Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 12

Powers of the Monarch
I agree with the last reversion, because I think there is no reason to make any allusion to the monarch's powers in the intro. But the Monarch does not have all the power, which she delegates. Rather, in Westminster tradition authority is held by Parliament, of which the Monarch is an integral part.The Queen acts as executive and representative of State. But the executive and head of state does not possess all state power in her own right. See an interesting current discussion about this at Talk:monarchy of Australia.--Gazzster (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II's role in the Commonwealth realms are quite confusing. Her powers are symbolic & yet they're not. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're quite wrong, Gazz (and GoodDay). The entire power and authority of the State is embodied in the monarch; all executive power derives from this person. Almost all of that power and authority (minus the reserve powers, of course) is delegated to and/or through Parliament in all of her realms. That it would be constitutionally impossible in most or all realms for the monarch to take that power back to herself is immaterial; the basis of constitutional monarchy is that the power resides in one person and is delegated to the government of the day for execution. Prince of Canadat 22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is 'constitutionally impossible' for the Queen to exercise absolute power that must mean there is a constitutional restraint on that power. Which means there is a power which is higher than the monarch. An inferior authority cannot 'restrain' a superior one.--Gazzster (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be a restraint, but it does not change where the absolute power lies. Indeed, one could argue that any Act which strips HM of her powers is inherently unconstitutional due to where the powers are vested.  Namely, in her.  Point being.. all power, as I said, resides in the sovereign and is delegated to the government of the day.  This is accepted and established reality, and frankly we are no longer discussing the content of the article so this thread should end. Prince of Canadat 22:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is taken into consideration by the power of the monarch to withhold royal consent to allow the introduction of legislation that affects the crown prerogative powers. Unlike royal assent, this is withheld on a regular basis (e.g. Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill). Bastin 11:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is the Queen can remove from office any of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers or Governors General. But, if she does? the Parliaments can strip her of all powers (including reserves), thus making her like the Swedish monarch. Therefore, she can but she can't. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not an established reality. Parliamentary Sovereignty is the bedrock of the Westminster Tradition. It goes back to Magna Carta, when the chief people of the realm restrained the monarch's power. So even inm 1215 it wasn't true. The Parliaments of James II and William & Mary restrained the monarch's powers and set the conditions by which they could reign (not rule). For a brief time during the reign of Victoria it was a possibility that Parliament might abolish the monarchy, something it could not even consider doing if it had not the power to do so. In 1936 Parliament demanded the abdication of the monarch. Further, it enacted that the monarch could not resign without Parliament's consent. These are all historical facts. I don't know where this idea that the monarch is the sole, unfettered source of Sovereignty comes from. Certainly not from English tradition. Indeed, the idea that the Monarch held in him/herself the plenitude of state power, received directly from God, was first introduced into England by James I. Before him the authority of the feudal monarchy was based on social contract, not divine right. Even Henry VIII, tyrant though he was, would not rule without Parliament. The political theory of Absolutism came from the continent, embodied by such monarchs as Louis XIV of France ('I am the State'). Charles I attempted to make it the first law of state, and the Civil Wars are the best proof that it was alien to the English people.Charles II, though wiser than his wreckless brother James II, secretly conspired with the Sun King to return absolutism to the Kingdom.Some here at Wikipedia seem to think that in theory, the Stuarts were right. I wouldn't suggest anyone is advocating the absolute, direct rule of the monarch. But to say that the Queen does indeed possess the plenitude of power, and delegates it to others, is to say that she could rule directly if she chose. And we can't get out of that by saying that she has absolute power but is constitutionally restrained in it's exercise.For we would find ourselves in a contradiction: If she is 'constitutionally restrained', then she is either restrained by something or someone, or she chooses to restrain herself. If the former, there is a power higher than the Queen, for an inferior power cannot restrain a higher. So she does not possess the fullness of authority.If the latter, the 'constitutional restraint' is no restraint at all. For a Constitution, unwritten or not, is the highest law. But the Queen (so the reasoning goes) cannot be restrained by any law. She would be, in effect, the Constitution herself. You might as well say then, that she is an absolute monarch. --Gazzster (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Monarchs sovereignty is ' titular ' . The monarch cannot make or break law and must act on the ' Advice ' of ' her ' ministers . Since the end of the 17th Century the Monarchy has not been executive ( check the Royal website ) . The monarch is simply the ' personification ' of the State - it is the State that is Sovereign . The Monarch occupies the ' office ' of Head of State with the permission ( assent ) of the Parliament . Lejon (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And if we needed any more evidence that the Queen is not the sole and ultimate source of political authority in the realms, we can refer to explicit statements in some Constitutions, for example:

all power in Solomon Islands belongs to its people and is exercised on their behalf by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary established by this Constitution; ''WE, THE PEOPLE, do now establish this sovereign nation and declare ourselves, under the guiding hand of God, to be the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. AND WE ASSERT, by virtue of that authority that all power belongs to the people—acting through their duly elected representatives'' (preamble) ''Subject to this Constitution, the executive power of the People is vested in the Head of State, to be exercised in accordance with Division V.2 (functions, etc., of the Head of State). (- and not, note, the other way around -Sec 138)--Gazzster (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Constitution of the Solomon Islands:
 * Constitution of Papua New Guinea:

Personal Union (again)
We again have the problem that the words "personal union" have crept into the article, even though it was discussed extensively we compromised on "may be described as analogous to a ...". Corbett and Scott say the Commonwealth relationship is sui generis (i.e. unique) and not a personal union. This is all documented in the first 'Personal Union' section at this talk page. --Lawe (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing has "crept in" anywhere; the solution that was earlier reached was implemented and still stands now. --G2bambino (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something? Which solution has been reached? Does the fact that Corbett and Scott say so trump all our other sources stating the opposite? --Cameron* 08:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What other sources? I believe one difficulty was finding a source that explicitly uses the term 'personal union' in relationship to a realm.--Gazzster (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We are just re-treading old ground here; this has all already been discussed. There are no sources that say the realms are not in personal union: both Scott and Corbett talk about the Commonwealth of Nations, which is not the same as the Commonwealth realms. This argument is moot. --G2bambino (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely we don't need references for something like this. We share a monarch and are thus in personal union!? ;) --Cameron* 17:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a question of inventing a language to describe a realm which the realm itself does not use.--Gazzster (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia describes North Korea as a dictatorship, something I doubt the country calls itself. --G2bambino (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you raise this because of Canada being a closed society? --Lawe (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cameron, Corbett says that the Commonwealth is not a personal union. It is specifically considered and rejected. "those who now find several crowns, or who believe that one crown with diverse aspects amounts to the same thing, must admit other features which did not exist in the classical personal unions." He concludes that: "For these reasons much the wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as something sui generis ... there is no longer any legal entity from the international point of view, any composite legal personality, englobing all the territories of the crown." --Lawe (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You've already been told that this article is not about the Commonwealth. --G2bambino (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! If the article is not about the Commonwealth, then you can reject Scott R. F. as a source because Scott is talking about "the constitutional relations among the nations of the Commonwealth." If only the Commonwealth did not exist, perhaps there would merit in your argument. All personal union commentary is about the Commonwealth. --Lawe (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look again at the title of this article, please. --G2bambino (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

'..any composite legal personality, englobing all the territories of the Crown'. When he speaks of the Commonwealth, he obviously means the nations of the Commonwealth sharing Elizabeth II as monarch.--Gazzster (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources 2
Source 1: 'The Commonwealth in the World' by J.B.D Miller (1958). [The] survey concludes with an attempt to classify the Commonwealth. It is no longer a federation, nor a military alliance, nor a personal union."

Source 2: The Sovereignty of the British Dominions: Law Overtakes Practice W. Y. Elliott The American Political Science Review, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Nov., 1930), pp. 971-989. "If the unity afforded by the Crown were only that of a personal union, such as United England and Scotland under the Stuarys, all subjects who were born owning allegiance to the king would be natural-born British subjects under the doctrine of Calvin's Case." The article goes on to contemplate a personal union: "If a personal union be chosen, the Crown will be forced to act on the king's own discretion [and] since personal discretion is a modern monarch is unthinkable, the only alternative would be a league of states with a common but symbolic crown."

Source 3: Alexander N. Sack, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 88, No. 5 (Mar., 1940), pp. 637-640: "A personal union is a situtation when two (or more) distinct crowns are held by the same individual, there being no association between the particular states themselves. ... "Whatever the future development of the British Commonwealth may be [it] can be described as a that of associations or unions of States, as distinguished from "personal" unions, on the one hand, and federal States, on the other."

Source 4: S. A. de Smith, The Royal Style and Titles, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr., 1953), pp. 263-274: With the gradual demolition of the theory that the Crown is indivisible, the Commonwealth has come to resemble a personal union; but the Queen is not the Queen of India and her status in relation to Pakistan is equivocal. All countries of the Commonwealth are united in recognising her as its Head; but in this capacity [she is not] designated "Queen of the Commonwealth." And it would be wrong to assume that because the Crown has been shown to be divisible it is already wholly divided.... The Commonwealth contains within itself a legal and conventional order that defies analogy ... In the society of nations it remains resolutely unique.

The above commentators all understand how the issue of Personal Union may arise, however there is always an important "but". A personal union did not exist during the British Empire (as there was a united crown). It cannot exist when the Commonwealth of Nation is the form of association. It cannot exist if the monarch does not rule, and the citzens are not subjects of the same Queen/King. Let's face the face up to the reality that Personal Union is not applicable to modern nationhood. The issue has not been even considered for 50 years. --Lawe (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Defies analogy'. Yes, I agree. And the fact that we must consider old, obscure sources to discuss it demonstrates that the term is not in political use.--Gazzster (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only source there that vaguely relates to the subject of this article is 2, but it was published before the Statute of Westminster. It might be useful in the history section of this article, but the rest of the sources belong over at Commonwealth of Nations. --G2bambino (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so keen on using sources eh? These sources are discussing Canada and Australia. So it's clear G2bambino is trying to pretend the Commonwealth does not exist. --Lawe (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you having another imaginary conversation? --G2bambino (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not one of them mention Commonwealth realm. I agree with G2, get them over to Commonwealth of Nations, by all means, but not here. I think pretty much all of us here know the the Commonwealth is not in personal union. They were never any doubts at to that...--Cameron* 08:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But they do, without using the word (which Wikipedia seems to assume has the status of a legal canon, known and used by all right-thinking human beings). When these authors speak of the Commonwealth, they are indeed referring to the nations sharing the Monarch of the UK as their monarch. India and Pakistan is mentioned at a time when there were no republics within the Commonwealth. So of course they are referring to what Wikipedia calls the 'Commonwealth realms'. That much is obvious.--Gazzster (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interpretation contradicts WP:OR and WP:Common. --Cameron* 12:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Why use the term 'Commonwealth realm' at a time when there were no Commonwealth republics?! --Gazzster (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] This is not really a matter of terminology, it's a matter of context. Source 1: Written in 1950, India was already a republic in the Commonwealth. Source 2: Written in 1930, the Statute of Westminster had yet to come into effect. Source 3: Written in 1940, it talks about the future of the Commonwealth. Source 4: Written in 1953, so the same applies as for source 1. None of these sources (save maybe for 2) speak of the subject of this article. --G2bambino (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Source 1 considers personal union as a mean of describing the Commonwealth and I think we can safely assume the author is referring to those nations under George VI. It could not even be considered for a nation like India, which, as you say, was already a republic at the time. Source 2 is, nevertheless, positing the very model of relationship you say say exists now between the realms.And it is commenting that the model is imperfect.Souce 3:the same comment as for source 2. Souce 4:'it would be wrong to assume that because the Crown has been shown to be divisible it is already wholly divided.... The Commonwealth contains within itself a legal and conventional order that defies analogy ... '. I think it is obvious that this phrase is abstracting from the consideration of the Commonwealth as a whole, considering the Crown throughout the realms claiming the UK monarch as their own.


 * Now these sources are not the end of this matter. But they demonstrate that 'personal union' is held to be an imperfect manner of describing the relationship between the Commonwealth monarchies. And they have just as much authority as the vague and unexplicit references for use of 'personal union'.So where does that leave us?--Gazzster (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Gazz, nobody denies you your opinion, but you're making assumptions (and ones I can't even see a base for). None of the sources speak of the Commonwealth's monarchies, just the Commonwealth, whether it be in the future or then present tense. --G2bambino (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So G2bambino is rejecting all sources? If so, we need to accept that there is now no evidence for a personal union. --Lawe (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still having imaginary conversations? --G2bambino (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this boils down to a very simple question: are there any reliable sources which state in more or less the following terms: "the monarchies of the Commonwealth are joined in personal union" without anyone having to resort to interpretation? Conversely, are there any sources which state in more or less the following terms: "the monarchies of the Commonwealth are not joined in personal union"? It appears as though the answers are 'no' and 'yes', respectively.

If that is the case, then the article should only use the term personal union in the lead, with a caveat that while the realms appear to be in personal union as the dictionary defines the term, there are currently no sources which describe the relationship between the realms as personal union in a legal sense. De facto versus de jure, if you like. Prince of Canadat 09:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In the old world, kings inherited multiple kingdoms, hence the need for a term. We are now a world of nations. What happened with the Commonwealth was the division of "crowns", however the historic association and continuing association through the Commonwealth creates an entirely novel and modern arrangement, contradicting the definition. This is a valid objection to even de jure "personal union" which caused me to check sources and then look for and ask for sources. This said, I am more than happy that the article mention personal union once with an appropriate caveat (as I was agreeable to earlier). --Lawe (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're still at the wrong article, Lawe. This belongs at Commonwealth of Nations. --G2bambino (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that without explaining why. Do you have any sources which say, more or less, "the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms are in personal union"? Prince of Canadat 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This 'it's not about the Commonwealth realms;it's about the Commonwealth of Nations' argument? Let's remember that the supposed difference between 'Commonwealth realm' and 'Commonwealth republic' is largely a difference of Wikipedia's own making. As is the significance of the term 'Commonwealth realm', which, as the article states at the beginning, is no more than an informal term. It is we who give the term such importance, not the outside world. Google 'Commonwealth realm' and see how many times our sacred text on the subject is referenced! So it is hardly surprising that sources do not treat of Commonwealth 'monarchies' or 'realms' in particular with respect to the idea of personal union.And no stretch of the imagination or OR at all to see that the souces are talking about personal union between Commonwealth monarchies. And it should otherwise be obvious that the concept of personal union makes no sense in the sense that G2and Cameron think is intended; as Head of the Commonwealth the Queen is not a political head of any of the Commonwealth nations.--Gazzster (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said. This is rapidly getting to the point where an outside, uninvolved, thoroughly neutral opinion is required.  Any objections? Prince of Canadat 23:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with that. Also (for a later day), I was wondering if perhaps this article & Commonwealth republic should be merged as a sister article of Commonwealth of Nations. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Gazz, you see what Cameron and I are saying: the grouping of countries known as the Commonwealth realms is not the same as the grouping of countries known as the Commonwealth of Nations, despite the fact that the former is part of the latter; the Commonwealth realms are one kind of union (personal) within a larger and different type of union (socio-political), the Commonwealth of Nations. As the sources speak about the larger union and not the smaller one, they've nothing to do with this article, save maybe for source 2 in a historical sense. --G2bambino (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try asking again: Do you have any sources which say, more or less, "the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms are in personal union"?Prince of Canadat 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't, no. Wikipedia, however, does. --G2bambino (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? Prince of Canadat 01:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the realms were in personal union, as they have the same person as their Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the dictionary definition, absolutely. Per the sources cited above? Not, apparently. I mean, really explicitly not. Prince of Canadat 01:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, G2, you are ignoring one of the points I made. These sources make no explicit distinction between what we call 'the Commonwealth realms' and the Commonwealth of Nations, because it is our article that places such weight on the distinction, not the real world.So you are ignoring the relevance of the sources on the basis that it does not use the terminolgy we (for the most part) have invented.So if the charge of OR is levelled against anyone, it should be against us, the authors of this article! We should be considering the substance of what is written, rather than dwelling on the pedantry of our own making.'.. it would be wrong to assume that because the Crown has been shown to be divisible it is already wholly divided.... The Commonwealth contains within itself a legal and conventional order that defies analogy'.It's pretty obvious what this text is referring to. It can hardly refer to the Commonwealth of Nations,purely as a free association, which is not governed by the Crown.--Gazzster (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But I am not ignoring anything you are saying, Gazz; I merely think some of it is a bit misguided and/or isn't really pertinent to this discussion. Nobody is leveling charges of OR against the authors of the above quotes, nor is there any need for them to use the exact words "Commonwealth realm(s)" (which they obviously don't). It is the concepts that matter more than what they were, or are now, called; we could dub one "dormankus" and the other "bertrabort" and the point would still be the same: by the time all but one of the sources were written, the Crown had already been "divided" (creating the personal union) and then departed (creating the free association). Unless you want to argue that either India has Elizabeth II as monarch, or that Australia, Canada, Jamaica, etc., don't, then you must accept the fact that there are two entities with distinct characteristics that set them apart, despite one being inside the other: one is a group of countries with the same person as their monarch (a personal union) and the other is a group of countries with association only through culture and history (a... well, that's the legal and conventional order that defies analogy). They are not the same thing, and the sources Lawe gave don't deny that point at all. --G2bambino (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] Gazz, you are still making assumptions about the sources and ascribing to them things that they do not say. I explained already, when put in proper context, the pieces are clearly speaking about the British Commonwealth, either before the Statute of Westminster (when no personal union existed) or after India became a republic (when the Commonwealth ceased to be a personal union). The sentences you just highlighted do not weaken that fact in any way; they make no mention of any governing of the Crown. (I am also suspicious of Lawe's editing; there are apparently chunks of text from the originals that he has excluded here.) That is considering the substance of what is written, and when one does so, it becomes obvious that the words have little to do with the subject of this article. Take these excerpts to Commonwealth of Nations, by all means; they are good and sound sources. But not for this page, they're not. --G2bambino (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OR appears to prevent 'putting in context,' at least to this extent. Please provide the sources which categorically and unambiguously describe the Commonwealth realms (again, a term that is pretty much only used by Wikipedia) as a 'personal union'. Prince of Canadat 01:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well how else should we interpret the comment about the divisibility of the Crown, G2? If the author is not talking about the headship over various Commonwealth countries, what is he talking about? Talking about the Crown being divided in a free, apolitical association of nations makes no sense.And '..any composite legal personality, englobing all the territories of the Crown' is explicit enough.--Gazzster (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We take it exactly as it is written, in its entirety (at least, as Lawe has presented it); not in small segments pulled out and then reassembled alone. The author refers to the theory of an indivisible Crown as predating the formation of the Commonwealth, and its debunking as the first step towards the association's formation. The rest of his piece, as quoted here, then speaks about the contemporary time in which it was written, when the Queen was not Queen of India (note: not a Commonwealth realm in 1953) but was still Head of the Commonwealth; "[a]ll countries of the Commonwealth are united in recognising her as its Head; but in this capacity [she is not] designated "Queen of the Commonwealth." The second mention of the divided/undivided Crown has been suspiciously cut off by Lawe, but can still be taken at its face value in its chronological context: by 1953 the Crown was one crown but was divided legally amongst the realms. It is the structure and premise of the Commonwealth of Nations (a type of association that has never before existed) that the author is saying defies analogy, not the Commonwealth realms within it. --G2bambino (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But, again, 'commonwealth realm' is largely a term that we alone employ. Royal.gov.uk only uses it in terms of differentiating between the different constitutional makeups of the 53 constituent nations; thecommonwealth.org doesn't appear to make the distinction, period. Almost all of the first five pages of Google results are either Wikipedia (in various languages), personal essays, or scrapes of Wikipedia.  I guess I'll try asking again: are there any reliable sources which describe the commonwealth nations that have EIIR as their Queen as being in personal union? And if so, what are they? Prince of Canadat 23:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask? --G2bambino (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because upon consideration, and in the face of superior arguments, I have changed my opinion on the matter. So, again, are there any reliable sources which describe the commonwealth nations that have EIIR as their Queen as being in personal union? And if so, what are they? I freely stipulate that by the dictionary definition, as I said above, the monarchies are in personal union.  However, since several sources explicitly state that they are not, we would need authoritative sources that 'outrank' them in order to use the term. Prince of Canadat 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no sources that explicitly state that they are not. --G2bambino (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would appear that there are. Besides, as I've said to you before, proving a negative is impossible; there are no sources which explicitly state that EIIR does not have a birthmark on her bottom in the shape of Texas.  Does that mean I can add that to her article? Of course it doesn't.  So I'll ask again: are there any reliable sources which describe the commonwealth nations that have EIIR as their Queen as being in personal union? And if so, what are they? Prince of Canadat 23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] Yet, you claim there are sources, somewhere, that prove a negative: the Commonwealth realms are not in personal union. There are no such sources; not here anyway. Your expressed reasoning for reversing from your earlier stance of accepting the sources in the article as supporting the existence of a personal union amongst the Commonwealth realms is thus dissipated, removing any need to answer your question. --G2bambino (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are well-quoted above. You are the one arguing that 'personal union' is the accurate term. Please provide your sources. I'm sure you must have some; why the continued refusal to provide them? Prince of Canadat 23:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are not that well quoted; there are potentially telling chunks missing. But, overall they get the point across; a point that does not challenge the personal union notion supported by the sources in the article which you earlier found sufficient. --G2bambino (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, upon consideration and in the face of a superior argument I have changed my opinion. Again, can you please show us all the sources which support your position? Prince of Canadat 00:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You should obviously reconsider. --G2bambino (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have a chance to, if you would provide some references that support your position. Maybe the ninth time is the charm: can you please show us the sources which support your position that the monarchies of the Commonwealth are in personal union? Prince of Canadat 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've already been given the answer. --G2bambino (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I had been, I wouldn't be asking the question. 10th time: Can you please provide the sources which support your position that the monarchies of the Commonwealth are in personal union? It's no skin off your nose to provide them, and only strengthens your position. Prince of Canadat 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you want to believe it, I'm telling you: you've already been given the answer. --G2bambino (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay then, assume that I missed it. Please provide links to your sources. Providing them again can only support your position. Prince of Canadat 00:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, since after being asked eleven times G2 refuses to provide any sources which bolster his position that 'personal union' is accurately descriptive of the relationship amongst the monarchies of the Commonwealth, I will be making some changes to the article later this evening. Prince of Canadat 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, no? I asked you eleven times to provide your references. You didn't. Therefore you either don't have them or don't care enough to provide them. Either way, there is simply no support for ther term, so I will be removing it from the article. Or would you care to provide your references now? Prince of Canadat 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Remove the term from the article and you remove the sources as well; rather a no-no thing to do around Wikipedia without consensus. --G2bambino (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which sources would I be removing? Would that be the sources you refuse to provide, or the sources in the text which don't actually say what they are claimed to say? Zines requires original research to reach the conclusion; R v. Foreign secretary is mentioned in another court decision (rather than showing the original decision) and the term 'personal union' appears nowhere in the reference or indeed anywhere within the entire case which cites R v. FS; Lalor defines the conditions of 'personal union' which the monarchies of the commonwealth clearly do not meet (representation diplomatically, militarily, as well as combined governments and finances). So could you please provide references which do unambiguously support your position?
 * They were good enough sources for you. --G2bambino (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Were; are no longer. I addressed that already: further thought and a superior argument convinced me I was wrong. Can you please provide your sources? Prince of Canadat 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You addressed it but failed to do the same for your reasoning for the about-face. --G2bambino (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, that is precisely what I addressed. Further thought on the matter made me realize that Gazz et al had provided the superior argument. That is sort of the essence of argument, after all: if someone provides a more compelling argument support by facts, one should change one's mind. Prince of Canadat 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. You've relied only on Gazz's argument as support, and his argument is not sound. --G2bambino (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, uh, I'm not allowed to change my mind based on what I perceive as the superior argument? Prince of Canadat 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was never implied. --G2bambino (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.--Gazzster (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, consensus doesn't seem clear (or am I missing something) and sources are lacking on both sides. --Cameron* 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're right, Cameron: the use of "personal union" in this area has been long-standing, and consensus to abolish it is not clear. I still maintain, though, that this is due to a serious misreading of the sources Lawe provided. --G2bambino (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Long-standing' is not an argument. Provide sources. Prince of Canadat 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So says you. --G2bambino (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No.. so says WP:V. Please provide your sources. Prince of Canadat 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V makes no mention of long-standing. It speaks about the quality of sources, the standard of which those in the article meet. --G2bambino (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also fairly certain that WP:V requires that sources actually support the statements in the text which call on them. Given the number of times you have been asked to provide sources, and your continued refusal, I can only conclude now that there are no sources which support your position, while there are quite clearly sources which state unambiguously that the monarchies of the Commonwealth are not in personal union. Accordingly I shall be removing all the instances of 'personal union' within the article, except for an explanation as I posted above. I've given you something like fourteen chances to support your position, which I think is about as much assumption of good faith on your part as I can make. Prince of Canadat 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources most certainly do support the statement. You were aware of this, so you must still be. --G2bambino (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well no, they actually don't. As I posted above: Zines requires original research to reach the conclusion (please see WP:SYN); R v. Foreign secretary is mentioned in another court decision (rather than showing the original decision) and the term 'personal union' appears nowhere in the reference or indeed anywhere within the entire case which cites R v. FS; Lalor defines the conditions of 'personal union' which the monarchies of the commonwealth clearly do not meet (representation diplomatically, militarily, as well as combined governments and finances). Please focus on the content. Please, also, provide the sources which state that the monarchies of which EIIR is head are in personal union. Prince of Canadat 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote you directly: "1) if you are going to replace with another term, that must be equally verifiable--indeed, must be shown to be the better term; 2) you are arguing that terms may only be used if they have described a very narrow and specific situation, as opposed to the logical usage--imagine how many millions of citations across WP would need to be changed to fit your narrow interpretation; 3) The term may be 'archaic' in your personal POV, but it is nevertheless quite accurate, and there is. no better term to replace it." --G2bambino (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, and I have since changed my mind, as I've already explained. Focus on the content, please: will you please provide sources which support your position? Prince of Canadat 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you have, but I believe your earlier points were valid and are now applicable to you. --G2bambino (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Maybe'? There's no maybe about it. Let me be more explicit: my earlier position was wrong. Many, many sources have been provided here which explain precisely why my earlier position was wrong. You have provided not one source which refutes them. Not one. So please, focus on the content, and not on my realization that I was wrong: will you please provide sources which support your position? Prince of Canadat 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your earlier points remain valid and are now applicable to you. --G2bambino (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you say so, but since I now think I was wrong and have explained why, I shan't waste any more time in discussing them. Can you please provide sources which support your position? Prince of Canadat 18:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If they apply to you then you must discuss them, or relent. --G2bambino (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have explained already why I think I was wrong; please focus on the content. Moving on. You have categorically refused to provide the references which support your position. Again, the only conclusion one can draw from that--since providing references can do nothing but strengthen your position--is that you have none. I don't see any point in continuing this unless and until you provide your references. Prince of Canadat 18:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only are there no sources to support your reversed stance, you have also categorically refused to address the points you yourself directed at Lawe/Dlatimer when you were opposed to him in regards to his take on content. As you now take his side, your points now apply to you, especially 1 and 2. --G2bambino (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT isn't an argument, G2. Please scroll up; I have pointed out how the sources in the article simply do not support use of the term, and indeed contradict it. Further references have been provided which also specifically argue against the use of the term.
 * I'll play your little game, once. 1) I'm not replacing with another term, I'm simply removing a term which has been shown in repeated sources to be specifically wrong; 2) I was wrong, and did not take the sources properly into account. A specific "this term is not accurate" is fairly clear. In the absence of sources specifically saying that 'personal union' is the wrong term, one can safely use it. Given that many sources, no matter how much you say they are irrelevant, very specifically say that 'personal union' is not an accurate term, and should therefore be listened to. By analogy, people used to consider tomatoes a vegetable ("personal union"). I'm sure we could dig up old sources which say so. Modern scientific consensus is that tomatoes are a fruit, and you won't find any serious sources which say otherwise (the SCOTUS ruling is not scientific).
 * Now, I've provided references, I've shown how the references in the article categorically do not support the use of the term 'personal union', others have provided references. Could you please show some good faith by doing the same? Prince of Canadat 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only as much of a game as you make it. Putting aside the fact that Gazzster's claims about the above sources (which you wholly rely on) are weak, at best, if you have no other term to replace "personal union", one wonders just what you will do; what kind of verbal acrobatics shall we resort to in order to avoid the use of two words that fit perfectly to the subject? And all in the name of dictating that terms may only be used if they have described a very narrow and specific situation, as opposed to the logical usage. Imagine how many millions of citations across Wikipedia will have to be changed to fit your narrow interpretations. We shall see what you propose, but the sources above here do nothing to knock down the sources currently in the article. --G2bambino (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, you want a source that explicitly uses the term "personal union" in relation to the Commonwealth realms? Here ya go: "The common kinship within the British group today establishes a form of personal union, the members of which are legally capable of following different international policies even in time of war." F. R. Scott; The American Journal of International Law: The End of Dominion Status; Vol 38, No. 1 (January 1944); pp. 34-49

(outdent) Well.. I'll try again. As I posted above: Zines requires original research to reach the conclusion (please see WP:SYN); R v. Foreign secretary is mentioned in another court decision (rather than showing the original decision) and the term 'personal union' appears nowhere in the reference or indeed anywhere within the entire case which cites R v. FS; Lalor defines the conditions of 'personal union' which the monarchies of the commonwealth clearly do not meet (representation diplomatically, militarily, as well as combined governments and finances). Please focus on the content, and not on me. Please, also, provide the sources which state that the monarchies of which EIIR is head are in personal union. Prince of Canadat 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd, it was you who provided the Lalor source, and then proclaimed it to be the immovable end to any questioning of the realms being in personal union. Now you say the exact opposite! --G2bambino (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sooo what's gonna happen, next? GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm rewriting the article, trying to find good wording. Should have it up a bit later. Prince of Canadat 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * G2, when Prince asks you in the most civil terms for these sources, you appear to deliberately throw the focus back on him. This is not helping us maintain a healthy discussion.--Gazzster (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because he is trying to throw the focus away from himself. His requests were satisfied long ago. I can't help it if he insists on conintuing to make them. --G2bambino (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. We have one explicit source, though I can't find the quote in the sample text. Though I do also note Lloyd George's comment that it is difficult and dangerous to define Dominion (and by implication, Commonwealth realm) status. So we have one reference for 'personal union' and several against, both of which are pretty dated. It would be cool to find a contemporary treatment.--Gazzster (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't dispute the benefit of a more current expression, but there are no sources yet provided here that are against the idea of the realms being in personal union. --G2bambino (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there are, and we have been discussing them at length. There was an earlier discussion too, remember (see above). And in any case, as Prince, Lawe and others have said, a lack of sources against a positive does not prove that positive.--Gazzster (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're out-numbered G2. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal union, part the third
Added a break because, well.. scroll and scroll and scroll. I have done the following regarding personal union:
 * 1) removed most instances of the term from the article, substituting other generic terms such as 'relationship' and 'shared monarchy'
 * 2) added a paragraph to the Relationship of the realms section, covering as fully as possible the opinions for and against the use of the term, with extensive referencing. (I would much appreciate anyone with full access to JSTOR or similar services certifying that the sources provided are 1) accurate in fact; 2) accurate in spelling/titles/etc; 3) updated with links to specific articles as possible).

Next steps will be to rewrite chunks of personal union, as well as revisiting the wording of the dablink on all the Monarchy of X articles.

Does anyone have any comment on the new paragraph? Let's all please restrict commentary to the content only. Prince of Canadat 07:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it. It describes the situation without committing to a new terminology.--Gazzster (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It took ages--I lost track of how many versions I went through. First it was a footnote with refs, then a separate section, then I considered a footnote again.. at least it's done! And it has possibly one of the highest cites-to-sentences ratio I've ever seen in a paragraph around here ;) Prince of Canadat 10:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. Info should be well cited, as boring as it is sometimes.--Gazzster (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[Oudent] I reworked the paragraph, mostly removing sources that aren't related to the subject matter, and correctly representing what other sources say. --G2bambino (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain 1) how the sources were not related, 2) what was inaccurate? I would remind you that per WP:BRD, please discuss here and do not revert. Prince of Canadat 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reminding you again, politely, that per WP:BRD you should be discussing here, not reverting. Prince of Canadat 02:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been explained at length already, and you are aware of this. But, to repeat myself so that it is absolutely clear: 1) Sources about the Commonwealth of Nations are not related to the subject of the Commownealth realms, 2) Corbett's claims were misrepresented. If you are opposed to reverting, then don't do it. --G2bambino (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that Commonwealth realms, as noted in the article, is neither a formal nor official name. Corbett's claims were not misrepresented; I used direct quotes. Please restore the material--even GoodDay noted that consensus is against you. Prince of Canadat 03:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that what names are used is irrelevant. The Corbett quote remains. I will not restore material that doesn't belong on this article. GoodDay made no mention of consensus, probably because there is none. --G2bambino (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Corbett quote does remain, though I note that you carefully removed his conclusion. I have asked for a third opinion at WP:3O, and will be asking uninvolved parties to weigh in. I would hope that you will respect the opinion of a neutral and uninvolved third party. Prince of Canadat 03:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your error may have been unintentional, it was still a misrepresentation of Corbett's conclusion. He makes no such claim as "attempts to define the precise nature of the relationship between countries under the British crown are difficult"; what he says is that each of the categories themselves are imperfect, and that the political entities under the Crown have always been in flux, shifting from one vague category to another.
 * I will of course respect any other party's opinion, but theirs does not necessarily bring about a conclusion to the matter. --G2bambino (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried to expand on Corbett's words. --G2bambino (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'difficult' is a reasonable paraphrasal of 'From time to time the evolving relations between the more or less autonomous political communities under the British crown have been uneasily battened down by different jurists in almost all of these categories, only to break out, after brief intervals of calm, in inelegant excrescences that reduce the anxious classifiers to despair.' You also ignore Corbett's conclusion that "For these reasons much the wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as something sui generis," and your expansion while very strictly accurate, continues to ignore his conclusion. Prince of Canadat 03:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That comment speaks about flux within the British Empire and British Commonwealth, which isn't really the subject of this article. Hence, the "sui generis" comment isn't pertinent to this page either; he's speaking of the British Commonwealth of 1940, not just the countries within it that share one crown. --G2bambino (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In 1940, there were no republics in the commonwealth. All were monarchies, with the King at the top. Prince of Canadat 03:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... That is true. Mei culpa; the sui generis comment does appply, then. --G2bambino (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That also, therefore, applies to all the other references written before India's becoming a republic. Prince of Canadat 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am new to this discussion so please bear with me guys. As far as I know, and am concerned, the Commonwealth is basically whats left of the British Empire. It is a collection of more then 50 independent nations which all were once part of the British Empire. All of them look to HM the Queen as their titular Head of State, and symbolic leader, though only 16 still consider her to be their true monarch.Lord Balin (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg
The image Image:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Udi2-rho.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Zines Reference
In the footnotes, someone has added a comment to the Zines reference that "the relationship between England and Scotland during those years is described as a personal union." This comment is not part of the sourced material. --Lawe (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * sofixit. Prince of Canadat 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor Sources
I have checked some sources and they do not match what is written. This will take a while to sort out, however it is clear that G2bambino had decided to include "personal union" ten times throughout the article, and it is the justification for everything that goes on in the realm. But if you look at say the Peter Trepanier article, it is clear that the Commonwealth is the organ in which states are associated. Other the sources do not bare out the article either. --Lawe (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * it is clear that G2bambino had decided to include "personal union" ten times throughout the article Evidence? Or, just another unsupported claim about me? --G2bambino (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I miscounted? I am happy for you to tell us how many times, because it makes no difference to the point made. --Lawe (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right; it doesn't make any difference. I asked if you were making an unsupported claim about me, not about the article. --G2bambino (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I count 14, including references/footnotes. No idea without a whole lot of diff-diving who added them or when. Just clarifying. Prince of Canada

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by (:

The use of the term 'personal union' to describe the relationship between the monarchies in the Commonwealth (it should be emphasised here that 'commonwealth realm' is a strictly informal term, having no meaning and virtually no usage beyond Wikipedia and a very informal use on royal.gov.uk) while it may fit the dictionary definition of the term, is very specifically deemed incorrect by several authorities on the subject, ranging from writers in the late 1800's up to 1958. This is agreed-upon by several editors here; G2bambino appears to be the only dissenter at this point. Below is what I added to the article, explaining the situation; as you will see above, other users agreed. This information belongs in the 'Relationship' section, as it is directly on point as describing/defining the relationship between the realms. G2bambino disagrees, and summarily removed almost all the information, claiming the sources were 'irrelevant' (disproved above) and 'original research' (wrong, as lawe commented above; I removed his original research! He used the Zines source, which notes that the Commonwealth is in a similar situation to England and Scotland under the Stuarts. G2 added in the reference that said situation was a personal union, and that so is the Commonwealth, which is a statement wholly unsupported by the source and can only be arrived at through OR), as well as selectively quoting arguments from sources while ignoring their conclusions. What I have placed below is accurate, NPOV, and presents both sides of the argument (you may also note that while I included references which support the counterargument, G2bambino removed any sources which contradicted his assertion). See below.

The relationship between the monarchies in the Commonwealth has been described as being, or being similar to, a 'personal union,' that is, an arrangement whereby a single person is simultaneously and separately the monarch of two or more independent countries. P.E. Corbett, a Canadian lawyer, argued in 1940 that "[a]ssociations of states are traditionally classified in the literature of international law under six heads: federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vassalage, protectorate," and then further notes that attempts to define the precise nature of the relationship between countries under the British crown are difficult. However, Lalor argues that the concept of personal union must include not only that the countries involved must be represented by the same "diplomatic agent," but that "it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions," while Corbett's argument concludes with the observation that "the much wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as sui generis." Other sources echo Corbett and Lalor's conclusions, though for occasionally different reasons. The sourced information ranges from the 1900's to the 1950's, from the time when the Empire was united to the time of the early Commonwealth. Early sources claim that because the empire was united, it was not in personal union for that reason. During the middle period, the modern Commonwealth was forming and scolars debated but discovered that there was still association between contries above that of a personal union. The independence of India and Pakistan placed republics in the Commonwealth and created the position of 'Head of the Commonwealth'. The independence of governors-general, the inclusion of republics and the modern conceptions of nationhood and citizenship has seen the term slip out of use and relevance. Commonwealth Realms are associated through the Commonwealth, and this defeats use of the term personal union. It is telling that we have found not one source even using the term in 50 years, except in a historic sense. The argument of G2bambino appears to be that the Commonwealth should be ignored altogether, and that is both absurd and renders all sources useless. --Lawe (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Viewpoint by (:

Some of the sources that have been presented here are valid and relate to the topic of this article. Others, however, as being misinterpreted and/or do not belong here; they pertain to the Commonwealth of Nations as opposed to the Commonwealth realms. --G2bambino (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Viewpoint by (:

More or less the same as what G2 has already stated. Some of the sources here are correct, however any sources pertaining to the Commonwealth of Nations do not belong in this article. Commonwealth realms are part of, but clearly not the same as, the Commonwealth of Nations. Applying Commonwealth of Nations sources clearly violates our official WP:OR policy. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. --Cameron* 12:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Hi, firstly, I have some points I'd like to have addressed;
 * Viewpoint by (:
 * Third opinion by Fr33kman: ....

1) The phrase "Commonwealth realm" enjoys a lot of contemporary usage   , amongst others. Since these are clearly outside of Wikipedia; how can "Commonwealth realm" be said to not exist outside of Wikipedia?

2) The term "personal union" as stated in the article seems to have major problems. Hanover and Great Britain were in a legally recognized "personal union" from 1714 until 1837 (ultimately where we get our current lady Queen via the "Electors") yet at no point did the parliament of Great Britain rule over Hanover, or vice versa; therefore the premise that a personal union "must include not only that the countries involved must be represented by the same "diplomatic agent," but that "... it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions ..." seems, well, patently incorrect in light of what actually occurred at that time between GB and Hanover. Therefore, how can what is written in the article be true?

Comments?

 fr33k man   -s-  18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would venture to say that confusion arises because Lalor's words are being pulled out of their context. He is expressing a negative opinion about personal unions, saying what he thinks should take place, not what is taking place. With emphasis: "We do not consider personal union a very rational combination... Personal union, it seems to us, is practicable only when the two countries form a unit vis-a-vis of foreign states. But it is not sufficient that the two countries be represented by one and the same diplomatic agent; it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions." In other words, Lalor believes personal unions should be dissolved, either by the two or more countries each establishing their own unique head of state, of by the two or more countries merging into one. These words, thus, do nothing to define a personal union. --G2bambino (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hiya.
 * I said it was largely unused. 'Commonwealth realm' is a completely informal and unofficial term.  We give it undue prominence here, to be honest. G2bambino is also making the mistake of using 'commonwealth realm' as though it were an official term, and claiming that as justification for removing sources; he has been disproved above, though.  The contents of this article actually belong at Commonwealth of Nations, but doing so would make the latter page far too long.
 * Lalor was writing about 50 years after Hanover and the UK were no longer in personal union. Opinions had clearly shifted by then. By 1940, opinions had crystallized (Corbett and Scott), and by 1958 the use of 'personal union' was even more clearly deprecated (Miller).
 * And yet, G2bambino, even if we remove Lalor the point remains: 'personal union' is specifically considered and rejected as an accurate description of the relationship between the monarchies of the commonwealth. Just saw your tags. Cute! Accuse me of original research, and now of violating NPOV. Is there nothing you won't do to prevent admitting that you're wrong? What are you going to accuse me of next, I wonder? Prince of Canadat 21:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lalor's opinions about uniting parliaments and armies should be dropped, yes; they are not pertinent, really, to this topic. His definition of a personal union, however, is valid and relavent. The only person who rejects the idea that "personal union" is an apt term to be applied to the Commonwealth realms is Corbett, and I included such in the article before you reverted it. --G2bambino (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't say it should be dropped. I said even if. I don't think it should be dropped, as it clearly sets the context for the other citations. Do stop implying things I haven't said, will you? Thank you ever so much. Miller also clearly rejected personal union--and yes, you're going to say it's irrelevant, your standard response for 'doesn't say what I want'. It is relevant, multiple people have agreed, you are the lone voice of dissent here, consensus is wildly against you, just give it up already. Prince of Canadat 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those words from Lalor are not relevant to the subject of this article. Miller is speaking about the Commonwealth of Nations, therefore his words are not relevant to the subject of this article. --G2bambino (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The words from Lalor are rather explicitly discussing 'personal union', so they are indeed relevant when discussing 'personal union'. You keep ignoring the fact that all monarchies in the commonwealth are part of the CoN, and that use of 'realm' is completely informal and unofficial. Sorry. As GoodDay has already said, you're outnumbered here.  Give in gracefully, won't you? Prince of Canadat 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not Personal union; Lalor's opinions on personal unions are not relevant to the subject of this page. The point that there are other monarchies and republics in the Commonwealth is exactly why Miller's words aren't relevant to the subject of this page. --G2bambino (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does use the term personal union, incorrectly, which means that the term needs to be addressed, cited, and dismissed as inaccurate. Unless you are happy to remove all uses of the term from the article completely, which I somehow doubt, the referenced information needs to stay. Sorry. Prince of Canadat 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "personal union" has not yet been proven to be incorrect. Referenced information should stay, but only relevant and correctly presented information, not misinterpretations and tangential opinions. --G2bambino (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am quite literally at a loss for words. You have been proven wrong time and time again--Corbett, for example, very specifically discounts the use of 'personal union' and states that the Commonwealth (again, do remember that at the time there were no republics, so your claims of irrelevancy are even wider of the mark with him than usual) is sui generis. Your continued insistence upon bulling forward with your opinion--which, again, is clearly against consensus and overriding opinion here--is baffling. Prince of Canadat 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely you will stop speaking, then? I don't know why you raise Corbett now, as his opinion was mentioned in the article before you reverted it. Are you becoming confused? --G2bambino (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, goody. We're at the part of the argument where G2bambino becomes insulting. Are you going to say I'm having imaginary conversations, next? I raised Corbett because Corbett rather conclusively proves you wrong. The other citations are also perfectly relevant, as has been discussed. Does this need to go to a MedCab that you'll ignore when you don't get the answer you want as well? Prince of Canadat 22:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was you who said you were quite literally at a loss for words. Obviously you were mistaken. Anyway, Corbett doesn't prove me, or anyone else, "wrong". He expresses his opinion; one that is relevant to the subject matter here. Other citations are also relevant. Others are not. --G2bambino (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it endlessly fascinating that relevancy of sources is based entirely on whether you agree with them or not. Anything you disagree with? Irrelevant, or gets selectively quoted, as you did with Corbett. Anything you agree with? Relevant, naturally. Anyway, there's no point in continuing this discussion; you are, as GoodDay said, quite outnumbered on this, whether you choose to accept it or not. I'll wait and see what fr33kman has to say. Prince of Canadat 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you are finding imaginary things to be fascinating. There is no point in continuing this discussion if you concede that you have misrepresented citations in this article. However, numbers are of little importance. --G2bambino (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said to you before, more than once, I won't lie just to give you what you want. I misrepresented no sources. And that's very typical of you to say; numbers are important. Consensus doesn't mean 'everyone agrees', and it certainly doesn't mean 'what G2bambino says'. Prince of Canadat 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody asked you to lie. Just to admit that you're mistaken. And you are. Not only in your reading of sources, but in your beliefs about consensus as well. The "third opinion" that you requested has already expressed concern with the way the section is presently written; what do you propose to do about that? --G2bambino (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked me to lie by asking me to concede that I misrepresented citations. I misrepresented nothing, I made no OR, I have not violated NPOV, despite your spurious accusations to the contrary, so I'm not going to lie just to make you feel better. What I propose to do about the third opinion is listen to it and see where it takes us. Stop projecting your bad faith onto me; I have reached the point with you where your behaviour is such that I no longer need to assume good faith in anything that you are saying or doing on this page. Your continued refusal to provide your sources--after being asked, politely, something like eighteen times--is a crystal-clear indication that you are not acting in good faith, as Gazzster also noted. Your continued attempts to force the earlier part of this dispute away from content onto me is proof you are not acting in good faith. Your continued dismissal of sources as irrelevant solely because you don't agree with them is proof you are not acting in good faith. Your selective quoting of sources in the article, ignoring the conclusions they made, is proof you are not acting in good faith. Your behaviour here, in keeping with your standard behaviour when involved in disputes, is reprehensible and completely against the policies and guidelines you love to quote at people. Your continued insistence on dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you is proof that you are acting in bad faith. Your repeated insults are proof that you are acting in bad faith. I trust that is perfectly clear, and I hope that somehow, someday, you will look at how your actions appear and how they affect others, and adjust your treatment of other people accordingly. Prince of Canadat 23:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about my behaviour, whether good or bad. This is about you misreading and misrepresenting what sources say. The following has already been made abundently clear, but just to make sure it's collected in one location:
 * Lalor's words have been placed in the article as a definition of what a personal union is. This is a misrepresentation as they are actually only opinions on what he believes should happen to personal unions.
 * Miller's words have been inserted in the article as a definition of the relationship between the Commonwealth realms. This is a misrepresentation, as they actually pertain to the Commonwealth of Nations.
 * Sack's words have been inserted in the article as a definition of the relationship between the Commonwealth realms. This is a misrepresentation, as they actually pertain to the Commonwealth of Nations.
 * Elliot's words have been inserted in the article as a definition of the relationship between the Commonwealth realms. This is a misrepresentation, as they actually predate the existence of the personal union relationship amongst these countries, and only offer an opinion on what could happen.
 * It is these points that you must wrestle with. --G2bambino (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Wrestling's all done. Please also see Gazzster's comments below, as they are directly on point. Prince of Canadat 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the citations are 'only' opinions, so unless you want to chuck them all out (and, indeed, a highly nontrivial percentage of references across all of Wikipedia), you can't use 'only opinion' as a reason for excluding them. Opinions of experts are, in fact, the vast bulk of references found anywhere outside of strictly empirical research data.
 * Again, all of the realms are actually commonwealth nations; the distinction is informal, unofficial, and for convenience only. Please note also that commonwealth.org doesn't use the term, and royal.gov.uk uses it solely as a term of convenience to show which nations EIIR is boss of.
 * Sack wrote at the same time as Corbett, which you have already acknowledged as relevant since no republics existed within the commonwealth at the time. He was projecting towards the future, yes, but as the creation of the first commonwealth republic was roughly a decade away, he was projecting from the contemporary arrangement, which was comprised solely of monarchies.
 * Elliot was specifically stating that defining any future relationship as a personal union would be inaccurate due to the term requiring decisions made at the king's own discretion.
 * Sorry to say, you're not finished wrestling:
 * You avoid the point: the words of Lalor used in the article are not a definition of personal union.
 * This article is not about the Commonwealth of Nations.
 * I'll agree with you on Sack; I missed the date at which he was writing.
 * Elliot said a personal union would not work.
 * Gazz is, unfortunately, wrong on several counts. --G2bambino (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Lalor quite explicitly defines the conditions whereby 'personal union' is the accurate term
 * Just going to restate what I said above: 'realm' is merely a term of convenience and has no actual standing.
 * Good.
 * “If a personal union be chosen, the Crown will be forced to act on the king's own discretion [and] since personal discretion is a modern monarch is unthinkable, the only alternative would be a league of states with a common but symbolic crown" is extremely clear on the point; defining the relationship as a 'personal union' would be impossible.
 * As for Gazz, you keep saying that people are wrong, and rarely backing it up. When you do back it up, your arguments get blown out of the water. You're still outnumbered on the issue. Prince of Canadat 23:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lalor does, but his quoted words in the article do not.
 * Irrelevant; the distinction between one group and the other remains, despite what they are called.
 * It is clear that he felt a personal union to be impossible. That doesn't mean one never emerged.
 * Being outnumbered doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --G2bambino (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do. Or, to be fully pedantic, they expand upon the definition already given, as quoting the rest would be needlessly redundant.
 * The distinction is merely for convenience, so the point need be belaboured no longer.
 * Yes, he did. That is the point.
 * Wikipedia does, however, run on consensus (in which you are outnumbered), and verifiability (by which we, as Gazzster pointed out, are quite solidly supported). Terribly sorry that you don't agree, but multiple sources--your attempts to label them as 'irrelevant notwithstanding--clearly and explicitly disagree with your one'' source. Prince of Canadat 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they explicitly do not.
 * The distinction is precisely what matters.
 * Then his words do not make "personal union" inapplicable to what emerged after he wrote out his opinions.
 * You still have a misunderstanding of consensus. --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Personal union, it seems to us, is practicable only when the two countries form a unit vis-a-vis of foreign states. But it is not sufficient that the two countries be represented by one and the same diplomatic agent; it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions." This is not explicit how, precisely?
 * The nomenclature is irrelevant; it is unofficial and informal. WP:IDHT isn't a valid argument, so stop using it.
 * Yes they do, as he very clearly said that 'if personal union, then XYZ must occur,' and 'if not XYZ, then ABC.'
 * I do understand that consensus does not mean 'do what G2bambino says,' despite your clear opinion to the contrary. Prince of Canadat 01:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a definition of what a personal union is. It is what he thinks should happen to personal unions.
 * Indeed, the nomenclature is irrelevant. It is the difference in groups that matters.
 * No they do not. They merely express the opinion that a personal union probably would not work, not that it did not work, nor that it could not be called a "personal union." Unless you think the man had the ability to predict the future, that is. --G2bambino (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have wasted more than enough time giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are not the sole arbiter of truth, and rather more on point, you are distinctly in the minority with your beliefs and your POV-pushing. Prince of Canadat 01:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, when unable to attack the issues, you attack your opponent. * Shrug * This will work itself out in the end, however long it takes. --G2bambino (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cute, but no. I've been arguing on the issues, but there's really not much point in me attempting to argue any further with someone who 1) has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith, 2) sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "I don't hear you!," 3) Uses "because I say so" as the basis of all his arguments. Besides, even if I were 'unable to attack the issues' (re-read the page, you'll see how ridiculous that assertion is) and simply attacked my opponent instead (which I haven't done; facts are not attacks), it would be a page right out of your book. So you really wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about it, now would you? Bye bye. Prince of Canadat 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with you is not a sign of not listening to you. I was mistaken about and have conceded on two of the sources, but must remain totally in disagreement with you on how the above three are being read and used. Our third opinion has already seen problems with your wording in the article, and I agree with him. so, we shall see where this goes when he returns tomorrow. --G2bambino (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The editors in favour of 'removal' out number those in favour of 'keep', 3-to-2. A majority? yes. A consensus? I don't know. PS- I'm neutral on this topic, though I thought personal union covered the Commonwealth realms. The 16 monarchs being the same human being. Anyways, I'm not as certain as the rest of you, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's leave it till tomorrow

Hi, I have to assist in surgery tomorrow. I'd suggest just leaving it as is for tonight and pick it up tomorrow. I've got a good understanding what the issues are now and would like a while to think about a way forwards for us. Okay?

Thanks!  fr33k man   -s-  22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine; no worries. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ONe last word. This section started as a statement of opinions by various persons. That was good. Let's go back to that format. My own? We are getting too hung up on the sources in question. The point of producing those sources was to answer the proposition that describing the monarchies under E2 to be in 'personal union' was indisputable.That proposition is wrong. It is wrong because there are authors who dispute it. That much is clear.
 * What is also clear is that a negative does not prove a positive.In other words, lack of argument against the term does not prove that the term is valid. But as it happens, G2 has found one explicit reference. Several have been found against. The qualiy of the sources does not really matter. What matters is that the term is disputed.
 * Prince has edited the article to describe the status of the monarchies related to the Crown without using the term 'personal union'. It is quite proper that he does so. The article does not suffer one iota, because the term was never canonical.
 * I think we are seeing the perils of giving 'Commonwealth realm' canonical status. Some here will not accept a source that does not use the word 'realm' and 'Commonwealth' together. When these sources speak of the 'divisibility' of the Crown and the 'territories' of the Crown, it seems to me obvious that they are speaking of the monarchies under E2.They make no sense if we're taling about the Commonwealth of Nations as a free apolitical association.It seems we cannot interpret texts without the terminology we have declared canonical!
 * All the best for the surgery!--Gazzster (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said, twice. Prince of Canadat 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A point to mention is that the Commonwealth has changed since 1940. There is nobody who talks about personal union in the context of the modern Commonwealth. --Lawe (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Save, of course, for Australian High Court judges. --G2bambino (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry.. could you please show where that judge used the term 'personal union'? Or did he use words like 'resembling' a historical situation, without ever using the term? Prince of Canadat 23:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, let's be perfectly clear, the judge in question never actually talked about the term 'personal union', correct? Prince of Canadat 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. --G2bambino (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) So that source does not support the use of the term 'personal union', then. Saying it does violates WP:SYN. Glad to have that cleared up. Prince of Canadat 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The conclusion is explicitly made that the contemporary situation amongst the countries under Elizabeth II is analogous to that which previously existed between two countries. That previous situation was a personal union. --G2bambino (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Analogous to' is not 'is', and again requires WP:SYN for us to use the definition. Do you have any sources which explicitly state that the monarchies of the Commonwealth are in personal union, other than Scott? Prince of Canadat 23:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The source says what it does; to be exact, it says the modern situation is "resembling" of that which earlier existed between Scotland and England. That earlier situation was a personal union. Ergo, the High Court source speaks about a personal union in the context of the modern Commonwealth. --G2bambino (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)That's a bit of a stretch, but okay. It still means, however, that using the source as support for using 'personal union' as an accurate term violates WP:OR, as it requires using multiple sources together to come to a single conclusion. Do you have any sources which explicitly state that the monarchies of the Commonwealth are in personal union, other than Scott? Prince of Canadat 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Three basic positions
There seems to be three basic positions here:
 * Look at all the sources in their context and use reasoned discussion.
 * Look at one source, in one historical context and assume this applies today in all contexts, while ignoring all the others and criticising anyone do dares read them, thereby coming to an 100% absolutely certain conclusion.
 * That it is useless to argue with a fanatic. --Lawe (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly is this kind of thing helping? --Cameron* 12:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It, this, this, and other examples, are starting to demonstrate that this matter has, for two parties involved here, at least, turned into something personal, rather than remaining about content. Purposeful distraction? Maybe. But it certainly is not helping. --G2bambino (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, in much the same way that you attempted to deflect the discussion away from content on to me, and then later reversed your attitude (how surprising), saying that it wasn't about your behaviour? Do make up your mind, won't you? Prince of Canadat 23:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My mind is made up, thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well.. let's see. Earlier in the discussion you kept trying to focus it on me, while I kept saying "let's keep this about content." And then, when the focus turns to you, suddenly it needs to be all about content. That seems, I'll be charitable, inconsistent on your part. Prince of Canadat 23:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say. --G2bambino (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Across the Commonwealth monarchies articles, there does seem to be 'complaints' about G2's edits/conduct. Personally, I've no problem with G2's performance. Infact, I've learned things about the Canadian monarchy, from his edits. I used to think Elizabeth II was 'just' the British monarch presiding over 15 other countries. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when you've been around as long as I have; some people love ya, and some people hate ya. But, if their complaints about my behaviour are valid, then they should take their evidence to the appropriate place and have it dealt with, not whinge about it here. I'm glad you've found me to be of some use, though! ;) --G2bambino (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From my point of view: Accross the Commonwealth realms articles there seems to be a full scale war going on. If this feud does not end, mediation will have to be sought. Personally, I'm getting tired of it all. This isn't the friendly atmosphere I first signed up to. --Cameron* 20:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's frustrating, because the personal exchanges between Prince and G2 end up diverting the discussion. And then we have to wait until they've finished to resume it. Perhaps the two ought to go to mediation. God knows, I'm no saint meself.--Gazzster (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that I repeatedly requested that G2 focus on content. You yourself pointed out that he was the one refusing to do so. Prince of Canadat 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion (cont'd)
Hiya all. Back late, long day for me :-)

Okay, I've looked into this a bit more and I think that what's important here is the reader of our encyclopedia and not the editors themselves. As such we should reflect what is out there already. It seems to me that the term "personal union" has scholastic meaning already established.

This source 1, says that "A Personal Union is in existence when two sovereign states and separate International Persons are linked together through the accidental fact that they share the same individual monarch." It further clarifies the situation by explaining the term "Real Union" which is when the two are seen as one. Obviously this does not apply to the Commonwealth of Nations nor to the Commonwealth realms. This leaves the question as to whether or not the Commonwealth realms are in a personal union then. The same source states that no personal unions currently exist. As this source is a respected scholastic reference on international law written in 2005 it lends strong weight to the argument that the Commonwealth realms are not in a personal union at this time; regardless of any previous situation. The same source also describes recent (in historical terms) personal unions that did exist. The Netherlands and Luxembourg, Belgium and the Congo etc., so perhaps we should be looking at the form of union that these nations had at the time of the personal unions. The source states that personal unions are not and were not single states; they always had their own governments and representatives. Given the nature of the unions between the Netherlands and Luxembourg and Belgium and the Free Congo State I think that it is apparent that personal unions between the Commonwealth realms are extinct in the modern era. Whether or not they ever existed in that form is open to debate. Even the real union that existed between the UK and the Dominion of Canada (forcing Canada into WWI) was extinct by WWII as is evidenced by Canada's separate declaration of war against Germany (allowed by the Statue of Westminster 1933 [I believe, from memory]). The Commonwealth realms then are probably best described as being a group of nations with the same monarch, but not in personal union. Unless we could knock on the door of Buckingham Palace and get HM to give us an opinion as to whether or not she has any personal unions any more (something she's constitutionally unable to do), we aren't going to get a definitive answer.: so we have to rely on scholars. Further for personal unions to exist in the Commonwealth realms, each state would be in personal union with every other state within the realms; in the modern era, this seems to fly in the face of logic.

As for "Commonwealth realm", I think that we can agree that this term does exist outside of Wikipedia and has meaning; ie: one of the sixteen states that comprise the Commonwealth realms: not the Commonwealth itself or any of the Commonwealth of Nations states, unless they are also "members" of the Commonwealth realms. Whether this article should exist or not is up for debate, but the term "Commonwealth realm" enjoys contemporary usage and so must be in Wikipedia somewhere.

Comments?  fr33k man   -s-  23:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya'll know, I'm with whatever ends the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that reference appears to be 1) Impeccably WP:RS, 2) Easily WP:V, 3) Requires zero WP:SYN, 4) Definitive. 5) In accord with the other, older sources on the topic.

I'll amend the parag that I originally wrote to include this. Below:

The relationship between the monarchies in the Commonwealth has been described as being a form of, or being similar to, a 'personal union,' that is, an arrangement whereby a single person is simultaneously and separately the monarch of two or more independent countries. P.E. Corbett, a Canadian lawyer, argued in 1940 that "[a]ssociations of states are traditionally classified in the literature of international law under six heads: federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vassalage, protectorate," and then further notes that attempts to define the precise nature of the relationship between countries under the British crown are difficult. However, Maurice Block argued several decades previously that the concept of personal union must include not only that the countries involved must be represented by the same "diplomatic agent," but that "it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions," while Corbett's argument concludes with the observation that "the much wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as sui generis." Other sources echo Corbett and Lalor's conclusions, though for occasionally different reasons. More recent studies of the subject conclude that there are no personal unions in existence today.
 * I'd probably add this one as well. Which also states that no personal unions currently exist, but that a personal union type relationship may exist between states.  fr33k man   -s-  00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on what that source says, see my amended version above. Prince of Canadat 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems good, to me: any other comments folks? :-)  fr33k man   -s-  01:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that it's still unacceptable. Words that do not define personal union are being presented as defintions, and sources that speak about the Commonwealth of Nations are being used in relation to the Commonwealth realms. Your additional sources, Fr33, do say that no personal union exists, but that would leave the only other options as real union, federal state, or confedrerated state, none of which the Commonwealth realms fit the definition of, and Boleslaw explicitly says that the countries under the shared monarch are in "a personal union of sorts."
 * Given that, I'd say that the paragraph in question should be written thusly:
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Though contemporary scholars have said that none are in existence, this relationship has been described as being a form of, or similar to,  a personal union; that is, an arrangement whereby a single person is simultaneously and separately the monarch of two or more independent countries. However, it was aruged in 1940 that the British Commonwealth (then entirely composed of monarchies under the shared crown) was something that defied analysis, and which should be treated as sui generis.  --G2bambino (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no. To address your points one by one:
 * "Words that do not define personal union are being presented as defintions"
 * Personal union is defined with crystal clarity in several sources, including Scott, Lalor, Keeton. Lalor is in fact the clearest of all, as he expands greatly upon the definition.
 * "sources that speak about the Commonwealth of Nations are being used in relation to the Commonwealth realms"
 * We have been over and over and over this. Commonwealth realms is not a term with any formal, official, or legal meaning. Sources writing academically tend to prefer using proper names. In any case, Corbett, Sack, Lalor--all wrote before the concept of any differentiation between a 'realm' and a 'nation' existed, as no republics existed in the Commonwealth prior to 1950. Note also that Miller (1958) uses 'Commonwealth' full stop in his conclusion.
 * "Your additional sources, Fr33, do say that no personal union exists"
 * Which is rather the salient point, here.
 * "but that would leave the only other options as real union, federal state, or confedrerated state, none of which the Commonwealth realms fit the definition of,"
 * Which brings us right back to Corbett's statement about treating them sui generis. Again, saying that Word X does not apply doesn't mean that we must rush to replace it; see Corbett's other statements about attempts to define the relationships between the nations.
 * "Boleslaw explicitly says that the countries under the shared monarch are in "a personal union of sorts."
 * Now, now, let's quote accurately, shall we? "...one could venture to say that a personal union of sorts exists," which is hardly the same as 'explicitly says'. He is explicit that "there are no personal unions of this kind today." It's also worth noting that he does not use England/Scotland as an example of personal union.
 * "Tough contemporary scholars"
 * 'Tough' is pure POV and completely unwarranted. The bottom line is that two authoritative and very recent sources explicitly say that personal unions no longer exist, echoing and refining the conclusions of multiple other sources. The rest of the quotations in the version which I had originally written and have now expanded on are provided to show background and context. Prince of Canadat 03:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Though" is not an opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote 'tough'. Given your dismissal of all sources which don't agree with you, it seemed reasonable to assume that was precisely what you meant. Prince of Canadat 03:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've corrected my spelling error now. --G2bambino (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You know my assertions about your quotations and other sources. These have not changed. --G2bambino (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True. They were completely refuted before, they have been refuted again. Glad that we're in agreement, so I'll be restoring the page now. Prince of Canadat 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are fallacious claims. --G2bambino (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) They aren't, sorry. Plus, the neutral third party agrees with the version I posted above, has clearly researched this (evidenced by finding sources nobody else had added to the discussion), and has no difficulty with the sources as they are used. You're alone in this assertion that the sources are being used improperly, sorry. However, since you're going to persist in arguing, here's a deconstruction of the paragraph: The relationship between the monarchies in the Commonwealth has been described as being a form of, or being similar to a personal union that is, an arrangement whereby a single person is simultaneously and separately the monarch of two or more independent countries P.E. Corbett, a Canadian lawyer, argued in 1940 that "[a]ssociations of states are traditionally classified in the literature of international law under six heads: federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vassalage, protectorate," and then further notes that attempts to define the precise nature of the relationship between countries under the British crown are difficult. However, Maurice Block argued several decades previously that the concept of personal union must include not only that the countries involved must be represented by the same "diplomatic agent," but that "it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions," while Corbett's argument concludes with the observation that "the much wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as sui generis." Other sources echo Corbett and Lalor's conclusions though for occasionally different reasons More recent studies of the subject conclude that there are no personal unions in existence today.
 * Source: Boleslaw, "one could venture to say that a personal union of sorts exists..."
 * Source: Scott "The common kinship within the British group today establishes a form of personal union" (NB: I moved the Scott reference, forgot to do so earlier)
 * Source: Zines, "... a position resembling that of the King of Scotland and of England between 1603 and 1707 when two independent countries had a common sovereign," which you (without a source, mind) described as being a personal union.
 * Source: Murdoch, "...the Irish government thought there was now only a personal union of the Crown," which appears to date from around 1926 or so.
 * Source: "A personal union exists when two or more sovereign independent States as associated by the factor that they possess a common ruler. In all other respects the identities of the two states remain distinct," providing a very clear definition of the term.
 * Source: Corbett, direct quote
 * Source: Corbett, paraphrasal of "From time to time the evolving relations between the more or less autonomous political communities under the British crown have been uneasily battened down by different jurists in almost all of these categories, only to break out, after brief intervals of calm, in inelegant excrescences that reduce the anxious classifiers to despair," which I'd already noted above is a more than reasonable distillation of what is being said.
 * Source: Block in Lalor; early part of the sentence is a paraphrase to reduce the use of quotations, final part is a direct quote
 * Source: as above; direct quote of his page-long definition of 'personal union'
 * Source: Corbett; you have already conceded that this belongs.
 * Source: Miller, “...the survey concludes with an attempt to classify the Commonwealth. It is no longer a federation, nor a military alliance, nor a personal union.” He makes no apparent distinction between 'nations' and 'realms', and supports Corbett's sui generis statement.
 * Source: Sack, "“Whatever the future development of the British Commonwealth may be [it] can be described as a that of associations or unions of States, as distinguished from "personal" unions, on the one hand, and federal States, on the other," which you have also conceded belongs in here.
 * Source: Elliott, “If a personal union be chosen, the Crown will be forced to act on the king's own discretion [and] since personal discretion is a modern monarch is unthinkable, the only alternative would be a league of states with a common but symbolic crown,” stating (though in advance) that the use of 'personal union' would be impossible.
 * Source: Oppenheim/Roxbrough, which you have agreed states that no personal unions exist today
 * Source: Boleslaw, which states the same.

Cheers. Prince of Canadat 04:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.E. Corbett, a Canadian lawyer, argued in 1940 that "[a]ssociations of states are traditionally classified in the literature of international law under six heads: federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vassalage, protectorate," and then further notes that attempts to define the precise nature of the relationship between countries under the British crown are difficult.
 * Unnecessary detail and confusing; my version avoids the weighted use of "British crown" and says the same thing with less words.
 * However, Maurice Block argued several decades previously that the concept of personal union must include not only that the countries involved must be represented by the same "diplomatic agent," but that "it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions,"
 * Wrong. The statement is an opinion that personal unions are not successful and should merge as one state with common parliament, armies, diplomatic agents, etc.
 * Other sources echo Corbett and Lalor's conclusions, though for occasionally different reasons
 * Miller's words pertain to the free association of countries known as the Commonwealth of Nations, not the group of countries within the Commonwealth of Nations that are under one crown.
 * Elliot is expressing an opinion about what the future might bring, not what came.
 * My proposed version of the paragraph is very similar to yours, save for some editing and the removal of the above misrepresentations; so these remain the sole points of contention. However, as the above is, nearly word for word, a repeat of what I said earlier, we are now going in circles. Please address these points. --G2bambino (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Already did. Terribly sorry you don't agree, but it seems that fr33kman does. And, uh, no they're not that similar; you present the clear implication that the modern experts should be discounted, which of course they should not. Prince of Canadat 04:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. The last go around the wheel ended with your stating: "I have wasted more than enough time giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are not the sole arbiter of truth, and rather more on point, you are distinctly in the minority with your beliefs and your POV-pushing." That was a comment about me, not the sources. So, my points about the sources remain unrefuted. --G2bambino (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT isn't the same as 'didn't refute', G2. Tsk, tsk. Please re-read the thread, it will become clear to you. Prince of Canadat 05:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Because I said so" isn't the end of an argument (snide little tsks, tsks indeed). Let's go throught the disputed sources one by one, then. That way we can be clear that each has been dealt with. First up: Block/Lalor. They say: "PERSONAL UNION, or dynastic union, is the combination by which two different states are governed by the same prince, while their boundaries, their laws and their interests remain distinct." They also say: "We do not consider personal union a very rational combination... Personal union, it seems to us, is practicable only when the two countries form a unit vis-a-vis of foreign states. But it is not sufficient that the two countries be represented by one and the same diplomatic agent; it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions." The latter is clearly an opinion on the success of personal unions and on what should happen to them. The validity of this reading is only enhanced when we also consider that Block/Lalor mention as examples of personal union: "Thus, in modern times, the king of England was at the same time king of Hanover; the king of Saxony, grand duke of Warsaw; the king of Denmark, duke of Schleswig-Holstein; the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary; the king of Prussia, prince of Neufchâtel; the king of Sweden, king of Norway; the king of The Netherlands, grand duke of Luxemburg; the emperor of Russia, grand duke of Finland; and the king of Prussia, duke of Lauenburg." We know from history that these states did not share a common parliament, did not share armies, did not have common finances, etc. Futher still in support of my reading of the source, the authors say that "The history of the United Kingdom furnishes an example which other countries should follow, and the ultimate fusion, which might be the result of the functioning of a common parliament, seems to us an advantage great enough to induce a state not to neglect the means to arrive at it." We know from history that the United Kingdom resulted from the fusion of two countries in personal union into one country under a single parliament, with a single army, with singular finances, etc. Block/Lalor's opinions about what should happen to personal unions (which is the reverse of what happened to the British Empire) is of no consequence to this article. --G2bambino (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? You seem to think that 'because I said so' is a perfectly acceptable end to an argument when you say it, as you so frequently do--"We are just re-treading old ground here; this has all already been discussed," for just one example among many. Doubly amusing since it's quite, quite clear that you were in error the first time around, too.


 * Either way, I deconstructed the paragraph above and made it quite clear why the sources should be included. Your inability or unwillingness to read it is not my problem.  You also, unsurprisingly, fail to address the point that fr33kman has a) clearly looked into this, and b) had no problems whatsoever with the paragraph as I rewrote it.  Of course, your dismissal of anyone offering a third opinion that is at odds with yours is clearly on the record, so I suppose I shouldn't be particularly surprised. And yet again, it's fascinating that sources are 'of no consequence' or 'irrelevant' only when you disagree with them; Lalor certainly was relevant in the first version of this debate back in June, when it (selectively quoted, mind) supported your argument. Now that the whole thing is being quoted, it's suddenly 'of no consequence'. Funny how that works, don't you think? Prince of Canadat 05:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. Now, the fact that I addressed your claims above shows that I read them. That you say I dismissed Lalor as irrelevant shows that you are not reading what I write. Please do so, and then provide your rebuttal, if you have one. --G2bambino (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * * sigh*, I really had hoped you would do better than simply ignoring--again--everything I've said. Oh well, I shouldn't be surprised. When you engage in good faith by actually responding to direct points I've made and questions I've asked, I will then feel some sort of reason to assume a modicum of good faith on your part and engage you accordingly.  Since you won't, well... Prince of Canadat 05:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the points you made were very clearly addressed; so your accusations of bad faith are groundless. That you refuse to read what I wrote in response and work with it is both telling and disappointing. I suspect, then, that this means discussion between you and I is fruitless, and the resolution process will have to take place fully through other parties. --G2bambino (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Groundless? Asking you 18 (or however many) times to produce your sources, and your continued refusal to do so... that was you acting in good faith? I read what you wrote; disputing it is pointless as I have very carefully and clearly outlined why each source is a) correctly represented, and b) used relevantly within the disputed paragraph. Any further effort on my part is wasted, as you simply pretend that I didn't say it and keep going on about your POV.


 * Feel free to seek dispute resolution on this. I already did, by asking for a third opinion. Your refusal to listen to it is identical to your refusals at Talk:Autumn Phillips, Talk:Monarchy of Canada, and the MedCab case that you stalled because you didn't get enough of what you wanted and/or I didn't lose enough (your words, not mine). I have no faith whatsoever that you will accept any outcome other than getting precisely what you want; your track record is clear.


 * Address this: fr33kman has obviously researched this and read the sources, and had no problem with the paragraph as I wrote it. Prince of Canadat 06:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Third opinion isn't done here yet. Sorry. I will henceforth only engage with fr33 and others directly; no more wasting time with your bogging down of discussions on content with effusive and baseless whining. You should take that elsewhere, to try, again, to get me charged with some kind of breach of etiquette or rules. --G2bambino (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh goody, insults! I knew you wouldn't disappoint me. Prince of Canadat 06:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And whether or not 3O is done yet is immaterial; address the point. fr33kman had no problem with the paragraph as I rewrote it. He has clearly read all the sources. So you're attacking me because...? Also, noting your past behaviour with regards to third opinions--e.g., you dismiss them as irrelevant or ignore them entirely, when they don't agree with you (unless there's no way for you to wiggle out of it)--is rather the opposite of 'baseless'. You might also wish to look up the definition of effusive, by the way. Prince of Canadat 06:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion (con't 2: Block/Lalor)
As I've stated above, only a few sources remain contentious. I would like to go through each one by one, so that we can be clear that each has been dealt with. First, Block/Lalor:

They say:

They also say:

The latter is clearly an opinion on the success of personal unions and on what should happen to them. The validity of this reading is only enhanced when we also consider that Block/Lalor mention as examples of personal union:

We know from history that these states did not share a common parliament, did not share armies, did not have common finances, etc. Futher still in support of my reading of the source, the authors say that:

We know from history that the United Kingdom resulted from the fusion of two countries in personal union into one country under a single parliament, with a single army, with singular finances, etc.

Thus, Block/Lalor's definition of a personal union, and the examples they use as illustration, are pertinent to the subject of this article. However, their personal opinions about what should happen to personal unions (which is the reverse of what actually happened to the British Empire) is of no importance to this article; that particular part of the source is more relevant to the article Personal union. --G2bambino (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Now we're gettin somewhere. True, these are opinions. But they were never proferred as authorities. They were originally presented to demonstrate that 'personal union' is not an indisputable term to describe the relationship between the monarchies. And they adequately do that. The discussion became an argument over the content itself rather than acknowledging this simple fact. So it comes down to this: what sources explicitly state that those monarchies are in 'personal union'? One has been offered. Now, the article already states that the relationship is 'analagous' to a personal union. What more need be said? Why must the term personal union be used?--Gazzster (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the key problems right now is that Block/Lalor's opinions on desired outcomes are being presented as authoritative definitions. I think the removal of this misrepresentation is the first thing to tackle; whether or not, and how to use the term "personal union" is yet another matter, though one I think is easily (if not already) solved. --G2bambino (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to 'butt in' so late in the conversation again. I took the time to read all of the discussion, since my last post here and I have to say I agree with everything G2 has said so far. Thanks, btw G2, you are expressing my views equally, only in a more eloquent straight forward manner! ;) --Cameron* 12:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. And I apologise to all for having to be witness to my descent into acrimonious territory with PoC yesterday. --G2bambino (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Better sources out there?
I guess the point I'd like to raise is one of the age and contemporary value of the following sources; Block (1899), Lalor (1881), Corbett (1940) and Elliott (1930). The problem that I have is that these sources (Block and Lalor) are very old: surely if their opinions are still valid today, a more modern source can be found? Corbett and Elliott are contemporaneous to the Status of Westminster 1933 and is it not possible that their opinions are those of scholars seeking to explain a changing situation at that time? Again, if what they say is still relevant, can not more modern sources be found. The modern sources state that personal unions don't exist any more. I'm a medic and if I offered to treat a disease based on a reference from 1881, would you accept it? Or would you expect me to be able to back it up with modern evidence? Just a thought. :-)  fr33k man   -s-  15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, it should be written roughly ..used to be a personal union, but no longer.... GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is Wikipedias policy to write articles in general terms as much as possible. We have to avoid confusing the reader: our articles are written by experts for lay people, not other experts.  fr33k man   -s-  16:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm content with that. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, our Australian High Court source is more recent, as are the two you found, Fr33k. I don't believe we should discount the older sources, we just have to be sure to keep them in context and not present them as saying things they don't. Some medical adivce from the 1880s can still be perfectly applicable today, after all! --G2bambino (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you don't necessarily need to discount them, but you certainly need (if they are used) to qualify and explain the issues with them (the reader shouldn't have to do any more work than reading the article. An encyclopaedia is, after all, a compendium of already published thought and so should act as a definitive reference for the average reader. Yes, some medical advice from the 1880s is relevant today, but it has been backed up by modern research: it wouldn't be acceptable on its own merits alone. Perhaps you could suggest a rewrite (here) and we could see how people feel about that?  fr33k man   -s-  17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I suggested one already, up above. It must have got buried in all the other verbosity.
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. While contemporary scholars have said that none are in existence, this relationship has been described as being a form of, or similar to,  a personal union; that is, an arrangement whereby a single person is simultaneously and separately the monarch of two or more independent countries. However, it was aruged in 1940 that the British Commonwealth (then entirely composed of monarchies under the shared crown) was something that defied analysis, and which should be treated as sui generis.  
 * I made a slight modification of one word, based on an earlier objection of PoC. --G2bambino (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC
 * That version is good enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fine by me and I believe it addresses all previous objections. Now we just need the princely assent. ;) --Cameron* 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Prince?  fr33k man   -s-  18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To deal with all the above comments at once:
 * The older sources provide background, context, and evidence of the shift from using 'personal union' towards the more recent references which indicate it no longer describes any relationships;
 * As has been explained several times to G@--he doesn't like to listen--the Australian High Court reference nowhere uses the term 'personal union', merely describes the situation as 'similar'. WP:SYN specifically forbids using the term on the basis of that source. Unless he means Murdoch, which is the Irish government speaking sometime around 1926.
 * Again, as has been explained to G2, his version of the paragraph insinuates that the modern experts should be discounted due to uses in the past.
 * So, no, that version is no good. Prince of Canadat 22:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, suggest an alternative wording  fr33k man   -s-  23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, but someone who prefers to hurl insults at me--while, amusingly, pretending to be perfectly behaved to you--didn't like it. Aw. I fail to see why we're supposed to give in to someone who prefers to bully rather than discuss, who is absolutely fine with focusing on other editors and not on content--until, that is, the focus goes to him, then it needs to be all! about! content!. I really don't see why G2's appalling behaviour should be rewarded with anything other than a firm invitation to enjoy the world, and stop attacking other people.  The version I wrote is fine, crystal clear, and represents past and current thinking accurately and logically--that is, moving from past thought on the subject to the current thinking, unlike G2's version which clearly implies the current thinking is wrong. I'm sure that implication has nothing to do with his POV.  That G2 deliberately antagonizes me--take a look at Talk:Governor-General of India, for example, where I was the recipient of long drawn-out word games and insults for asking a question--should tell us everything we need to know about his true motivation for objecting to what I wrote. His 'justifications' are post hoc at best. Prince of Canadat 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be assured that I have not missed the conduct of any editor here, I am just not in a position to do anything about it: nor would I focus on that sort of thing in any case. There are processes here at Wikipedia in which to raise such concerns.  fr33k man   -s-  00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We haven't heard from everyone, yet. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between the monarchies in the Commonwealth has been described as being a form of, or being similar to, a 'personal union,' that is, an arrangement whereby a single person is simultaneously and separately the monarch of two or more independent countries. P.E. Corbett, a Canadian lawyer, argued in 1940 that "[a]ssociations of states are traditionally classified in the literature of international law under six heads: federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vassalage, protectorate," and then further notes that attempts to define the precise nature of the relationship between countries under the British crown are difficult, and concludes with the observation that "the much wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as sui generis." Other sources echo Corbett's conclusions, though for occasionally different reasons. More recent studies of the subject conclude that there are no personal unions in existence today.

There. The despised Lalor is removed, so G2 can't have a problem with it. Prince of Canadat 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments?  fr33k man   -s-  00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving Block/Lalor's opinions out is a good step. However, putting its flow aside for the moment, there is still the matter of the misrepresentation of the Miller and Oppenheim Elliot sources. --G2bambino (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you state exactly how these are being misrepresented in your view?  fr33k man   -s-  01:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. As I said earlier:
 * Miller's words pertain to the broader free association of countries known as the Commonwealth of Nations, not the specific group of countries within the Commonwealth of Nations that are under one crown.
 * If that is indeed the case, then it needs to be addressed or else dropped.  fr33k man   -s-  14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As Elliot is writing pre 1931, he is expressing a doubtful opinion about what might or might not work in the future, not on what actually occurred. --G2bambino (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Academic opinion can still be valid if it shows the thinking of the time, this must be made blatantly clear in the text of the article, however!  fr33k man   -s-  14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it can. But the main point about Elliot is that he was making a prediction. It's a fine source for the history section of this article, but not for any definition of current situations. --G2bambino (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As previously mentioned, I share G2bambino's first concern. --Cameron* 12:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can either of you suggest a way forward that would address those concerns whilst still addressing the concerns of the other side?  fr33k man   -s-  14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, PoC seemed to relent on the Block/Lalor quote. I think we should also sacrifice the Miller source here, and apply in an appropriate spot at Commonwealth of Nations. And lastly, use the Elliot source to add his predictions in the history section in this article. We therefore use all but one source here, and represent each in an accurate manner. --G2bambino (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, why don't you make those changes to the article and we'll solicit everyones opinion again?  fr33k man   -s-  22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We could try, but that would be restoring almost all of what PoC last reverted. And he's already implied that he isn't satisfied with that change yet. --G2bambino (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't consider it closed at all! The suggestion was to propose a new change and then see what people think of it. We have to find a common ground here and I'd like to challenge you both (indeed you all) to do some thinking about how that can best be done. There is going to have to be some give from all sides and I truly think that you guys are capable of it! :-)  fr33k man   -s-  23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll be the first to give. I'll accept whatever's decided. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PrinceOfCanada's remarks

PrinceOfCanada is currently on a two week block. I have offered to let him continue in this dispute via cutting and pasting, verbatim, any comments he makes on his talk page: I have received the blocking admins permission to do this. Therefore (may need to be put in context) ...


 * Deciding that Miller's thoughts don't apply is OR; he says Commonwealth, which is what we are discussing. Getting bogged down in the notion that the title of the article has any sort of official or formal usage is patently silly, as it explicitly does not. Deciding that Elliot's don't apply is likewise silly: he is suggesting before the fact that 'personal union' could not be accurate, subsequent scholars coming after him him (Corbett, Sack) say it isn't accurate in practice, scholars contemporaneous to us concur. Using the source shows that at no time was the term widely considered to be accurate, whether before or during the development of the--back to this again--sui generis relationship amongst the monarchies of the commonwealth. It traces the argument from before the relationship through the generation of the relationship to the relationship as it stands today. Background and context are essential. Prince of Canadat 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 fr33k man   -s-  14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While the author speculates in part, it is informed speculation. He is referring to terms and concepts known at the time, and concludes that none of them fit. When he is talking about the Commonwealth, he is talking about the UK-based monarchies within the Commonwealth. The context demonstrates this; to talk about the 'Crown' in regard to the Commonwealth makes no sense unless this is what is intended. The Crown does not preside over the Commonwealth as a purely free association. The term 'The Crown' implies political authority. The Crown has no political authority over the Commonwealth;the Queen's position is purely titular. The Crown does however preside over most monarchies within the Commonwealth.That Miller does not make the distinction is no failing on his part.--Gazzster (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gazz, I believe you're confusing your sources. What Miller says is this: "the survey concludes with an attempt to classify the Commonwealth. It is no longer a federation, nor a military alliance, nor a personal union." This was written in 1959, when republics were existant within the British Commonwealth. Where, then, are you getting this stuff about a Crown, authority, speculation, or any of the rest? --G2bambino (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would states that do not share a monarch be in personal union? Indeed how could a republic be in personal union at all? --Cameron* 09:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that personal unions can only occur between "International Persons" who share the same monarch. Republics don't have a monarch so they couldn't be in personal union could they? (of course, personal unions don't seem to exist any more)  fr33k man   -s-  12:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there might be a personal union of sorts between France (a republic) and Andorra (a principality). But, regardless, there are republics and monarchies in the Commonwealth that do not recognise Elizabeth II as their head of state; ergo, the Commonwealth could never be defined as either a personal or real union. --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Swaziland (for example), has got me perplexed. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bishop of Urgell might disagree with that (Can a personal union have two "monarchs"?) :-) Wouldn't both nations have to be monarchies? France is most certainly a republic. I think that we've agreed that the definition of the Commonwealth defies definition  fr33k man   -s-  17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I don't want to ask him, though. Anyway, we shouldn't distract ourselves with definitions of the Commonwealth. It's the realms we're interested in, in this case. --G2bambino (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to the question as to whether a personal union can have two monarchs: England, Scotland and Ireland were in personal union with two monarchs between 1689 and 1694. Opera hat (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Elliot's statement does not belong in the History section--or, okay, not solely in the history section. It should be referenced in both places. Again: provide background/context before the fact, scholarly opinion during the development of the relationship, and current thoughts on the definition of the relationship allows for a greater (though summarised) understanding than simply making a statement. Readers may then choose to move on to delve into the sources or not, but it absolutely makes sense to provide context. Miller belongs in the Relationships section for all the reasons that both Gazz and I have already outlined, but if there is no way past, then fine, remove it. That's about as far as I'm willing to go, however, as removing anything else just puts us right back where we started. Prince of Canadat 15:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Here is an alternative:


 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. This relationship has been described as: a form of, similar to, or an actual personal union; that is, an arrangement whereby a single person is simultaneously and separately the monarch of two or more independent countries.   Even before the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931, British authorities regarded the Dominions as being in personal union with the United Kingdom, though this notion was challenged then,  and the idea that they ever could form a personal union was thought by others to be unworkable; some contemporary scholars have said that no true personal unions exist today. It was argued in 1940 that the British Commonwealth (then entirely composed of monarchies under the shared crown) was either to be classified as a union of states, or considered to be something that defied analysis, and which should be treated as sui generis. 

This incorporates some newly found sources. There actually seems to be a wealth of infomation out there on this matter, only I can't access it on the internet. --G2bambino (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a very good start. Personally, I think that the modifiers, "actual" and "true" are probably unnecessary and perhaps superfluous. They don't seem to add any factual meaning to the paragraph; but it's not a big deal (and, indeed, my opinion is not really what matters here, the regular editors here are more important). I'd also, personally, not use the word "some" (eg: "some contemporary scholars ...") as it might be seen as a "weasel word"  [I hate that term]  (ie: a modifier that puts forth a POV of an author, albeit with subtlety). The reason I'd think this is; are there any contemporary scholars who feel that personal unions do still exist? Also, from an encyclopaedist viewpoint, would it be better to refer to "the Queen" simply as "the monarch"? Long may she reign, but she will, one day, die; it might be better to use the more general term monarch, as it won't ever need updating by future editors. Other than that, I think it's a good step forwards.


 * Comments from others? :-)  fr33k man   -s-  04:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's confusingly and awkwardly worded. I still don't see what the issue is with my version of the paragraph, absent Miller and Lalor. Prince of Canadat 05:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you feel it's confusing? What would you change about it? (ps: welcome back, we should be able to hold easier discussions now)  fr33k man   -s-  13:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a lot of 'X but Y but Z but X again', and discounts the scholarship which states that personal unions no longer exist--a line of thought that traces back for 60-odd years. I don't see any substantive objections to the version I wrote, with Miller & Lalor removed. Prince of Canadat 13:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have objections to it; mostly in the way it's structured as well; excess wording, etc. Plus, as I said, I've found more sources. My most recent version probably does need finessed; it was just a first attempt at getting as much information in as tight a paragraph in as comprehensible a way. But, the point of this exercise is not to prove that personal unions don't exist. Rather, it is to describe what the relationship between the Commonwealth realms are. With more evidence now dug up, it seems there is not, nor has there ever been, any unanimous decision on what that relationship is: personal union, like a personal union, a union of states, no proper definition in existence. --G2bambino (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh. Multiple people have liked my version, and again, you haven't raised any substantive concerns. Factual errors? No. Is it clear and readable? Yes. I have reached the point past which I am no longer willing to compromise. I have removed chunks of material, I have removed perfectly relevant sources, all to please you. I draw the line here. Prince of Canadat 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you'll find that multiple people have also liked my version, of which this is just a slightly expanded one. That tells me that the content of each version is acceptable to everyone, it's now just a matter of packaging the information in a professional and encyclopaedic composition. --G2bambino (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) I have made myself clear. Prince of Canadat 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposal is original research, except for the first phrase: "The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy" --Lawe (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion (Personal union debate continued ...)
I see nothing to be objected to in Prince's version. But why say anything at all about personal union? It should be treated if it is a notable point. But it is not. It is not significant one way or the other. The relationship between Her Majesty's realms can be adequately described with neither a positive nor a negative treatment. Are we making a Mount Everest over a particularly undersized molehill?--Gazzster (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this personal union dispute is within Lame territory. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But why say anything at all about personal union? Because the sources do? --G2bambino (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And there are sources that specifically deny it. Q.E.D. It is difficult enough to find a treatment of 'Commonwealth realm', let alone 'personal union'. So it's not a topic that cries out for understanding.--Gazzster (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. But, the section is called "Relationship of the realms", so we make sure the section talks about that relationship, and the term "personal union" comes up quite frequently when one does some research on that relationship. Does my suggested paragraph imply in any way that there's an accepted definition for what the relationship is? --G2bambino (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Frequently? You came up with these new references only after a long and pointed search. If 'frequently', you might have produced these references a long time ago when you were asked for them. No, your paragraph does not imply that (though neither did Prince's version). But why treat of it at all? In your end is your beginning. You obviously wish to restore these references because you consider the term an adequate manner of description, which was your original position.But, if, as you say, there is no adequate deinition of what personal union means, how can it be?--Gazzster (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, fequently; and I say that because of a) what Fr33kman found, and b) what I easily found with further searching through his links, which I'd never previously been able to find (obviously). I was actually a tad frustrated because there were many matches to my searches, but the full text wasn't available online; there seemed to be some real gems. Anyway, I'm not understanding where you're coming from in terms of the description of the realms' relationship. My intent is not prove anything one way or the other; hence, I asked for confirmation of neutrality in my proposal. If there is varying opinion on what the relationship is - even so far as thinking there's no definition for it -does that not warrant a description of the various views? Some say a definite personal union, some say a kind of personal union, some say not a personal union at all, another called it a union of states, and one said sui generis. What's wrong with outlining this? --G2bambino (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no. The issue is just so obscure and quite frankly insignificant.--Gazzster (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that begs the question: where does the line between significance and insigificance sit? The relationship between these countries has been significant enough for at least a dozen legal scholars to write about. What, then, precludes us from doing so? The matter is clearly relevant to the subject. --G2bambino (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I completely agree that this mention of personal union is irrelevant. I do not believe there is a line between significance and irrelevance. There are not a dozen scholars who are alive today who have even thought about a Commonwealth personal union, because it has been consigned to the historical dustbin. What precludes us is the reasonable size of the article. There are actual books about the Commonwealth and about realms, 300 or 400 pages long that do not mention personal union once. --Lawe (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal union, a phrase of which we can't pin-point when it went out of use (if it did). Just when our back were turned, it became extint (or did it). The mystery of it all, folks. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole controversy tells us otherwise. Anyone who thinks logically would assume UK and Canada to be in personal union (as we share the same monarch), thus we have to explain in the article why (in your opinion and the opinion of your chosen scholars) it isn't. --Cameron* 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does "we have to" come from. Anyone who thinks logically ... can see the benefit of relying on sources. The whole controversy is between wikipedia editors. It tells us that we are in territory we should shy away from. --Lawe (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We share the same monarch, yet we don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That stumped me for a while too. But...look at the UK/Hanover situation 1714-1837. Nobody doubts that was a personal union and yet the Georges weren't King of the United Kingdom in Hanover, they would have been König George von Hanover over there! ;) --Cameron* 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the 21st century at the moment. Nobody in the 18th century doubted that women were second class people or that Europeans were superior or that empires should be expanded. We just don't organise our world like that anymore. --Lawe (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And your point is? I don't really understand the context in which you are providing those examples...--Cameron* 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is for you to stop trying to look at 18th century examples and trying to make a purse from a sow's ear. The Commonwealth Realm is a modern concept. --Lawe (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, call it Commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really anything to do with the term Commonwealth realm if you ask me. I believe Canada and the UK have been in personal union since at least Queen Victoria. Best, --Cameron* 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * small r: Sure why not. We cannot write what you believe. Are there not universities in Canada which one can study such a topic? Write to your Attorney General perhaps? The question for this article is relevance. Is there any relevance to this term given that almost nobody has mentioned it out of the millions of pages on the topic. We have 30kB or so. --Lawe (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it acceptable to have personal union in this article, but in a past-tense style? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets be realistic. Scroll up and you will find 24,000 words on the question of Personal Union. 24,000 words! That is probably 10 times more words than have ever been written on the Personal Union and the Commonwealth realm in all of history. Somehow you want to capture that into one paragraph? --Lawe (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For past tense we need a begining and end. --Lawe (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a thought. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the matter needs to be brought to arbitration. It's getting rather silly.--Gazzster (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it go to mediation, next? GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, removing it entirely isn't such a bad idea.
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Different terms have been used to describe this relationship, though experts have been in disagreement over the correct term to use since at least 1931. P.E. Corbett, a Canadian lawyer, concluded in 1940 that "the much wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as sui generis;" the disparity amongst subsequent attempts to define the relationship between the monarchies of the Commonwealth would appear to support this notion.

Sprinkle with refs. The last clause is a bit unwieldy. Prince of Canadat 04:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All members of the Commonwealth shared the same monarch in 1940, so the idea of a Commonwealth realm as a subset of members of the Commonwealth did not exist. This makes Corbett's opinion of debatable relevance to this subject (as I'm sure will have been mentioned above somewhere). Opera hat (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so; the point is that even when there were no republics, Corbett felt that 'personal union' was not an accurate term, and the relationship was sui generis. We're only talking about the monarchies here, so I think it applies. Prince of Canadat 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing that I keep thinking here is ...

You guys keep deciding what so-and-so means by what they say in a source. I'm sorry, but that is original research. We are encyclopedists here, not researchers. Just like a reporter doesn't decide the news, they report it; we don't decide what the research means, we just report it. We are here for the readers. An encyclopedia exists for the readers to get an understanding of "what" others say not what "we" think they say. If a reliable source, especially one that is used by others we respect as a institution, say X, then we report that they said X; we don't interpret X for the reader: they do that for themselves! Comments please, 90.208.95.149 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry, my PC dropped my session,  fr33k man   -s-  15:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I totally agree. We cannot read into the Commonwealth sources that Commonwealth realms are meant. The sources should have made themselves clearer! ;) Best, --Cameron* 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So:
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Different terms have been used to describe this relationship, though experts have been in disagreement over the correct term to use since at least 1931, when the Commonwealth was formed. [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref]
 * ? Prince of Canadat 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * or..."The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. De facto such a relationship is called personal union, although such a term has never been used de jure and even experts are divided as to the correct term to use since at least 1931, when the Commonwealth was formed. --Cameron* 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have sources which describe the relationship as de facto personal union? I only used the term about 800 miles above as a convenience, not as a sourced statement. Prince of Canadat 16:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My dictionary? ;) --Cameron* 16:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It does seem like 800 miles doesn't it :-) lol, I think the page will need some archiving after this is sorted.  fr33k man   -s-  16:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about; "Various terms have been used to describe this relationship, such as; A(ref), B(ref), C(ref), etc... however, it seems that the relationship as it stands today defies current definition(ref)?"  fr33k man   -s-  16:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Short and to the point, I like it! ;) --Cameron* 16:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tweak:
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as 'personal union,' 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all historically been advanced and rejected as definitions by various experts. The relationship as it stands today appears to defy definition.
 * Add refs, bake at 350 for two hours. Prince of Canadat 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Micro tweak ?:
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as 'personal union,' a 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all been advanced as definitions by experts; however, the relationship as it stands today appears to defy definition.
 * Just to be rid of dangling modifiers and words that might be taken to editorialise.  fr33k man   -s-  16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Micro to your micro:
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as 'personal union,' a 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all been advanced as definitions by some experts and rejected by some others; the relationship as it stands today appears to defy definition.

(bolded to show changes) I think we need to be clear that terms have been specifically considered and rejected, to avoid this whole ugliness from bubbling up again. Prince of Canadat 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's all read this page and then regroup.  fr33k man   -s-  17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not weaseling, maybe I just didn't write well. The implication I was aiming for was 'some propose, some reject'--balanced. Take a look again; it's more clear what I meant that way, but awkwardly phrased. Prince of Canadat 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Terribly sorry to have caused any offense, Prince; certainly none inteneded. My point really was simply that "some" should be used sparingly. I think that one of the things that you folks should aim for is conveying to the reader, in some fashion, that there are time frames involved in these opinions; the defined terms are older than the lack of definition that exists today.  fr33k man   -s-  18:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I see little issue with any of these proposals; the only thing that makes me think twice is the claim "the relationship as it stands today appears to defy definition." That seems to be a conclusion that we are coming to. Why not simply drop the phrase?
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as personal union, a form of personal union, shared monarchy, and union of states have all been advanced as definitions by experts.
 * I would also say that some sources, such as Elliott, could be useful in the History section. --G2bambino (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as 'personal union,' a 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all been advanced as definitions, though there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate, and some terms have fallen into disuse or are regarded as no longer being applicable today.


 * Sorted. [ roux  ] [ x ] was prince of canada 05:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking better. The end seems to contain what could be interepreted as a touch of OR, though. Perhaps:
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as personal union, a form of personal union, and shared monarchy, amongst others, have all been advanced as definitions at various times since the mid 1920s, though with little to no agreement on which term is most accurate.
 * Eh? --G2bambino (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "advanced as definitions" - is that not a little bit of an exageration. None of these sources are particularly interested in advancing any definition. "Shared monarchy" is descriptive. In comparison, there is much written on 'federation', 'constitutional monarchy' or trying to distinguish between 'nation' or 'state'. While wikipedia editors could be said to disagree (see above), scholars appear to have left such arguments to the distant past. I believe there may have been some mild debate about this in the 1940's, but without sources this is supposition on my part. Compare to the ongoing discussion about the '(in)divisibility of the crown' where there would be adequate sources and historical commentary to draw upon. --Lawe (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as 'personal union,' a 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all been advanced as definitions since the beginning of the Commonwealth itself, though there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate.

Sorted. [ roux  ] [ x ] was prince of canada 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase "since the beginning of the Commonwealth itself" somewhat muddies the waters between the Commonwealth of Nations and the sixteen countries within it with a shared monarch. I'd thought of something similar, but felt the date was more unambiguous. --G2bambino (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It does no such thing. The Commonwealth began with 0 republics. Since that's out of the way, can we all be agreed now that this will work? [ roux  ] [ x ] was prince of canada 21:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not unilaterally decree when something is "out of the way"; it is presumptuous. I understand that the Commonwealth of Nations began with no republics; however, it has since accommodated both republics and other monarchies. While what you propose is technically correct, I don't see a need to be less clear when a more clear option is available. --G2bambino (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? You do it all the time. The paragraph is perfectly clear as it stands. Unless you have a substantive objection, i.e. one based in facts, I really don't see any reason for this insane dispute to go on any longer. [ roux  ] [ x ] was prince of canada 22:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I know you are but what am I?" arguments are not productive. The paragraph, obviously, is not clear as it stands. I will make one last tweak to bring my proposal even closer to yours, and then wait to see what others think:
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as personal union, a form of personal union, and shared monarchy, amongst others, have all been advanced as definitions since the mid 1920s, though with little to no agreement on which term is most accurate.
 * --G2bambino (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "I know you are but what am I," it was "you do it all the time, so where exactly do you get off telling anyone else not to?"
 * What I wrote is perfectly clear. [ roux  ] [ x ] was prince of canada 08:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No excuse. --G2bambino (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right; your presumptuous behaviour and hatred of same in others is no excuse for me to be presumptuous in return. [  roux  ] [ x ] was prince of canada 15:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good; you understand. Even if it takes hypocricy to do so. --G2bambino (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no debate between scholars, so no requirement for agreement. It would be simple to say the terms "... have been used to describe the relationship." I agree with Roux that there is no issue implying the sources are from the period at the beginning of the Commonwealth, as all the sources are describing the Commonwealth or in that context." --Lawe (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Since the mid 1920s" sufficies; that is the period when the British Commonwealth emerged, but the date avoids any potential confusion. Keep readers in mind, not ourselves. Nobody claims there is a requirement for agreement. --G2bambino (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you seem to be agree with my point - to remove the reference to agreement. I cannot agree the British Commonwealth emerged in the mid-1920's. It was a longer process than that. --Lawe (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference to agreement doesn't say agreement is required, only that there is none, which the sources all stand to show. The idea of the British Commonwealth emerged in the mid 1920s: the Imperial Conference of 1926, to be exact. --G2bambino (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(out)lawe, what is your opinion of:
 * The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as 'personal union,' a 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all been advanced as definitions since the beginning of the Commonwealth itself, though there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate.

[ roux  ] [ x ] 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is it's a genuine attempt to summarise all the discussion. I don't think that there was ever an academic debate about this. The actual debate was about independent nations with an indivisible crown, which became a divisible crown. The sentence would be accurate by substituting "definition" with "description" and "no agreement" with "no consistency". --Lawe (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rightyo, ta. [ roux  ] [ x ] 11:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. --G2bambino (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good!  fr33k man   -s-  15:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as 'personal union,' a 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all been advanced as descriptions since the beginning of the Commonwealth itself, though there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate."

Good, we're done. Someone else can add references--accurately, per the agreements above--as I really have reached my fill of this particular issue. [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I must object to this; just kidding. Jolly good ya'll. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pour vous [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not easy being green, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dablink... again, sorry.
Given all of the above, the dablink should probably be changed to something like:
 * This article is about the monarchy of $country; for information on the other countries which share the same monarchy, see Commonwealth realm.

Short, sweet, to the point, does not present anything unduly, does not use a term which we all now know isn't particularly relevant. [ roux  ] [ x ] was prince of canada 05:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is OK by me --Lawe (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have any comment on this rewording? [ roux  ] [ x ] 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Only this: I've no comment. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changes made --Lawe (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this uses exactly the same wording as otheruses4 but with nonstandard punctuation, I took the liberty of standardising it by using the template on Monarchy of the United Kingdom. I'll try to do the others as well; apologies if I miss any. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)