, and not what the long form name actual is (i.e., it is in fact Dominion of New Zealand).
Bluntly put, the long form name of the Dominion of New Zealand was adopted on Sept. 9, 1907, and offically came into force on Sept. 26, 1907, via a Royal Proclamation. The only way to undo that is via another Act of Parliament (and then perhaps to announce it via a second Royal Proclamation). Barring that, you folkes could write a Royal Letters Patent declaring New Zealand being called the People's Republic of In-bread Sheep-Shaggers, and it still would be called in LAW by the long form name of the Dominion of New Zealand.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand was never repealed

Proclamation Declaring that the Colony of New Zealand shall be called and known by the title of the Dominion of New Zealand. London, September 9, 1907.

(Source: The London Gazette, Numb. 28058., p.6149, Tuesday, September 10, 1907)

By the KING.

A PROCLAMATION

Declaring that the Colony of New Zealand shall be called and known by the title of the Dominion of New Zealand.

EDWARD R.& I.

Whereas We have on the Petition of the Members of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of Our Colony of New Zealand determined that the title of Dominion of New Zealand shall be substituted for that of the Colony of New Zealand as the designation of the said Colony, We have therefore by and with the advice of Our Privy Council thought fit to issue this Our Royal Proclamation and We do ordain, declare and command that on and after the twenty-sixth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and seven, the said Colony of New Zealand and the territory belonging thereto shall be called and known by the title of the Dominion of New Zealand. And We hereby give Our Commands to all Public Departments accordingly.

Given at Our Court at Buckingham Place, this ninth day of September, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven, and in the seventh year of Our Regin.

GOD save the KING.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of countries

The United Nations periodically publishes a "terminology bulletin" containing "country names" as well as official lists of treaties and the Member States who have signed them. The listing of country names includes the "long form" and "short form" name for each country. Sometimes, the two are identical.

According to this official source, the long form name of Canada is simply "Canada", and the long form name of New Zealand is simply "New Zealand." No other words of any kind. I thought this might be of interest to the readership here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No. The long form name of both Canada and New Zealand is listed as none. The word none is ambigious. The short form names are of course Canada and New Zealand, respectively.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both entries of which proves nothing.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess nothing will convince you, but these are the official names that the government of each country wants used for the most formal official purposes. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will observe again that the official names of various countries have nothing to do with this article, so there is no point to any of us discussing it here, whatever our views on the matter. JPD (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I only mentioned the use of "Realm of New Zealand" in New Zealand. This is not simply a question of usage, as Brian sets out above, it is also the legal reality. AVD will no doubt disagree and make some offensive remarks about New Zealand, but that does not change the reality that by Royal Proclamation of 1952, New Zealand's long-form name is either simply New Zealand or the Realm of New Zealand. Either way, as JPD states above, it doesn't change anything about this article really, aside from refuting AVD's assertion that no country uses the term 'realm' in its long-form name. --Lholden 07:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


LHolden your above statement,
"by Royal Proclamation of 1952, New Zealand's long-form name is either simply New Zealand or the Realm of New Zealand."
does not follow. The Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 does NOT explictly abolish the term Dominion (or Dominion Status). The word Realm was inserted to take the place of the term British Dominion's across the Seas. The word Realm is a non-specific generic term, denoting any country that has a Monarch as a (figure) Head-of-State.


References
[1]. F.R. Scott, "The End of Dominion Status", The Canadian Bar Review, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp.725-744, November, (1945).
[2]. W.D. McIntyre, "The Strange Death of Dominion Status", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol.27, No.2, pp.193-212, (1999).
[3]. J.A. Dabbs, Dei Gratia in Royal Titles, Mouton and Co., The Hague, Netherlands, pp.280, (1971).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Realm of New Zealand" exists, it is the official name for the territory in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. New Zealand is only one nation in the Realm. The realm also includes Tokelau and the Ross Dependency, and the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue.
Even the royal offical website recognises the term [1]
as lewis has said it doesn't change anything about this article really, aside from refuting AVD's assertion that no country uses the term 'realm' in its long-form name. Brian | (Talk) 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Brian, the long form name for the whole shah-bang is,

Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependencies

where the dependencies (of the Dominion of New Zealand) have the following designations,

Associated State of the Cook Islands,

Associated State of Niue,

Ross Dependency,

Territory of Tokelau.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no:

Brian | (Talk) 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Royal Letters Patent can not over-rule an Act of Parliament (or a Royal Proclamation). The original names are still in legal force regardless of the Royal Letters Patent issued by the Government of New Zealand.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did actually get the above wrong; technically New Zealand's long-form name isn't the "Realm of New Zealand"; as Brian states above the "Realm of New Zealand" is a different entity from New Zealand proper; which is a part of the realm.
Secondly, the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 AVD quotes is the relevant Act of the Parliament of the UK; however the Act relevant to New Zealand is the Royal Titles Act 1953 (and the later 1974 Act), which as Brian noted above uses the term "Realm"; this supported the 1952 Royal Proclamation.
Anyway, none of this changes the article in question. What it does show is that the term "Commonwealth Realms" might not be the most accurate term, but it is certainly a verifiable term - otherwise, the Queen's website would be wrong... --Lholden 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LHolden, I assume that you are refering to this speech.

http://www.gg.govt.nz/media/speeches.asp?type=constitutional&ID=229

This "piece-of-dribble" spouted by your (ex-)Governor-General does not a legal precedent make. It is only their bloody OPINION, nothing more, nothing less. Oi.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so learned articles, professors, government, even HE the Governor-General's office, are wrong are they? Brian | (Talk) 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, read carefully what the articles actually say, before you pass judgement.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly AVD, I've read most of the key constitutional law books in question (mainly Philip Joseph, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand); secondly our former Governor-General was a Judge of our High Court, hence she knows constitutional law better than you or I; Third even if we accept your claim that a statute and Letters Patent doesn't over rule a Proclamation (Which in my view is incorrect- statute law is supreme because of Parliamentary sovereignty, refer Dicey; thus a proclamation can be impliedly repealed by statute) then what of the 1952 Proclamation of QEII's accession to the throne, which uses the term "realm"? Is that incorrect as well? --Lholden 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LHolden, please brush up on your legal terms. An Act of Parliament is a statute. A Letters Patent is not a statute. Parliamentary Sovereignty ONLY applies to a statute. If you are going to make a Constitutional Law arguement, please do me the courtesy of getting your terms right eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry AVD, you've got your wires crossed here. Parliamentary sovereignty means that statute law is supreme. I didn't say that Parliamentary sovereignty applied equally to Letters Patent (i.e. that statute and letters patent are supreme); the point is that a statute is supreme law; supreme to Letters Patent and Proclamations. It follows therefore that your claim that the 1907 proclamation is still in force is incorrect; ipso facto New Zealand's long-form name is not the Dominion of New Zealand. --Lholden 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Letters Patent are not a statute (i.e., Parliamentary Sovereignty ONLY applies to statutes). Please look up the legal definition of a statute. Get back to me when you get your legal terms straight there bub.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVD, I didn't say that letters patent are statutes. I was answering your claim that a Letters Patent and a statute (which is what we have here - the Letters Patent 1983 using the term "realm" and the Royal Titles Act 1953) do not repeal the proclamation of 1907. --Lholden 09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LHolden, I said that a Letters Patent can NOT over-rule an Act of Parliament (i.e., a statute) or a Proclamation. The ONLY tdocumen that mentions the Realm of New Zealand is the Letters Patent of 1983. NOTHING ELSE. Therefore the Proclamation of 1907 that declared the Dominion of New Zealand is still in legal force.

Additionally, try as you might, the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 does NOT change the long form name of the Dominion of New Zealand to the Realm of New Zealand. In no way, shape, or form does it do this. Not even close eh! Nice try, but no cigar.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 09:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I posted above? "Realm of New Zealand" in not just mentioned in the Letters Patent. It is a real term, perhaps you need to brush up on your knowledge of New Zealand Brian | (Talk) 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. The issue isn't whether a Letters Patent can overrule an Act of Parliament or not. The issue is that the Proclamation can be overruled by an Act of Parliament (i.e. the 1953 one, which is in itself derived from the Proclamation of 1952). The 1983 Letters Patent confirms this change. A statute does not need to explicitly state what it repeals, by the doctrine of implied repeal - that is, the use of the term "realm" instead of "dominion" - the proclamation of 1907 was impliedly repealed in 1952, then in statute (supreme to both Proclamation and Letters Patent) and confirmed again in 1983. --Lholden 09:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Double-Yawn". The use of the word Realm instead of British Dominions across the Seas does NOT change any long form name of ANY country. Your assertion that the Proclamation of 1907 has been implied repealed via the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 illustrates a complete ignorance of the legislative process.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 10:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, that's the UK statute... I'm talking about the New Zealand Royal Titles Act 1953; in any case that Act was based on a Proclamation itself using the term realm. The doctrine of implied repeal is pretty clear, given that the term "Realm of New Zealand" appears in the Letters Patent of 1983, the 1907 proclamation has clearly been impliedly repealed.--Lholden 10:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LHolden, PLEASE READ the New Zealand Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, and carefully EXAMINE its PRECISE WORDING eh,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_Zealand

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

— Royal Titles Act 1953 (NZ), s 2; Royal Titles Proclamation (1953) II New Zealand Gazette 851


Therefore, via this "lovely" New Zealand notion of the "Doctrine of Implied Repeal" we would have not only long form name the so-called Realm of New Zealand, one would also have the long form name of the Realm of the United Kingdom.

Since this legal interpretation would create the ABSURD term of the Realm of the United Kingdom, then the term Realm of the New Zealand is equally IN-VALID.

The ONLY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION is the the shorter terms of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Realm were inserted for BRIEVITY (i.e., to DUMB-DOWN the wording, nothing more!) in the place of the longer terms the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Dominion of New Zealand,and the British Dominions across the Seas.

Blunty put, NO EXPLICIT NAME CHANGES of the COUNTRIES CONCERNED are contained within theNew Zealand Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

AVD - firstly, the title of the Act in question, repealed in 1974, is the Royal Titles Act 1953. Secondly, I never said the New Zealand Act applied to the United Kingdom. Logically, it doesn't. Hence your claim that because the title doesn't apply to the UK it cannot also apply to New Zealand is incorrect.
If you read what I said above, which I suspect you haven't, you'll see that the doctrine of implied repeal (which is a well settled doctrine in common law countries, it's not simply a New Zealand invention) follows because of the 1952 proclamation, the 1953 Act, and the 1983 Letters Patent. This is not simply my view, it's also the view of the learned law professor Philip A Joseph.
Finally, your argument that the use of "Realm" instead of "Dominion" is a dumbing-down of the use of the term is incorrect. As Brian notes below, the reason for the use of "realm" in place of "dominion" is because of the 1947 adoption in New Zealand of the Statute of Westminster 1931, clearly the intention was to emphasise New Zealand's greater independence from the UK. For example, New Zealand's armed forces became legally distinct for those of the United Kingdom. --Lholden 07:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LHolden, the bottom line is to over-rule the Royal Proclamation of 1907 you need a Statute (i.e., an Act of Parliament). You have not been able to produce ONE STATUTE that explicitly re-defines the long form name of the country as the Realm of New Zealand. NOT ONE STATUTE. Until you can pull that out of your ass, the Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand is still in legal force. The Letters Patent of 1983 defines the USAGE of the term Realm of New Zealand, but does not CHANGE to legal name from Dominion of New Zealand, to Realm of New Zealand. As much as you would like this to be so, legally it is not so. I challenge you to bring someone knowledgable about the workings of the LAW into this discussion as you seem to me to be incapable of grasping certain "legal mechanics" as it pertains to the long form names of countries. Whether you are being willfully ignorant and inane, or you just can not fathom these concepts, I find me-self "talking-to-a-brick", with regards to you.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could do without the personal abuse thanks AVD. Brian and myself have quoted a number of learned academics and others in this debate. I find it strange that, after quoting a learned professor of constitutional law, a former Governor-General who was also a High Court judge, and all the relevant enactments Brian and I are both still wrong, whereas your position that the doctrine of implied repeal doesn't apply and the 1907 proclamation is still in legal force is correct. Following your argument, if the Letters Patent defines the use of the term "Realm of New Zealand", then New Zealand's long-form name is still the "Dominion of New Zealand"? With respect, that is an absurd reading of the law and in my view your comment as to my legal abilities really applies to yourself. As I have stated above, the doctrine of implied repeal applies in this instance. The ratification of the Statute of Westminster 1947 began a process confirmed by the Letters Patent 1983 that New Zealand's long-form name is the Realm of New Zealand. This was confirmed by the Proclamation of 1952, the Royal Titles Act of 1953, the Interpretation Act and the Letters Patent. Sorry AVD, the legal weight falls to the Realm of New Zealand being our long-form name. --Lholden 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


LHolden, you wrote above,

"Sorry AVD, the legal weight falls to the Realm of New Zealand being our long-form name"


Really, so how about this then eh,

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html

New Zealand CIA Factbook Entry

long form name: none

short form name: New Zealand


If so, then why is Realm of New Zealand NOT listed as the long form name of New Zealand on the CIA factbook website?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the CIA *gasp* is wrong? More importantly, why is Philip A Joseph wrong? --Lholden 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the CIA is wrong, perhaps. I don't think so though. The original Dominions had the long form names the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Dominion of Newfoundland, the Union of South Africa, the Dominion of India, and the Dominion of Pakistan. The later three Dominions subsequently became Republics. The Dominion of Newfoundland of acceded to Dominion of Canada in 1949. The Commonwealth of Australia still uses its long form name as it was written into its constitution. Canada had its long form name (i.e., the Dominion of Canada) first explicitly mentioned in the first amendment of the BNA Act, (i.e., British North America 1871). New Zealand had its long form name (i.e., the Dominion of New Zealand) offically conferred in the Royal Proclamation of 1907.
With regard to Dr. Philip A. Joseph, why don't you send him in here to Wikipedia so he can answer that question himself?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the leading texts on New Zealand constitutional law says that:

The New Zealand Official Yearbook states that:

Brian | (Talk) 10:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

With all due respect to all concerned, this argument does not seem to have anything to do with the content of the article. Could you all please either wind it up or take it offline or to some other more appropriate place. Or, since AVD is the driver here, if he really thinks this discussion belongs here, could he please submit an actual proposal for text he would like to change or insert, so that there is something relevant that we can debate. Thanks. --Chris Bennett 20:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe that the title of this article Commonwealth Realm should be changed to a Queens' Realm within the Commonwealth . How is that for a suggestion then eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find a cited use of the term and it might be considerable for a mention within this article. Otherwise, it's simply original research. --gbambino 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AVD, if I correctly understand your objection to the current title of the article, it is that you believe the term Commonwealth Realm has no statutory basis. Accepting, purely for the sake of argument, that this objection is both factually correct and relevant, what is the statutory basis for your proposed replacement? Also, the phrase suggests that there is a Queens' Realm that is not within the Commonwealth. What is it? --Chris Bennett 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


William Crampton, Flags of the World, Dorset Press, New York, USA, pp.160, (1990).

p.12, Antigua and Barbuda, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 1 Novemeber 1981,

p.13, Commonwealth of Australia, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 1 January 1901,

p.15, Commonwealth of The Bahamas, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 10 July 1973,

p.17, Barbados, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 30 November 1966,

p.18, Belize, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 21 September 1981,

p.24, Canada, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 1 July 1867,

p.48, Grenada, a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth established 2 February 1974,

p.58, Jamaica, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 6 August 1962,

p.74, New Zealand, established as a Dominion 26 September 1907,

p.79, Papua New Guinea, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 16 September 1975,

p.84, St. Christopher-Nevis, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 19 September 1983,

p.84, Saint Lucia, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 22 February 1979,

p.85, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 27 October 1979,

p.89, Solomon Islands, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 7 July 1978,

p.98, Tuvalu, established as a Queens' Realm of the Commonwealth 1 October 1978,

p.101, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason we should prefer this evidence to, say, Hansard is what? Does Crampton cite an Act of Parliament, or a Royal Proclamation, or any other statutory (or authoritative) source comparable to those that you have yourself cited in this debate for this usage? Or, indeed, any source at all? All I see here is evidence that a pithy phrase such as Commonwealth Realm is actually needed.
Also, you didn't address my other question: What Queen's realm is not of the Commonwealth? --Chris Bennett 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Chris. It seems strange to me that after putting across a terse case based on constitutional law, AVD now cites Crampton as proof of an alternative (and in my view unduly complex) name for the article. As Chris states, the name Commonwealth Realm seems to be the most pithy in this instance.
Oh, and BTW AVD - why don't you get Mr Crampton to come here and confirm what he said to be correct? If it's good enough for Prof Joseph, it should be good enough for Crampton ;-)
--Lholden 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well guys, it comes down to this, I have debated here in good faith. You can look at the information that I have provided and think it over. What you do with what I have said is up to you. Food-for-thought, if this was a courtroom or a lecture hall in academia, I would of been more motivated to take both of you "to-the-carpet" piece by piece.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


That last comment shows that you weren't really debating in good faith. Your other offensive remarks against myself and to my country also confirm a lack of good faith. Moreover, the lack of any point to the debate, other than proving some esoteric point. It was not until Crampton was quoted that we actually heard exactly what it was you wanted the article renamed as. With respect, your efforts in researching this point were really wasted because of this. --Lholden 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I take AVD's last comment to mean that he does not wish to pursue this debate any further. Perhaps, as he suggests, we can all chew over his comments offline as we see fit, and consider the matter closed. --Chris Bennett 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Referendum

Normally I wouldn't feel the need to justify a fairly minor reworking of two sentences, but given the heat this article has generated to date... I felt the original bald statement "A referendum held in 1999 was defeated" was rather misleading, even allowing for the qualification that "republicans felt...". In context, the sentence implied (to me) that the proposal was for a republic, which is was not. It was a proposal for a particular model of republic. The misinterpretation was not greatly relieved by the "clarification" so I reworked the section accordingly.FrankDynan 16:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Commonwealth Realm" is not a bona-fide term, its a euphemism for Dominion

This article in my opinion is highly suspect, and misleading (e.g., for the primary and high school students who come here). The phrase "Commonwealth Realm" is not a bona-fide term, its just a euphemism for Dominion. I know this an old arguement between me and other Wikipedians, but I feel a caveat about the euphimism-type nature of the "Commonwealth Realm" phrase should be added to this Wikipedia article. Just added for your consideration.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would the wording of the proposed caveat be? --Lholden 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm&oldid=99155088"