Talk:Monarchies in Oceania

"Continent"?

 * Two of the monarchies in Oceania, Australia and New Zealand, have dependencies within the continent and outside it.

The only way I can see to make sense out of this is to take Oceania to be a "continent". That is an altogether new idea to me and I suspect to most readers.

The article titled continents begins thus:
 * A continent is one of several large landmasses on Earth. They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, with seven regions commonly regarded as continents – they are (from largest in size to smallest): Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia.
 * A continent is one of several large landmasses on Earth. They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, with seven regions commonly regarded as continents – they are (from largest in size to smallest): Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia.

and it cites the Encyclopedia Britannica in support of that statement.

If an unconventional definition is relied upon, it should be explained. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Better now? Changed from continent to region, per article Oceania. --Knowzilla 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... Michael Hardy (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.jpg
The image File:Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.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:


 * File:Sila o Tonga - Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Tonga.svg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now added a fair-use rationale for use on this article.. --Knowzilla 15:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the coat of arms of Tonga, I have removed it as its not as important. Problem solved. --Knowzilla 12:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Listing dependencies and federal territories
I fail to see why federal territories of Australia should be listed separate to the main entry. Why do they not simply just fall under Australia? The territories are not federated, but they are overseen by the Australian federal government. All of which is irrelevant anyway since the Monarchy refers to a single dominion or realm---they don't fall under a separate representative (Governor-General), so why are they listed separately???

The Pitcairn Islands is there because it's under the dominion of the British Monarch, and is the only territory under the British Crown that is located in Oceania. Since the bulk of the Queen of Australia's territory is in Oceania, you would list it all under "Australia". If you go to the Monarchies in Europe page, you'll see that no, Gibraltar and the Faroes are not listed in the table. Night w (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good point, but what about those of New Zealand? Also, theres a difference between Australian territories such as Northern Territory and Christmas Island for example. The former is a territory, the latter is what's known as an external territory. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but we're not referring to how a government chooses to divide its various entities or what their constitutional statuses are. The article should refer to the single dominion/realm over which a specific Crown has possession (like it's listed on the Commonwealth realm page). As to what constitutes that dominion, we can list in the main text and/or a footnote.
 * As for the NZ ones, they're a bit different as associated states. I still think that they don't belong in the main table. They form a vital part of the Monarchy of New Zealand, and listing them separately implies that they're not under the dominion of the Queen of New Zealand. Night w (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The points given are valid, since territories (internal or external) should not be listed separately since they fall under the governance of the respective realm within the Oceania area. Pitcairn would be the only legit one to be there and as stated before, the Cook Islands & Niue are not 'dependencies' but are associated states. I'll do the adjustments accordingly. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to succession column
I made a change to the Succession column in the table. I think the first word in any entry under that column should specify the basics——that is, whether the monarchy is elective or hereditary. In addition, none of the Commonwealth realms to my knowledge have a law specifying primogeniture; instead, they simply maintain that whoever holds the British Crown shall also (by virtue of holding that office) hold their individual Crowns also. Does anybody have any issues or notes on this change? Night w (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's two problems there - firstly, there are no elective monarchies in Oceania. Secondly while it is true there's no explicit statement of primogeniture in law in most of the Commonwealth realms, as is the case in New Zealand, the succession is governed by primogeniture by adoption of English statutes (e.g. the Act of Settlement 1701). --Lholden (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are elective monarchies in the world. You can't just assume people know that all the monarchies in Oceania are hereditary. When you're talking rules of succession, the first thing you should address is the basics—then get into specifics. As for the ex officio statement, I can change that back to male primogeniture if there is a law. I just thought that statement was more accurate in the practical sense, but if there if the realms have adopted primogeniture laws, then it's probably not right. Night w (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the other Realms do not maintain that whoever holds the British Crown holds their national Crown as well. For example, if the British Parliament were to change the rules of succession to the Throne, it would have no effect whatsoever on the line of succession to the Thrones of the other Realms. This is why you see Gordon Brown trying to get the approval of the other Commonwealth realms in changing the succession laws. Therefore, whoever sits on the British Throne does not become Monarch of the other Realms by that virtue, he/she becomes Sovereign of the other Realms by virtue of their own line of succession, which, in all 16 Realms, is currently identical. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  14:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Cool. Thanks Knowzilla ;) Night w (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wallis and Futuna
Should the subnational Wallis and Futuna monarchies be mentioned too? Alinor (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I added them by copying and pasting the section from Non-sovereign monarchy. It might need some expanision or something. Also in the near future it probably should be update to include the new monarch of Alo, when he or she is elected.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)