Talk:High commissioner (Commonwealth)

Rationale for term "High Cmmissioner"
I don't think, the article doesn't fully explain the rationale for using the term "High Commissioner" instead of Ambassador. I think (but don't have a source- so that's why I've not edited- but want to float the idea in case there is a source, or someone more knowledgeable can pick this ball up and run with it). The Rationale for having "High Commissioners" within the Commonwealth is that "Commonwealth Countries" are not "Foreign Countries". So if a country is not Foreign, you can't have an Embassy there. I believe a similar terminology was used by East and West Germany for the same reason. The two Germanies (eventually) recognised each other diplomatically, but did not consider the other to be "Foreign". So there was never an East German Embassy in Bonn or a West German one in East Berlin, but I believe they had "High Commissions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.123.184.159 (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's my understanding also. I am also pretty sure that in Commonwealth countries High Commissioners don't rank as Ambassadors as the article says, although they're equivalent roles. I believe they in fact hold a higher rank/precedence than an Ambassador or at least have precedence ahead of an Ambassador. I'd have to fact-check that with some sort of authoritative source before I put it in the article though. From memory a High Commissioner is the representative of a government in another Commonwealth country rather than the representative of a head of state as an Ambassador is. This arrangement arose from the fact that in many of the sending and receiving Commonwealth countries the head of state is/was the same person, i.e. Queen Elizabeth II or her predecessors. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)