|
[[image:finney3.jpg|thumb|Albert Finney]]
== Capitalisation ==
'''Albert Finney''' (born [[9 May]] [[1936]]) is a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[actor]]. He has received five [[Academy Awards]] nominations.
His most famous role was as [[Agatha Christie]]'s master detective [[Hercule Poirot]] in the 1974 film "Murder On The Orient Express." Finney was so effective in the role that he complained that it typecast him for a number of years. "People really do think I am 300 pounds with a French accent" he said.
What is the appropriate capitalization of this phrase? Can we make the title and the first sentence consistant? -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]
He was born in [[Salford]], [[Manchester]], [[England]].
:It seems to me that it should be "Commonwealth realm" for the same reason I'd expect an article about European kingdoms to have a lower case "k". [[User:Ben Arnold|Ben Arnold]] 12:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
His first film was [[The Entertainer]] ([[1960]]), but his real breakthrough came with his portrayal of a disillusioned [[factory]] worker in [[Karel Reisz]]'s film of [[Alan Sillitoe]]'s ''[[Saturday Night and Sunday Morning]]''. This led to a series of "angry young man" roles in [[kitchen sink drama]]s, most notably [[1963]]'s ''[[Tom Jones (movie)|Tom Jones]]'' (for which he turned down the role of [[T. E. Lawrence]] in ''[[Lawrence of Arabia (film)|Lawrence of Arabia]]''). Albert Finney has often been called "A second Olivier".
== Ireland's leaving ==
His [[television]] roles include the lead in [[Dennis Potter]]'s final two plays: ''[[Karaoke (play)|Karaoke]]'' and ''[[Cold Lazarus]]''. In the latter he played a frozen, disembodied head. His most recent [[Television|TV]] credit is the leading role in [[My Uncle Silas]], about a [[Cornwall|Cornish]] country gentleman, who's looking after his grand-nephew. It ran from [[2000]] until [[2002]], then again for a mini-series in [[2003]].
Surely Ireland left in [[1949]] - from recollection the [[1937]] constitution or related law retained the monarchy as an organ for external relations and they remained in the Commonwealth (and relations with the UK went through the Dominions Office, not the Foreign Office). I won't change it without checking here though. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 12:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From [[1970]] to [[1978]], he was married to the [[France|French]] actress [[Anouk Aimée]].
== Any chance to consolidate Commonwealth Realm with the Commonwealth? ==
==Selected filmography==
Any chance of listing the 'Realms' at the bottom of "The Commonwealth of Nations" simply to be able to consolidate some templates??? [[User:CaribDigita|CaribDigita]] 16:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*''[[Big Fish]]'' ([[2003]])
*''[[Traffic (2000 movie)|Traffic]]'' ([[2000]])
*''[[Erin Brockovich (movie)|Erin Brockovich]]'' ([[2000]])
*''[[Simpatico]]'' ([[1999]])
*''[[The Browning Version]]'' ([[1994]])
*''[[Miller's Crossing]]'' ([[1990]])
*''[[Under the Volcano]]'' ([[1984]])
*''[[The Dresser]]'' ([[1983]])
*''[[Annie]]'' ([[1982]])
*''[[Murder on the Orient Express]]'' ([[1974]])
*''[[Gumshoe (movie)|Gumshoe]]'' ([[1972]])
*''[[Scrooge (1970)]]''
*''[[Tom Jones (movie)|Tom Jones]]'' ([[1963]])
*''[[Saturday Night and Sunday Morning]]'' ([[1960]])
*''The Entertainer'' (1960)
==External link==
==Powers of the Realms==
* {{imdb name|id=0001215|name=Albert Finney}}
I disagree with the statement "Another power the realms hold is the formal approval of any marriage within the royal family that may produce an heir to the throne". The Royal Family are British citizens, therefore they are only subject to British law. Thus if say New Zealand passes a law forbidding marriage, or the government is against the marriage, there is no legal barrier to marriage in the UK. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 20:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
The obvious problem with this particular scenario is that it would change the succession in right of New Zealand. But I agree that the sentence seems a little strong, and I also doubt that any marriage that passes muster in the UK actually does require Commonwealth consent. The only argument I can imagine is that the Royal Marriages Act now requires permission of each of His Majesty's Governments rather than just the UK government. In fact I suspect it was done as a courtesy, for the avoidance of doubt rather than any other reason. --[[User:Chris Bennett|Chris Bennett]] 02:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
== One Crown or several? ==
<!-- Tom Jones (movie), Murder on the Orient Express, The Dresser, Under the Volcano -->
I've moved most of what was in this section to the "interpretation" section of [[O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003]]. Personal opinions about Rouleau's ruling do not belong in this article as they have no effect on the standing theories on the Crown over the Commonwealth Realms, and are relevant only to the ruling itself. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
<!-- Erin Brockovich (movie) -->
[[Category:1936 births|Finney, Albert]]
:I'd also like to note that I did attempt to state "see talk" when making the edit, however, that comment did not show up in the history. My apologies for any confusion. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 22:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Best Actor Oscar Nominee|Finney, Albert]]
[[Category:Best Supporting Actor Oscar Nominee|Finney, Albert]]
[[Category:English actors|Finney, Albert]]
[[Category:Film actors|Finney, Albert]]
[[da:Albert Finney]]
I have again removed the section as the statement "Some hold that this theory was contradicted, in Canada at least, by a 2003 Ontario Superior Court ruling by Justice Paul S. Rouleau" is [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. Without this unfounded contradiction of the established relationship of the Crown over an in it's Realms, the entire section is pointless. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 19:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
[[de:Albert Finney]]
[[fr:Albert Finney]]
Given that you saw fit to move the section to another article you cannot now claim it's original research, particularly when it comes with citations from a court ruling. Are you going to argue that Peter's O'Donohue v Queen article be deleted as well? [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]19:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten the passage so that it simply states the facts without any interpretation.[[User:AndyL|AndyL]]19:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, Andy, While Rouleau's ruling may make references to the Crown over the Commonwealth Realms, as well as the Crown within Canada, it does not put into question the established status of the Crown. No matter how you want to word it, the retention of "One Crown or Many?" is your own lone attempt to upset the status quo. Until you have provided ample secondary sources (though, one would be nice at least) to back up your claim that the ruling really raises any questions amongst constitutional scholars, then its still nothing more than [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]].
:As for it's inclusion on [[O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003]]-- I certainly can "claim" it's still original research. But for the time being I think the disease-like spread of your personal theory on this matter needs to be reigned in, and [[O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003]] is the best place to narrow it down to as it is really only relevant to that ruling. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 19:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Citation from an original source is not original research. Let's leave it to the mediator.
BTW, you've reverted three times now. Once more and you'll break the 3 revert rule and be banned for 24 hours. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]20:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:Stop playing your silly game of hiding behind a direct quote as your defence for its manipulation. What constitutes original research here is '''your theory on the implication of the ruling''' ''not'' the quotations from the ruling itself!
:For the assitance of the mediator, from [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]:
::The phrase "original research" in this context refers to '''untested theories'''; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have '''not been published in a reputable publication'''; or any '''new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas''' that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a '''"novel narrative or historical interpretation"'''.
::Original research is research that produces primary sources or secondary sources. '''Primary sources present information or data, such as''' archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, '''transcript of a public hearing, trial''', or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.
::'''Original research that produces primary sources is not allowed'''. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
::==What is excluded from articles==
::A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as ''original'' research if it '''proposes ideas''', that is:
::* '''it introduces a theory''' or method of solution; or
::* '''it introduces original ideas'''; or
::* it defines new terms; or
::* '''it provides new definitions of old terms'''; or
::* '''it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article'''; or
::* it introduces [[neologism|neologisms]].
::All of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. For example:
::* the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
::* the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the [[cold fusion]] story).
:All the highlighted points apply to the numerous times you have tried to push your interpretation of Rouleau's ruling onto Wikipedia articles. That said, I will leave it to the mediator. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 20:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I think you should read what you've posted. The "idea" that there is a single crown and not multiple crowns does not originate with me. St. Laurent said it himself in 1953 and it's been said many times since. See [http://britain.webstation.net.nz/general/common.html The Commonwealth website] for instance and as I keep saying, Rouleau himself speaks of "Union under the British Crown." It's not original research to say that Rouleau said that, it's simply taking a direct quote. The article does not interpret the quote, it simply presents it. That the quote contradicts your personal theory of the monarchy (or rather that of the MLC) does not make it "original research", it just means that your personal theory is just that, a theory not a fact. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 20:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:Again, stop trying to be purposefully complex in an attempt to guard your fallacies. There is no debate about there being one Crown-- and there never has been. What you are trying to do is use conveniently extracted quotations from Rouleau's ruling to support your theory that the ruling itself brings into question the established situation of the Crown operating over and within each of it's Realms. What you are also trying to do is use conveniently extracted quotations from Rouleau's ruling to validate your theory that the Crown in Right of Canada is a British institution. You do this when no lawyer, judge, or constitutional expert has ever done the same. You do this in the face of words from lawyers, constitutional experts, and even from Justice Rouleau himself, which negate your theory. That, without a doubt, constitutes 'original research,' as explained above. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 21:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Rouleau's statements speak for themselves. They contradict the POV propaganda you get from the MLC and so you divine ways to rationalise or excuse what he says away. Somehow, in your mind, when he says "British Crown" he doesn't really mean it. Anyway, gbambino, you're just a mouthpiece for the MLC - you should try to open your mind a bit and read what's really there instead of what you want to see or what the MLC wants you to think. I know that the MLC wants to distance the crown from the notion of British empire and colonialism in order to make it seem more Canadian and more attractive to modern Canadians but it's not our job to only include facts that fit the MLCs propaganda goals and exclude those that contradict them. Much of what you've been doing is excising inconvenient facts and paragraphs that contradict the MLCs party line and before you blame me for insterting them in the first place, much of what you've censored has been written by others. Basically, you've been operating like a vandal by removing things you don't like and a propagandist by copying MLC material and pasting it in almost without alteration. Despite all your attempts to deflect things on to me your own behaviour remains clear. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]00:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:Obviously Rouleau's statements do not speak for themselves; you choose to ignore much of them and read implications into the rest to back up your personal theories. As I've stated earlier, you should stop inferring that what [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] and I provide you with is "MLC propaganda," it makes you appear trite and ignorant as any person reading through the reams of debate that have gone on here can see that it is not. And, again, your attempts to defame me in an effort to divert attention away from yourself is a tad pathetic and leads one to wonder precisely what it is you have to hide from. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 01:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
"you choose to ignore much of them and read implications into the rest to back up your personal theories."
Read what the article '''actually says'''. Which sentence of the article constitutes original research? Give me a specific example below.[[User:AndyL|AndyL]]01:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:The non-existent debate behind "One Crown or Several?" is what constitutes 'original research'. You have taken a primary source (Rouleau's ruling) and applied to it '''your theory''' that it creates some sort of debate about the current relationship of the Crown in and over its Realms.
:What's more, in an attempt to validate '''your theory''' you pull out of context those quotations from your primary source which aid you, and conveniently ignore those which contradict you. For example, why do you never include Rouleau's statement: "[34] The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16. This Canadian statute effected changes to '''the rules of succession in Canada''' to assure consistency with the changes in the rules then in place in Great Britain. The changes were necessary in light of the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936. Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been '''contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster'''. Arguably, without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective '''in respect of the Crown of Canada'''"?
:It is most likely because right there in Rouleau's ruling is the ''affirmation'' of the existent relationship of the Crown in and over its Realms: though Canada, the UK, and every other Realm, equally share ''the same one Crown'' ("commitment to symmetry and union", "Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster"), the institution operates as a ''separate legal entity within each nation''. They stem from the same body -- one Crown, one Queen -- but the Crown in Right of Canada is different and separate to the Crown in Right of the U.K. ("the rules of succession in Canada" vs. "the rules then in place in Great Britain", "without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada").
:You've misinterpreted all along that "the MLC argues" there is no one Crown, only separate ones. You've also misinterpreted that the one Crown you realise exists is purely British. And to back all that up you've pulled bits and pieces of Rouleau's ruling out of context. You've never been able to see what's correct actually exists somewhere in the middle -- one Crown equally over all Realms, operating distinctly within each. But, if the Crown is ''over'' all Realms, all Realms are ''equal'' (as laid out in the Statute of Westminster), and Britain is a Realm itself, then the Crown cannot be purely British. Only as the Crown in Right of Great Britain can it be British, and therefore the Crown in Right of Canada is Canadian -- as Rouleau points out.
:It's been said time and time again that this is a complex matter, but that's no excuse for your personal interpretation of things to be included on Wikipedia articles. And, as it stands, unless you provide secondary sources to back up your claim that Rouleau's ruling actually creates any debate on the situation of the Crown in and over its Realms, then it remains 'original research', and thus the entire "One Crown or Several?" section is invalid. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 17:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, read what the article actually says. Which sentence of the article constitutes original research? Give me a specific example below. Your charge of original research is baseless if you cannot find any actual content in the article that fits that description. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]17:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:Stop with your inane arguments. The entire section "One Crown or Several?" is 'original research'. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 18:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Line by line ===
Ok, let's go through it line by line:
:It is usually held that the Statute of Westminster, 1931 has resulted in what was formerly a single Crown of the United Kingdom uniting all the dominions giving way to a situation where the one Crown transcended Britain itself to become an institution which operated seperately but equally in each Commonwealth Realm, so that the Crown in Right of Australia or the Crown in Right of Canada is equal to the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom. (See the article Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 for a more thorough exploration of this concept.)
A statement of fact and not original research. If you disagree, explain how it is original research.
:In 2003, an application by Tony O'Donohue to have struck down sections of the Act of Settlement that bar Roman Catholics from the Throne on the basis that they are in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was dismissed.
Again, a statement of fact.
:In his decision, Justice Rouleau quoted former Prime Minister of Canada Louis St. Laurent who said:
:"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office, .it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard February 3, 1953, page 1566.
Again, a statement of fact.
:Rouleau also desribed the relationship between Crown and Commonwelath Realm's as being one of "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries". For more information see O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003
Again, a statement of fact.
Do you dispute that any of the above is factually correct? If so, what?[[User:AndyL|AndyL]]21:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:None of the above is factually incorrect. However, whether or not your original source is correct has nothing to do with your trying to push 'original research' on this article and others. As stated on the page [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]:
::The phrase "original research" in this context refers to '''untested theories'''; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have '''not been published in a reputable publication'''; or any '''new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas''' that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a '''"novel narrative or historical interpretation"'''.
:Have any debates over the matter of "one Crown or many?" been published in a reputable publication? Or is the existance of a debate purely your own "untested theory", "new interpretation", etc.?
::Original research is research that produces primary sources or secondary sources. '''Primary sources present information or data, such as''' archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as '''a''' diary, census, '''transcript of a''' public hearing, '''trial''', or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data.
:You have provided only what amounts to a heavily edited ruling of a trial.
::'''Original research that produces primary sources is not allowed'''. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is called source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
:You have only produced a primary source: a heavily edited ruling of a trial. You have provided no secondary sources.
::==What is excluded from articles==
::A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as ''original'' research if it '''proposes ideas''', that is:
::* '''it introduces a theory''' or method of solution; or
:You have introduced the theory that there is a debate on the status of the Crown in and over its Realms.
::* '''it introduces original ideas'''; or
:Ditto
::* it defines new terms; or
::* '''it provides new definitions of old terms'''; or
:You are trying to redefine the existing status of the Crown in and over its Realms by bringing it into doubt.
::* '''it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article'''; or
:Your argument that there is debate on the existing status of the Crown in and over its Realms is original, and purports to refute the existing status.
::* it introduces [[neologism|neologisms]].
::All of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. For example:
::* the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
::* the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the [[cold fusion]] story).
:Any debate on the status of the Crown in and over its Realms is not "a permanent feature of the public landscape", has not "become newsworthy", nor is has it been "accepted for publication in a peer-recieved journal."
:To ask the question "One Crown or Several?" states that there is debate surrounding the accepted status of the Crown in and over its Realms. To state there is such a debate is unsubstantiated, 'original research'. Therefore the question "One Crown or Several?" is your question, and yours alone, and thus does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 23:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what we mean by original research, you've certainly failed to show there is any in the article. Anyway, if you're only problem is with the section title then suggest a new one. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]14:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
== Mediation on Crown section ==
;From [[User talk:Stevertigo]]:
:"Your comments within that paragraph in [[Commonwealth Realm#One Crown or Several?]], the one which attempts to explain the relationship of the Crown over and in the Commonwealth Realms, are also directed at me. Though AndyL originally wrote that particular paragraph to contest its contents with his "Rouleau theories", it was I who last edited it in an attempt to clarify.
:"That said, some of your comments are certainly valid, but the matter of the Crown over and in the Realms is complicated and difficult to put into words which are understandable to those not educated on the subject. Personally, I don't think any effort needs to be put into a re-write, as the section "One Crown or Several?" should be removed all-together. If you want to better understand the subject matter, what has been written in the second paragraph of [[Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927]] might give you a better explanation of the facts. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 22:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:: I dont believe it is truly as complicated as you say. You assert that Andy L has a "republican bias," when all I see is an attempt to explain the controversy in Canada regarding the continued connection of Canada to the U.K. monarch. Its that simple. Explain that there have been recent attempts to interpret Canadian law according to a more distant relationship with the UK, and that Loyalists, (decendants of [[Loyalist]]s run out of the U.S., as I understand) dont necessarily like that idea. This is a debate which needs to be represented, and the problem that you two both have in attempting to explain this debate is that youre too close to it, and you both assert different details to have superior value in characterising it.
::You might say that the republican /independence movement is just a "[[fringe movement]]", and "not newsworthy", but this is not what [[NPOV]] policy says. NPOV policy is to represent all sides in a debate, and to represent the debate in proportion to its popular support and to its outside interest. Its interesting to hear (from an outside perspective) all the familiar political ins and outs as applied in a different country -- particularly with regard to rulership, soveriegnty, etc. Now, I criticised that paragraph for its writing, not its content. I could take a crack at rewriting it myself, if you both agree, but Id prefer if you both stepped back a bit, and looked at the basics, and explain those first, before citing particular Acts, etc. Given proper context, all the details are easy to understand. If the agenda is to obfuscate, all the details become obstacles to understanding. Sinreg, -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 03:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
:What I meant was complex is the relationship of the Crown over and in the Realms; it can sometimes be difficult to explain clearly.
:Also, I'm not contesting that there are conflicting opinions on Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy-- they do exist and should be acknowledged. However, what AndyL is putting in doubt here is the above mentioned relationship of the Crown over and in the Realms. The accepted and standing view is that there is one Crown equally over all 16 Realms, but which operates as a distinct legal entity within each country. What AndyL is doing is putting that accepted and standing view into question, using a misinterpretation of Ontario Justice Rouleau's ruling as reason to do so. What constitutes 'original research' here is that AndyL is the only person to have interpreted Rouleau's ruling in that manner, and he is thus far the only person to question the status of the Crown over and in the Realms. I've said this before elsewhere: if AndyL could actually provide evidence of a debate on this matter (ie. if there actually were constitutional experts, or theorists, or judges who've questioned the status of the Crown), then a section somewhere on Wikipedia would be warranted. As it stands now, he's provided a primary source, but no secondary sources to support his claim that there is any questioning besides his own opinion.
:Perhaps other republican minded people chose to interpret Rouleau's ruling as AndyL does, I don't know, that hasn't been proven either. But, if AndyL really wants to make his personal interpretation of Rouleau's ruling known, then it should be where it is now: in the section "Interpretation" on [[O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003]]. Seeing as not one constitutional expert or scholar currently questions the existent status of the Crown over and in its Realms as outlined by constitutional experts, judges, constitutional committees, the government, etc., in Canada as well as the other Realms, for the last 74 years, then nothing which casts it into doubt should be placed in Wikipedia articles. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
But, by your own admission, every line in question is factual. There is no "interpretation" in it so there's no original research. What you are afraid of, I suspect, is how readers may intepret Rouleau's ruling but it's not our role to tell people what to think or not think or suppress relevent information because we think people might not "understand" it the way you do. And, as I said elsewhere, your contention that your particular view of constitutional arrangements involving the crown are a "proven fact" is contested by Rouleau's arguments. Your views on constitutional law and those of the MLC are just theories, untested in the courts and indeed, in the one case they have been tested, Rouleau, your interpretation is contradicted.
What is at the base of this is you are adamant that your particular theory is a fact when, actually, it is a contestable theory. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]18:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
:Before you accuse me of providing only "contestable theory" remember that a) it is not my theory, b) I provided numerous secondary, unbiased sources to prove that, and b) you have provided none to back up yours. Even if you want to discard Richard Toporoski's words on the matter because he's a constitutional expert who happens to be a member of the MLC, you still have to face up to the Statute of Westminster, the Balfour Reports, the Canadian department of Justice, Australian court rulings, Australian constitutional committee reports (which, yes, are relevant as they are in a similar position under the Crown as well), and so on. In fact, contrary to your claim that I am contested by Rouleau's arguments, I have actually also cited for you much of Rouleau's ruling which ''supports'' the standing view of the Crown!
:If you now simply want to leave it up to readers to interpret Rouleau's ruling from provided factual quotations, then leave quotations and interpretations at "Interpretations" on [[O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003]], where they belong . The question "one crown or several?" is a personal one, and thus doesn't belong in any Wikipedia articles, and the remaining information in the section is covered already at [[Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927]], [[Statute of Westminster 1931]], and [[O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003]]. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 19:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be quite useful if you tried your hand at rewriting the section in question. It would also be helpful if you dealt with Gbambino's misunderstanding of the concept of original research since he's not going to accept anything I say on the matter. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 04:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
"Before you accuse me of providing only "contestable theory" remember that a) it is not my theory, b) I provided numerous secondary, unbiased sources to prove that" Fine then it's someone else's theory, it's still a theory, not a fact.
"and b) you have provided none to back up yours" No, I've provided a primary source which you misidentify as "original research".
[[User:AndyL|AndyL]]22:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I've said this before, gbambino, but the notion of multiple crowns is contradicted by none other than Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent who said:
"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office .. it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . ." Hansard. February 3, 1953, page 1566.
"It is not a separate office". Quite clear. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]22:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
::Sounds like some communication is happening. What remains is to find an appropriate place for the debate, as it exists or does not , in Canada. Is it a major debate? Gbambino would have me (a non-Canadian) to think that its rather minor, while Andy might have me (a non-Candadian) think it major. If the controversy exists, does it deserve a separate article? Does it then deserve more detail in specific article subsections which relate back to the original? [[I'm all ears]]. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 00:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not a major debate. However, the contention that there are "multiple Crowns" and, the corollary, that therefore there can be and is a "Canadian monarchy" is an important part of monarchist ideology and it merits a mention. Since this is the article that seems to deal with the constitutional nature of the Commonwealth realms and as the question of one monarchy or several relates only to Commonwealth realms this would seem to be the article to put it in. Alternatively, it could go in the [[British monarchy]] article. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]00:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, it might make more sense to move the section to [[British monarchy]].[[User:AndyL|AndyL]]00:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:Well, no. I would not think it neutral to refer to aspects particular to Canada as being in an exclusive British context, but perhaps thats because I fail to directly equate Canada as a British outpost, and not an independent country. This is all news to me, nor have I previously had much interest in [[monarchy]] in general or "[[The Monarchy]]" in particular, (which Im curious if it redirects properly to "monarchy" or not.) The important thing is that youre both very communicative (good first sign) and informative about the issues, and are mindful to my suggestions for how to deal with them. From my point of view, the specifics dont really matter, its how they are represented as discrete elements and ordered in a way which best gives the proper impressions regarding the issue. Now, what I hear you saying is that the opposition is equal in ideological terms, while you nevertheless agree that in practical terms, theres little argument over interterpretation. Hence, how to represent the debate, even if its only ideological, but nevertheless newsworthy (due to specific cases of protest). Sinreg & Goodnight. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 01:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This is not a small debate, it is a ''non-existent'' debate. That one Crown operates separately in each Realm is the established, recognised and accepted view of the Crown in and over the Realms, and one which exists regardless of one's republican or monarchical leanings. I provide the following sources which comply with this:
* The Balfour Declaration 1926: "[The United Kingdom and the Dominions] are '''autonomous Communities''' within the British Empire, '''equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect''' of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to '''the Crown''', and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations".
Note, equal, united, '''the''' Crown.
* [[Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927]]: "...a second, and more important function [of the Act], was to modify the King's title, proclaiming that George V was not king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions but rather of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions. The change in the wording of the King's title is subtle, but '''has the effect of creating a list of nations of which he ''is'' king''' rather than grouping those nations all together as if under one government. In so doing, '''this replaced the concept of a single Imperial British Crown over the Empire with one Crown operating separately but equally in each Realm.''' In this way, by means of the act, '''each of the Empire's Dominions became a separate kingdom.''' The Act was thus an important step in the evolution of the Dominions towards full independence."
The beginning of the evolution of the Crown from an Imperial one to one shared by multiple separate kingdoms.
* The Statute of Westminster: "And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as '''the Crown''' is the symbol to the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to '''the Crown''', it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that '''any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom'''..."
Note, the Commonwealth Realms are now united under "'''the''' Crown", not "the British Crown" -- a subtle, but important reflection of the result of the earlier Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act. As well, note that any Realm must have the assent of all the others to alter the line of succession, meaning the Statute recognizes that each Realm now has their ''own line of succession'' which they may alter unilaterally, but should not to maintain the unity of the Crown.
* The Statute of Westminster: "4. '''No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion''', unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof."
This means any alteration to the line of succession in the UK, done by an act of the UK parliament, would have no effect in any of the Realms, illustrating that Britain only has control over the line of succession for the Crown in Right of the UK, and none over the succession for the Crowns of the other Realms.
* Canadian Title of Elizabeth II, 1953: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the '''United Kingdom''', '''Canada''' and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."
By separating the two titles, it illustrates that Elizabeth II's role as Queen of the U.K. is indeed separate and distinct from her role as Queen of Canada. So, if the Queen of Canada is recognized in her own Canadian title as being distinctly Queen of Canada, then that in itself shows that the Crown, like the Sovereign, is both British and Canadian.
* St. Laurent: "Her Majesty is now '''Queen of Canada''' but she is the Queen of Canada because she is '''Queen of the United Kingdom'''... It is not a separate office... it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign..."
Not a separate office, but that one office ''operates'' as "Queen of Canada" separately to its ''operation'' as "Queen of the United Kingdom." St. Laurent, who was key in the composition of the Balfour Reports and the Statute of Westminster, is ''acknowledging'' this when purposefully distinguishing Her Majesty as Queen of Canada separately from her as Queen of the United Kingdom, but then stating correctly that the two exist in one body/office.
* Rouleau: "[33] As a result of the Statute of Westminster it was recognized that '''any alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain''' and, if '''symmetry''' among commonwealth countries were to he maintained, '''any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth'''. This arrangement can be compared to a treaty among the Commonwealth countries to '''share the monarchy''' under the existing rules and not to change the rules without the agreement of all signatories. While Canada as a sovereign nation is free to withdraw from the arrangement and no longer be united through common allegiance to the Crown, it cannot unilaterally change the rules of succession for all Commonwealth countries. '''Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession''', whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would be contrary to the commitment given in the Statute of Westminster, would break symmetry and breach the principle of union under the British Crown set out in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Such changes would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982."
Rouleau is acknowledging that Britain only has control over the line of succession for the Crown in Right of the UK ("alterations in the line of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain"), as Canada has a line of succession for the Crown in Right of Canada now separate and distinct from Britain's ("Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession..."). But, none-the-less, both lines must be the same as they are for the same Crown ("if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to be maintained", "share the monarchy", "would break symmetry and breach the principal of union under the British Crown...").
* Rouleau: "[34] The operation of this '''commitment to symmetry and union''' of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16. This Canadian statute effected changes to '''the rules of succession in Canada''' to assure consistency with the changes in '''the rules then in place in Great Britain'''. The changes were necessary in light of the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936. Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster. Arguably, '''without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada'''."
Again he's acknowledging that Canada has it's own line of succession separate from Britain's ("the rules of succession in Canada" separate from "the rules then in place in Britain", "Edward VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada"). But, because Canada's king and the UK's king ''are the same person'', and the two countries have agreed through the Statute of Westminster to keep it that way, Britain needed Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act so that UK Parliament could proceed with Edward VIII's abdication. And right there he flat out refers to "the Crown of Canada"!
* Rouleau: "[36] The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, '''the same rules of succession must apply for''' the selection of '''the King or Queen of Canada''' and the '''King or Queen of Great Britain'''."
Clearly Rouleau recognises the King or Queen of Canada is separate from the King or Queen of the United Kingdom, with separate lines of succession governing the selection of each (always keeping in mind that the Statute of Westminster stipulates that the two must be the same person to maintain the unity of the Crown, as he refers to when he says: "[38] To [unilaterally alter the rules of succession] would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure").
* 1988 Constitutional Commission report (Australia): "2.138 The disappearance of the British Empire has therefore meant that the Queen is now sovereign of a number of separate countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, amongst others. '''As the Queen of Australia she holds an entirely distinct and different position from that which she holds as Queen of the United Kingdom or Canada'''. The '''separation of these 'Crowns' ''' is underlined by the comments of Gibbs CJ in "Pochi v Macphee" that 'The '''Allegience which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia' '''.
:"2.151 As discussed earlier,112 the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in 1900 referred to the sovereignty of the entire empire of that country. There was in law and in fact no distinct Monarch of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. There was just the one and indivisible sovereign of all parts of the Queen's dominions. When the Queen, as distinct from the Governor-General or a Governor, acted in relation to either the United Kingdom or overseas possessions of the Crown she acted on the advice of ministers of the United Kingdom. '''The Crown, therefore, was one Imperial Crown. That is no longer the case.''' '''The sovereignty of ''each of the countries'' that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen is separate and distinct from that of any other country.''' Whether in domestic or foreign affairs the 'Crown of the United Kingdom' may pursue quite different policies from that of the Crown of Australia. The Queen's advisers are different in each case. '''The reference to the United Kingdom is therefore a source of confusion and does not reflect the position of the Crown in Australia today'''."
Australia exists under the same Crown as Canada and the UK, and also adhere to the Statute of Westminster to ensure their sovereign remains the same as Canada's and Britain's. Thus, the words that describe the Crown of Australia and the Queen of Australia are just as applicable to Canada. It is even said "the sovereignty of ''each of the countries that regognise Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen'' [that includes Canada!] is separate and distinct from that of any other country''." However, the Queen of Australia, the Queen of Canada, and the Queen of the UK are ''obviously'' the same ''one'' person, sovereign of ''one Crown''.
* Councillor Julian Leeser (Australia): "the (High) Court confirmed that the '''Queen of Australia does not act as a foreign Queen'''. One of the main arguments that was raised by Heather Hill was that the Queen of Australia is the same person as the Queen of the United Kingdom (and Northern Ireland). Therefore swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia was the same as swearing allegiance to the Queen of the UK. This argument was rejected by the Court on the basis that '''whilst physically it is the same person, Elizabeth II, they are "independent and distinct" legal personalities'''. This notion is known as '''the divisibility of the Crown''' which Justice Gaudron found to be "implicit in the Constitution."
Again, an Australian example which is just as applicable to Canada, where we see a woman's argument very similar to AndyL's own being thrown out because it did not recognise constitutional realities.
* Toporoski: "I am perfectly prepared to concede, even happily affirm, that the British Crown no longer exists in Canada, but that is because legal reality indicates to me that in one sense, the British Crown no longer exists in Britain: the Crown transcends Britain just as much as it does Canada. One can therefore speak of 'the British Crown' or 'the Canadian Crown' or indeed the 'Barbadian' or 'Tuvaluan' Crown, but what one will mean by the term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of that particular jurisdiction. Dr Smith suggests that this concept of 'divisibility', however long it took for it to be articulated or accepted, explains how Canadians and Australians were able to make federal systems work."
AndyL discounts Toporoski because he is an MLC member, however the man is still a constitutional expert and his words here clearly reflect everything that has been outlined above-- the 'British Crown', the 'Canadian Crown', is '''the''' Crown "expressing itself in the context of that particular jurisdiction."
*Honourable Eugene A. Forsey: "Canada is a democracy, a constitutional monarchy. Our head of state is '''the Queen of Canada''', who is '''also''' '''Queen of Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and a host of other countries''' scattered around the world from the Bahamas and Grenada to Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu. Every act of government is done in the name of the Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people."
Forsey acknowledges the separation between the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom, recognising one sovereign acting separately in each Realm.
This has all been spelled out to AnyL previously, however, he has always chosen to ignore it in favour of his own personal interpretation of things. This means his attempts to put all of the above in doubt is unfortunately nothing but ''his own'' simplistic and misguided interpretation of the facts, as he has so far provided ''no'' secondary sources to back himself up. It seems to me that until he can provide proof of ''others'' (ie. other constitutional experts, lawyers, judges, parliamentarians, scholars, etc.) who actually question the stainding view, then this "debate" about the Crown exists only with him, and therefore does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia articles. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
So you agree that the multiple crown theory proposed by some scholars and propounded by the MLC is questionable? After all, the Statute of Westminster, as you point out, speaks of "the Crown" not "the Crowns" (which, after all, is the whole question we're debating). By the way, given the lack of a source in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles article you cite, it seems obvious that that article has a lot of orignal research in it. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]01:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the original research you cite from the Royal and Parliamentary Titles article. [[User:AndyL]]02:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
BTW, gbambino, you are contradicting Peter Grey who has asserted that a) there is a single, shared crown and b) it is not illogical to call it the British Crown. See [[Talk:Monarchy in Canada]]. Do you concede the point now or do we need to continue any further? [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]03:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:You clearly have a learning disability if you can't see that I'm agreeing with Peter Grey, the MLC and every constitutional scholar, judge, and historian out there. As long as you keep up your absurd attempts to put forward your own conjecture as fact, this will continue on and on and on... --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 14:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
"You clearly have a learning disability"
No personal attacks, please.
"if you can't see that I'm agreeing with Peter Grey, the MLC and every constitutional scholar, judge, and historian out there."
The MLC and some constitutional scholars say there are "multiple crowns". Some of the evidence you've pointed to (Statute of Westminster) and Peter Grey's statements elsewhere suggest a "single crown". The section in question is on whether there is one crown or several. Either you're practicing [[doublethink]] or you've lost yourself in your own argument. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]15:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:One Crown ''acts'' as several. The fact that evidence points to both the unified single Crown ''and'' the multiple Realm crowns might just establish that Peter Grey and myself are correct. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 17:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Two essential points ===
I think this is where people are getting hung up:
*Some arguments from republicans in Canada are legitimate points of view to which they are entitled: opposed to monarchy in the abstract, opposed to an absentee monarch, opposed to this particular dynasty, etc. In contrast, the notion that the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty is outright disinformation and is not encyclopedic. To my knowledge this theory has never been proposed in good faith, but is merely a tactic used for its inflammatory value.
*The concept of multiple Crowns is a useful metaphor for describing the shared vs. separate character of the monarchy. It is apparently not, in Canadian law at least, the correct usage of 'Crown' as a legal term. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 03:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
: Ah. Thanks, Peter. The plot thickens. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
===Possible contradictions or ambiguties in law===
"the notion that the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty is outright disinformation and is not encyclopedic."
The notion was the basis of the O'Donohue suit (contradiction betweeen the Charter of Rights and the Act of Settlement). Whether or not there is a contradiction is a matter of opinion but you cannot exclude the argument just because you don't like it, Peter. It's perfectly encylopedic to mention it in the [[Monarchy in Canada]] article as an argument brought up by republicans since it is and since we can document that the argument has been made. As for whether Canada's sovereignty is lessened by having what is arguablly a Briton as head of state and not being able to, under the current constitution, change the rules to the succession without the consent of 15 other countries, again that's a perfectly valid point of view and you cannot exclude it just because you don't like it or find it offensive. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]11:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:The argument was made '''unsuccessfully''': O'Donohue's petition was dismissed because it was "not justiciable and there is no serious issue to be tried". It is a fringe point of view that is in contradiction to fact and that exists only as a propaganda tool. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 13:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Rouleau did not rule that the Charter of Rights does not contradict the Act of Settlement. He ruled that as the Charter and the succession rules were equal parts of the constitution the former could not be used to strike down the latter.
In any case, it's a documented argument and thus not "original research" and merits mention as part of the debate. As for being a "fringe point of view" I suspect most Canadians would agree that the bar on Catholics is abhorrent and inconsistent with Canadian values of equality as expressed in the Charter of Rights (certainly the 40% of the Canadian population that is Catholic would hold that view). The only people I would think who would adamantly oppose changing the succession rules would be the remnants of the [[Orange Order]] which would better fit your "fringe point of view" label. Indeed, reading the MLC discussion board, I know that many Canadian monarchists would like to see the succession rules changed, they just want it done by the "realms" working in concert rather than through a unilateral judicial ruling in a Canadian court. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]14:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:So it's not "original research" but you "suspect most Canadians would agree...". Once again you've taken facts and then made the leap to political speculation. You're trying to use litigation to give an artificial credibility to a political opinion. Probably a lot of people would favour changing the succession law on grounds of secularism. But that's very different from saying the Constution is flawed and amendments are imperative. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 14:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
You're parsing together two statements from different parts of my post to create a meaning I did not actually express and are thus acting in bad faith. It's not original research because the argument is not my invention but comes directly from O'Donohue's brief. I'm starting to think you either don't know what original research means or that you're throwing the term around indiscriminately, and disigenuously in an attempt to silence arguments you don't like. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]14:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:What's bad faith is pretending you changed the subject each and every time you're proven wrong. The 'argument' is not valid - it was rejected by a court of law. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 14:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
That is not grounds for an argument not to be referred to in wikipedia. Again, we are not dealing with statements of fact but simply references to their being a debate. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]14:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:The ''legal'' argument or the ''political'' argument? You can't use one to back up the other. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 15:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Peter, is it "original research" to cite O'Donohue's argument or isn't it? Your only grounds for not citing it now seem to be that a judge ruled against it. Well, wikipedia is not a legal document, it's an encyclopedia, and it's perfectly encyclopedic to refer to arguments that have been made in court regardless of the outcome of the court case. Your "you can't refer to it if it's been dismissed by a judge" rule is not wikipedia policy. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]15:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:I believe the original research was your very creative theory about the Royal Title. The O'Donohue petition is merely out of date. You've simply gone and changed the subject again. The question (the one I'm discussing anyway) is "the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty". This is incorrect as a fact of law. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 15:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
"I believe the original research was your very creative theory about the Royal Title" So you disagree with gbambino's contention that reference to the O'Donohue case is original research. Good.
"The question (the one I'm discussing anyway) is "the existing Constitution has some logical contradiction or negates Canada's sovereignty".
Unless it is your contention that republicans including O'Donohue accept the court's ruling and no longer argue this then it's a perfectly valid thing to reference. Arguments don't just go away after a court ruling. If they did then [[Dred Scott]] would have put an end to the movement against slavery and [[Roe v. Wade]] would have ended the debate on abortion in the US. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]15:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
"I believe the original research was your very creative theory about the Royal Title"
Your belief is wrong. See [http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=28 this reference from the National Archives of Australia] and the use of the word "precedence". Hence, my theory is neither creative or original, the Australians changed their Royal Style Titles Act for the same reason in 1973. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:Legal argument or political argument? Pick one. (You do understand the difference?) [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 16:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:The reference says that the Australian part of the title is given precedence ''in Australia''. It's a sentimental statement, not changing a legal relationship. Unless you're telling us it turned Canada into a colony of Australia. (Do you think no-one ever checks your sources?) [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 16:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:It wouldn't be surprising, given that he earlier argued himself into stating that Parliamentary Supremacy made Canada a colony of New Zealand. But, of course, I digress... --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 17:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm saying it's wrong for you to imply that I invented objections to the Royal Style and Titles Act or that no one views putting Britain before Canada (or Australia) as giving that country precedence. But that has nothing to do with *this* article, does it? [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 16:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:'''''that has nothing to do with *this* article''''' That's been the point all along. Now stop wasting everyone's time. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
== Send in the Crowns ==
<blockquote> '''Gbambino 1''': "I'm not contesting that there are conflicting opinions on Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy-- they do exist and should be acknowledged." Gbambino 2: "This is not a small debate, it is a ''non-existent'' debate."</blockquote>
There seems to be a contradiction between previous and later statements, Gbam. -SV
:If I might insert my point here: As Peter Grey explained above, differing opinions about Canada remaining as a kingdom, differing opinions on the logic of sharing a monarch, differing opinions on the current House of Windsor, etc. do certainly exist. What does not exist are differing opinions on the constitutional ''reality'' of Canada's sovereignty, her relationship to the Crown, and the organization of the Commonwealth Realms as laid out in the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 14:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Republicans certainly do argue that having a non-Canadian monarch impugns Canadian sovereignty and yes, republicans like [[Jeffrey Simpson]] refer to the Queen as being "British" rather than Canadian (he refers to it as a "foreign monarchy"[http://boards.conservativelife.com/ftpc18802.html]) so obviously the question of sovereignty is a question even if you claim it doesn't exist.
As for the "organization of the Commonwealth Realms as laid out in the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster" this is a [[straw man]] argument, there's nothing in the article that says the realms are not constitutionaly equal and I haven't proposed saying such a thing (indeed, if you read the passage you'll see I've written the exact opposite). Indeed, many of the things you've said, gbambino, have nothing to do whatsoever with what's actually in this article. Please get focussed. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
<blockquote> Andy L: "It's not a major debate. However, the contention that there are "multiple Crowns" and, the corollary, that therefore there can be and is a "Canadian monarchy" is an important part of monarchist ideology and it merits a mention."
</blockquote>
This sounds a bit confused, frankly, Andy. It seems like youre not quite sure what the argument is, but youre trying to represent it as well as you can ATM. If you concede that your explanations are a bit confusing and therefore somewhat misrepresentative of actual points made in the debate, then you can sort of understand how Gbambino's tendency toward wholesale exclusion can, in a superficial way, appear to be legitimate.
Naturally, conservatives of all shades and nations seek to exclude rather than include, so in that respect, youre correct that Gbambino is simply representing a conservative point of view. Whats not clear is what agreement can be reached with regard to how to sort and organize this argument. You say its small. Gbambino said it "should be acknowledged" and then changed this to 'it is "non-existent,"' which I consider to be likewise "confusing."
A zealous Christian can, for example, come to Wikipedia and cite the Bible, claiming on various talk pages that Biblical views are preeminent to other views, like culture, history, etc. Likewise, lawyers may cite the law in any local context, and claim that the law supercedes all culture, poltics, debate, and dissent. In other words, it seems clearer to me now. Republican arguments are scattered and unfocused, while Loyalist arguments are narrow and verbatim to doctrinal law, regardless if such law was the product of a democratic consensus or not. While it appears that Andy's arguments seem to be reflective of a minority view, Gbambino's assertion that such views are Andy's alone, (when he himself cites two different recent cases of legal court challenge toward the "trancendent" "single Crown," which is somehow separate for each "Realm," and yet bound "by commitment" to be the "same individual," referred to as "[[the Crown]]" over "[[the Crowns]]" although each Realm may determine its "own line of succession...")
appear to be a bit overstated. It all perhaps sounds like a bunch of legalese nonsense to anyone living in any country not occupied by any formalized genetic aristocracies. Ceremonially established ones, anyway.
All that out of my system, Im quite happy with both of the general responses, and I feel much better informed about the nuance of the issue. Both of your comments have been quite telling of the ''great naive confusion,'' or otherwise ''convoluted lack of confusion,'' involved. Now, as a newbie to all of this, I was curious about a number of things cited by Gbambino, and while reading his entire post I simply bracketed those items which I was unclear of to link them, so that I can re-read it and get a deeper gist. For starters, theres no [[MLC]] article, so I hope someone will correct that. The concept of [[the Crowns]] as distinct from (and yet the same as) [[the Crown]], certainly needs looking at. I really think that Gbambino, your response was extremely coherent and informative, and would like to see all of that in a single coherent article, provided more detail about the opposition and any dissenting jurist views are given. Sinreg and goodnight, friendly neighbors. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
'''PS Correction:''' I linked about 2 dozen items in Gbam's point by point walkthrough, but lost those changes, while copying my own text. Alas, Im loathe to go through and re-link tonight.-[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 05:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:I don't concede that there is any misrepresentation. There is no contradiction between the Crown being a "shared Crown" and "the British Crown" at least Rouleau did not find any such contradiction when writing his ruling. Remember it wasn't that long ago that the international body former colonies belonged to was the "British Commonwealth" and it wasn't that long ago, that Canadians were "British subjects" - both phenomena postdate the Statute of Westminster and I believer our status as British subjects may even postdate the late 1940s Citizenship Act (but I may be wrong about that). Anyway, gbambino is a bit confused here, the argument in this article is not whether or not the Crown is "British" but whether there are competing views on it being "multiple Crowns" or a shared "single Crown". As Peter Grey now concedes, at least as far as Canadian constitutional law is concerned it's the latter, notwithstanding [[Monarchist League of Canada]] [[propaganda]] suggesting the contrary. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]11:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't believe you should mis-represent Peter Grey by putting words in his mouth. Neither he nor I have ever denied the "single Crown"'s existence. We've both acknowledged that the situation is far more complex than simply that, given the agreed relationship between the 16 Commonwealth Realms through the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster, combined with the individual constitutional structure and framework of each Realm which creates each country as a seperate and sovereign kingdom. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 15:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::First off, this ''all'' sounds like playing with words, so "propaganda" naturally is a suspicion. Second, I understand the difference between merely citing the law, and representing both sides in an argument. What is the argument? Is it that Canadas republicans claim it should excersise a legal right to seceed completely from The Crown? Its seems like the statutes made things uniform for all "Realms," and therefore the deal is either accepted or broken, but not changeable. So, its a binary issue. Either Canada has the monarchy its been given, or it has none. But you raise some interesting points that there have some apparent contradiction in either explicit law, statute, rhetoric, or culture, which Loyalists appear to want to gloss over. This is an interesting aspect, which of course requires documentation, and no doubt would be a long-term research project. Suffice it to say, there is some debate going on, and its worthy of a separate article, which explores these contradictions. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 13:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
=== An "operative" agreement ===
:::I certainly agree that the issue of the operation of the Crown in and over the Commonwealth Realms needs to be carefully looked at and dealt with on Wikipedia. The issue has arisen elsewhere ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Of_the_United_Kingdom.3F Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/5 Of the United Kingdom?], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_Canada Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/13 Queen Elizabeth II of Canada], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Elizabeth_II_of_Canada Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/16 Elizabeth II of Canada], [[Talk:Elizabeth II of Canada]]), and due to confusion or lack of knowledge has been dismissed or pushed aside for later attention. However, I believe we need to be careful here, because this is a comlplex matter with many nuances open to interpretation, as well as established facts which are not. For example, if Canada chose to separate from the other Realms under the "British Crown", it does have the added option of setting up its own resident monarchy, as was done by Malaysia, Tonga and Lesotho. There is also the possibility, however unlikely, that Canada could alter its line of succession while remaining with the House of Windsor, thereby meaning one Windsor sovereign would reign over Canada, while another would reign over the UK.
:::But one point which cannot be debated is the existant, established, legal relationship between the Realms under the Crown, and the operation of the Crown within each Realm. This is not a matter of 'playing with words' or 'glossing' anything over, as it is all written out in black and white in law itself, as well as in court rulings, constitutional committee reports, and essays by constitutional scholars. I think it's clear that this issue of the Crown in and over the Realms is a given fact immune to any republican/monarchist or conservative/liberal point of view. Some politically motivated republicans may want to pull out selective pieces here and there and manipulate them to make it appear as though the situation is something which is patently is not, but it always remains just that -- manipulation and conjecture.
:::As I've said, numerous times now, if AndyL would care to provide some secondary sources to back up his claims that there is a debate (whatever size, and aside from his own) then I think we would all have to accept that it exists. However, so far he as provided nothing but his own interpretations and opinions. I don't think I'm being unfair in pointing out that that constitutes [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 15:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:I neglected to add that MLC stands for [[Monarchist League of Canada]]. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Given that you are now conceding both the "British crown" point and the "single crown" point I don't see how you can say that any of that is "original research". I'm impressed by how far Peter Grey's and your views have shifted towards mine, it's a shame you can't admit you were wrong in the first place but I guess that's [[human nature]]. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::Now conceding? Your attempted trickery is humerous. You can't seem to grasp that everybody with any knowledge about this realises and accepts that the one "British Crown" and the multiple Crowns within the Realms are ''the same thing''. This alone demonstrates that you have no knowledge about this. Your questioning of the established status of the Crown over and in the Realms is 'original research', and until you can provide other respectible sources which back up your claim that there is a debate on this matter, it will remain 'original research'. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::Actually, your claim of original research is itself original research: "one "British Crown" and the multiple Crowns within the Realms are the same thing". I can't imagine why anyone would view that as inherently contradictory or an act of sophistry. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 16:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not contradictory, and it's been reality in the Commonwealth for over 70 years. The key to AndyL line of reasoning is trying to combine 'British Crown' in it's general sense with 'British Crown' as subject to the authority of the UK Parliament. The only contradiction seems to be the one AndyL introduced. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 17:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:It must torture you then to think that your own beloved Rouleau is also inherently contradictory as he too refers to both the single "British Crown" ''and'' the "Crown of Canada". How do you deal with that? --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 17:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::I cope. Anyway, the mediator doesn't seem to have picked up your "original research" accusation and Peter confines his original research accusation to the [[Royal Style and Titles Act]] which isn't mentioned in this article. I'm afraid you haven't convinced anyone, not even your ally Peter. Are you willing to drop it?[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::And look at what you have resorted to -- an attempt to simply dismiss the whole thing when faced with a question you can't answer, an attempt to cause a rift between Peter Grey and myself, an attempt to dictate what the mediator has and has not done, an attempt to reduce the credibility of my argument by simply saying it's "not convincing." Sorry, I don't think the mediator has made any real decisions yet, Peter Grey is perfectly right in contesting your Royal Style and Titles Act theories as 'original research', and I will continue to point out that your "one crown or several?" questioning remains 'original research' as well, whether Peter wants to aid with this or not.
=== YNGAWT! ===
:::You're not getting away with this-- so instead of changing the topic, answer the question: why does Rouleau refer to both the "British Crown" and the "Crown of Canada" when he says "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the '''British Crown''' was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16....Arguably, without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the '''Crown of Canada'''," and "the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the '''King or Queen of Canada''' and the '''King or Queen of Great Britain'''"? --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 17:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::I see no support for your original research claim and your arguments seem to be based on a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what original research is and is not. Given the lack of support for your view, your admission that everything in the passage is factual and your failure to identify one questionable sentence or word I see no reason to entertain your fallacious claim of original research for one more second, particularly as you don't seem to even understand your own argument. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 17:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::Answer the question, Andy. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 17:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Because he feels the Crown of Canada is under the British Crown rather than there being a multiplicity of equal crowns ie the Canadian Crown is part of the British Crown and must, therefore, remain in symmetry. Canada is bound to the British constitution as a result. The question is whether the opposite is also true and that's a matter for debate. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:Whether he meant ''equality'' or ''identity'' is open to interpretation (since both could apply), but it's very clear that he did not mean "under". [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 17:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::Except, of course, that he '''said''' "under". Claiming that Rouleau didn't mean what he said is original research, is it not (or at the very least pure conjecture). [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 18:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::He said ''Canada'' was under the Crown (true by definition in a monarchy), not that one crown was under another. This same misrepresentation of the quotation was pointed out a long time ago. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Ah so Canada is under the British Crown (a slight omission on your part there) but the Canadian Crown isn't. Clear as mud. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::If things are in a [[Symmetry|symmetic]] relationship, then one can't be under the other. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 18:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::He said symmetry under the British Crown, not symmetry with the British Crown. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. He said Canada was in symmetry with the United Kingdom. Why do you waste people's time with these games? [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 18:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:"He said Canada was in symmetry with the United Kingdom" You really need to distinguish between what is actually written and what you think should have been written. What he actually said was "'''symmetry''' and union of Canada '''under the British Crown'''". [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 18:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::''"Because he feels the Crown of Canada is under the British Crown rather than there being a multiplicity of equal crowns ie the Canadian Crown is part of the British Crown and must, therefore, remain in symmetry."'' You acknowledged some time ago that the Australian Crown exists, and you now acknowledge that the Canadian Crown exists. We now all agree that they are both separate but both a part of the larger Crown (refered to by Rouleau as "the British Crown"), so that affirms that there is indeed a multiplicity of crowns within one (we have 3 of 16, so far).
::However, I now want to ask, do you acknowledge the status of equality of the Realms, incuding the United Kingdom, under the Crown as laid out in the Balfour Declaration: "[The United Kingdom and the Dominions] are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, '''equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another''' in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though '''united by a common allegiance to the Crown''', and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations," and the Statute of Westminster: "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion"?
::"Canada is bound to the British constitution as a result. The question is whether the opposite is also true and that's a matter for debate," The [[Statute of Westminster]] binds Canada's alterations to the line of succession to Britain's as much as it binds Britain's alterations to the line of succession to Canada's, and binds Canada and Britain to every other Realm in the same fashion. Otherwise, why does Rouleau state: "if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to he maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by '''all members of the Commonwealth'''," and "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16...'''Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain''' to account for Edward VIII's abdication '''would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster'''"? --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 18:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Canada is bound by Britain's constitution. Britain is not bound by Canada's constitution. The [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] is trumped by an 18th century piece of anti-Catholic legislation that had a purpose in British constitutional history but is quite irrelevent to Canadian history or Canadian reality and is actually anathama to Canadian values. Given the fact that 40% of our population is Catholic, Canada would not in and of itself devised a mechanism to exclude Catholics from the "Canadian throne", it must accept this device because it's in the British constitution.
:::Theoretically, Britain must get the permission of Canada and the other realms before changing the succession rules however, in practice, it can act unilaterally as under the concept of parliamentary supremacy the actions of one parliament do not bind its successors. Rouleau is correct in that from Canada's perspective the Statute of Westminster is "like a treaty". However, from Britain's perspective, it's just a statute. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 19:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Actually, the Act of Settlement is a part of the patriated Canadian constitution. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:Answer my question: If Britain is not bound to have the same line of succession as Canada then why did the UK have to wait for Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16, 1936, as Rouleau points out?
:Answer my question: If Canada is subsurvient to British constitutional law, then why does the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster specifically state that the Realms are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another", as Rouleau points out? Your 'parliamentary supremacy' argument failed before. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::Copied from [[Talk:Statute of Westminster 1931]].
The myth is that since the legislative powers of Parliament in the UK are unlimited, it can amend the Statute of Westminster and then somehow the leap is made to implying that the versions outside the UK would change with it. If you think of Parliament abrogating the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and then going on to, say, abolish the Commonwealth of [[Pennsylvania]], you can see how silly the idea really is. Peter Grey 15:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Poor analogy as there is no constitutional link between the United States of America and the United Kingdom (and as a treaty cannot be unilaterally rescinded. As I said, the Statute of Westminster may be "like a treaty" as far as Canada is concerned but it is just a statute for Britain - incidentally Rouleau was drawing an analogy, he did not say the Statute *is* a treaty). Gbambino conceded that Canada was bound to the UK constitution, the question is whether the relationship is reciprocal and it isn't. If Canada tried to unilaterally change the Act of Settlement a Canadian court would be bound to strike down that change given the Statute of Westminster. If Britain passed a law unilaterally amending the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster no British court would have a reason to strike down the measure given parliamentary supremacy. Now of course Canada could pass a constitutional amendment but we're talking about our situation under the current constitution, not under a hypothetically amended one.
:::And regardless of whether Canada would be bound to follow Britain's lead in changing the succession, the fact remains that the only reason the succession in Canada is the way it is is because of an archaic British law that has no relevence to Canadian reality. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 19:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Hypothetical future is meaningless (to an encyclopedia) ===
::::Hypothetical future situations are meaningless to an encyclopaedia. Now, again, answer my questions. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 19:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::(BTW-- Britain cannot simply alter the Statute of Westminster at its whim -- the statute is a law touching the succession to the throne, and as the statute itself says: "any alteration in the '''law touching the Succession to the Throne'''... shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." '''And''', the statute states: "4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion," so any alteration to the Act of Settlement or the Statute of Westminster in the UK '''would have no effect''' in Canada.) --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, I'm talking about the current constitution, not a hypothetical future one. Our current constitution does not allow Canada to unilaterally change the succession while Britain's current constitutional arrangement does allow this.
The reason why the Act of Settlement, a discriminatory document peculiar to British history, is part of Canada's constitution is also not "hypothetical", is it?
Answer my question: Why were the governments of Canada, Australia and the other realms *not* consulted in regards to the marriage of Charles, Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles when they were consulted in regards to the proposed marriage of Edward and Mrs. Simpson (Canada, South Africa and Australia favoured abdication while New Zealand and India had "no firm views)? Tony Blair was consulted on Charles' marriage but the other PMs were not. Why was this?[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 19:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:Ironically, Canada could authorize the UK Parliament to change the succession with an [[Act of the Dominon Parliament]], but it would require (according to Rouleau) a section 41 Constitutional amendment in order to take effect in Canada. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 19:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC) --Was the passing of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16, 1936, not an example of Canada giving authorization to the UK Parliament to change the succession? --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 20:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::As long as the Statute of Westminster is a part of Britain's constitution, Britain's constitutional arrangements do not allow it to unilaterally alter the line of succession. And even if it did alter the Statute, or breached the convention, whatever changes they made would have no effect in Canada, as I said above.
::Canada could have convened the Privy Council to give or deny consent to the marriage of Prince Charles and Ms. Parker-Bowles, however, as the couple would produce no heirs to the throne, the Canadian government decided there was no need for debate or discussion, and so approval was automatic. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 20:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::"Answer my question: If Britain is not bound to have the same line of succession as Canada then why did the UK have to wait for Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16, 1936, as Rouleau points out?" -
::::The short answer is it didn't and here's the proof: the UK did *not* wait for Ireland to pass legislation allowing the abdication. The abdication occured and the [[Duke of York]] was proclaimed King one day before Ireland passed its "[[External Relations Act]]" recognizing the abdication.[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 19:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Then why does Rouleau state: "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16...Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster"?
And my second question from earlier: If Canada is subsurvient to British constitutional law, then why does the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster specifically state that the Realms are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another", as Rouleau points out? --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 20:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
BTW- as tedious as this discussion is, we can now remove the "one crown or several?" secion as you've conceded that there exist numerous crowns within one. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 20:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:No, we can't because its contents are factual and relevent and because as Peter Grey says it is not the "legally correct" term to use in Canada and because the theory of mulitple crowns hold that they are equal when there is ample evidence that this is not the case and this is clear in Rouleau's wording.
:Now answer the question. Is it a fact or isn't it that Edward VIII's abdication took effect in the UK without Ireland having passed legislation authorising a change in the succession? You hinged a lot on your Edward VIII abdication argument, the least you can do now is deal with the fact that you are wrong. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 20:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::They may be factual, but they're no longer relevant if you admit that the standing situation of numerous crowns in one is true and real. With that admission the question disappears.
::I don't yet know enough about what happened in Ireland at that time to state whether what you say is fact or not. I can only comment on what we have before us. And what I am asking you about pertains to those things: the Statute of Westminster, the Balfour Report, Rouleau's ruling, etc. This is the second time I've asked you to do so for one, and the fourth for the other. So, before you try and create distractions, answer the questions. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Well no because obviously the Irish example shows that, in practice, consulation with the dominions was a nicety rather than a constitutional necessity and that, in fact, the British Crown is superior to the others and not equal as the "multiple crowns" theory would have us believe. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 20:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::''"I don't yet know enough about what happened in Ireland at that time to state whether what you say is fact or not."'' Then look it up. I can wait. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 20:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
You've also failed to answer my question about Camilla which shows that the nicety of consulting other Prime Ministers in regards to the crown is no longer followed and the UK is quite happy to act unilatrally and expect the rest of the realms to lump it or leave it. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 20:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:I did answer your question. Read before attacking people. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 20:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::You haven't answered the question at all: "Canada could have convened the Privy Council to give or deny consent to the marriage of Prince Charles and Ms. Parker-Bowles, however, as the couple would produce no heirs to the throne, the Canadian government decided there was no need for debate or discussion, and so approval was automatic."
::But why did the Queen consult [[Tony Blair]] but not [[Jean Chretien]]? That's my question and you haven't answered it. You only provided a remedy Canada could have followed but you are not explaining why the British government was consulted while Canada, Australia etc were not. The point is that the UK (and the Queen for that matter) do not feel the need to consult the other realms on monarchial matters. The point is about what Britain did or did not do, not Canada's possible response. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Canada's "possible response"? A "remedy" Canada "could have followed"? What are you talking about? If it's important to you, then ask Paul Martin, as he was the PM then, not Chretien. But it's irrelevant anyway, the marriage of Charles and Camilla means nothing to the constitutional status of Canada's monarchy, hence there was no meeting of the Privy Council, and no formal approval needed from the Canadian Parliament. Your claims that you somehow know what the UK and the Queen "feels" about the Realms is unfounded conjecture, and also means nothing in relation to constitutional reality. So, let's stop wasting each other's time, and get on with the facts.
:::I'll try to find out what happened Between Ireland and the UK at that time. However, in the meantime, can you explain how alterations to the line of succession in the UK would affect Canada if the Statute of Westminster states that "4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion"?
:And, can we now remove "one crown or several?" --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::No, as Peter points out elsewhere there is no such thing as the "Canadian Crown" at least not legally. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh? Where did Peter point that out? And what of Rouleau's speaking of the Crown of Canada? And, what happened to your acknowledgement of the Australian Crown, and then your admitting to the existence of the Canadian Crown? As you said: "Because he feels '''the Crown of Canada''' is under the British Crown rather than there being a multiplicity of equal crowns ie '''the Canadian Crown''' is part of the British Crown and must, therefore, remain in symmetry." Seems to me that's an admittance of the existence of the Canadian Crown, as well as it being united with others under the larger body of the "British Crown". --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 21:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
=== If Canada abolished <strike><i>the Crown</i></strike> <strike><i>its Crown</i></strike> its "crown" ===
:[[If Canada abolished the monarchy]] or changed the succession rules it would have no impact on the UK. Conversely, if the UK were to change its succession rules and Canada maintained the status quo, we would be faced with the possibility of having to completely change our system to accomodate a resident monarchy - when our political system and constitution are not designed for an absentee monarch (hence the position of governor general which does not exist in the UK).
:The "British monarchy" is "first among equals" in political terms as the abolition of the monarchy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc would have no impact on the monarchy in Britain whereas the abolition of the monarchy in the UK would almost certainly lead to its extinction in the rest of the Commonwealth Realms.
:The fact is that the system in the "Commonwealth Realms" (outside of the UK) was designed with the assumption that the monarch would be resident in London. Do you deny that? The fact is that the monarch is present most of the time in Britain. She has spent 2% of her reign in Canada and, I suspect, around that percentage or less in the other Commonwealth Realms. The fact is that this means there is quite a different relationship between the monarch and a) her British subjects and the British political system and b) her subjects and the political systems in the other Commonwealth realms.
:The most obvious constitutional difference is that the duties and constitutional role played by the Governor General in the Commonwealth Realms is played by the Queen herself in Britain. i.e. The Queen, with increasingly rare exceptions, does not give royal assent to bills passed in Commonwealth legislatures or even give the Throne Speech (what in Britain is called the Queen's Speech because the Queen herself gives it). She does not name the Prime Ministers in Commonwealth Realms, does not resolve constitutional or parliamentary crises that may result in Commonwealth Realms and does not have weekly meetings with her Commonwealth PMs.
:Now monarchists like to believe that the Queen is fully informed and intimately involved in, let's say, Canadian affairs. The reality is that in the Commonwealth Realms the role of the monarchy has developed so that it is really more of an abstract and theoretical entity, much more so than in Britain. Let me give you a hard example. We now know that the Queen was not at all consulted on the dismissal of Gough Whitlam in Australia in 1975. This was done by Governor General Kerr in her name but she was not consulted or even informed until after it had happened.
:Let me give you another example. We now know thanks to the [[30 year disclosure rule]] that the Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales quite regularly write letters and make phone calls to Cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats in Britain complaining of this or that government policy (this is actually quite shocking considering all the propaganda we are fed about the monarchy being "above politics"). We also know from biographies and autobiographies that UK Prime Ministers do give some consideration to what the Queen thinks about this or that thing or even this or that minister. It may not be a decisive consideration but its in the picture. That is simply not the case for Commonwealth Realm PMs. There is no evidence of royals writing Canadian or Austrlain ministers complaining about this or that policy or of Canadian or Australian PMs being particularly concerned about what the Queen might think, at least not to the extent as is the case in the UK.
:Now you might say but the Governor General acts on HMs behalf so there's really no difference. But there is, the Queen's role in the UK is unmediated, in the realms it is mediated by a GG and she is almost a complete absentee from the process. Therefore, it's quite clear that her role is much more important in the UK than elsewhere. Also, the fact that the systems in the Commonwealth Realms are designed with an absentee monarch in mind and have a GG in place Britain becoming a republic would have an impact on the realms where Commonwealth realms becoming republics has had no impact on the Queen's role in the UK.
:The fact is if Britain became a republic the Commonwealth Realms would have to figure out which one of them would become the new home for the Windsors, or if some sort of shared custody arrangement should be worked out where, say, she spends one month in each realm. The fact is they would also have to deal with the royal family's wishes, including the possibility that they would not want to move to Canada or Australia but would prefer to either remain in a British republic as ordinary citizens or live in exile in Europe (or even the US). That would raise the possibility of abdication and having to find a new monarch or even of splitting the monarchy into pieces. Then there's the question of what happens to the GG and the other political and constitutional impacts of one of the realms suddenly having a resident monarch.
:Bosh! you might say. Original research (actually no, because the differences between her role in the UK and elsewhere are well known and the realities of say, her not being consulted about the Australian constitutional crisis are well documented) Speculation! Well the possibility that the UK may become a republic is speculation, but the implications of that on the realms is based on the facts that her constitutional, political and social role in the realms is much more remote than in the UK and, in any case, quite a lot of constitutional theory has to deal with speculation (what happens if this happens in parliament, or if this happens in an election, or if a PM does this or refuses to do that). And the fact is that all these questions arise out of the fact that the Queen is resident in the UK and not resident anywhere else despite the [[legal fiction]] that she is as much a Canadian or Jamaican as she is a Briton.
:It's more than sentimental. Even putting aside the hypothetical situation of the UK becoming a republic the difference between her constitutional role in the UK and in the other realms is quite clear to anyone with eyes to see and lacking the tunnel vision caused by wishful thinking and sophistry.[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::Oh? Where did Peter point that out?
Southern Comfort mentioned it in the [[British monarchy]] article. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the diatribe, but what does it have to do with your admission that there are numerous crowns within the "British Crown"? And, I don't actually see your 'example' of Peter pointing out that there is no such thing as the "Canadian Crown." --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::So can I take it from that that you agree with me on the different relationship between the Crown and the UK and the Crown of Canada and the impact a change in the UK succession would have in Canada? As for Peter, ask SouthernComfort where he saw the comment.[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 21:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::::In any case, reading Rouleau, I don't see his argument as acknowledging "multiple crowns", quite the opposite. He talks repeatedly of a single crown, of Canada being united "under the British Crown", "sharing the British monarch" etc. He never refers to the Canadian Crown (though he talks of the British Crown) but, once, to the Crown of Canada in reference to the hypothetical situation of Canada changing the rules of succession. That doesn't strike me as an admission of "multiple crowns" but more of a short form for "Crown in right in Canada". the talk of a "British crown" is inconsistent with the MLC's claim of a "Maple Crown". [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course there's a different relationship between the Crown in Canada and the Crown in the UK -- I pointed that out ages ago when I said the Canadian Crown has distinct Canadian aspects. But it doesn't answer the question of what '''legal''' effect any alteration to the line of succession in Britain would actually have on the line of succession in Canada. And it '''still''' remains unclear as to what it has to do with your admission that there are numerous crowns within the "British Crown". --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 21:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
"[Crown of Canada as] more of a short form for 'Crown in right in Canada'"-- ''that's exactly it!'' The Crown of Canada, the Canadian Crown, the "Maple Crown" (not a technical term), ''is'' the Crown in Right of Canada, distinct and different from the Crown in Right of Australia, or the Crown in Right of the UK! You've again admitted there are numerous crowns within the one.
Rouleau refers to the Crown of Canada in regards to the real situation of the UK altering the line of succession. He also speaks of the two distinct crowns twice. He also states: "the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain." --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 21:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
But it's the same crown, that's the point, one crown, not several, not multiple crowns, one . See [[the Crown]]. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 01:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Fawltiness ===
:Re: the abdication - yes the Irish had not yet passed the abdication into law, but that was 100% the fault of [[Eamon de Valera]], not Britain. A date had been agreed to recognise the abdication by. States made their own legislative plans (some asked the UK to include them in the UK legislation, as they could request under the Statutes of Westminster). De Valera thought that he could do nothing and that it would all fall into place naturally. Then his new Attorney-General, [[James Geoghegan]], pointed out that if he didn't do something, deV would be left with King Edward as King of Ireland, and worse than that the twice-divorced [[Mrs Simpon]] as [[Queen Wallis]]. That freaked him out.
:He (de Valera) didn't want to tag [[the Free State]] along with the UK legislation, but he hadn't left himself enough time to draft and pass an Irish law, especially as he had made things needlessly complicated by deciding to amend the Irish constitution to abolish the crown and governor-generalship, something that went pearshaped when his Attorney-General, James Geoghegan, his chief civil servant, [[Maurice Moynihan]], Mr Matheson in the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office and others all told him he had made a balls of the abolition; sure he had removed the crown in constitutional law but stupidly forgot that both the crown and the representative of the crown continued to exist in statute law, letters patent, orders-in-council, etc and all of them had to be repealed too. (He re-abolished everything in the ''[[Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act]], 1937'' and dated it retrospectively back to 1936.)
:Faced with a crisis over having Edward and Wallis as King and Queen, he tagged on a recognition of the abdication and the accession of George VI to the ''[[External Relations Act|Executive Authority (External Relations) Act]], 1936''. But because he had screwed up his timetable by having the Dáil pass the ''[[Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act]]'' purportingly abolishing the crown and governor-general, there physically was no time to pass the External Relations Act with its recognition of the abdication on the same day as everyone else. So it went through a day late, meaning that for one day, Britain and Ireland had a separate king; the UK had George VI, Ireland had Edward VIII.
:It was ''entirely'' de Valera's screw-up. Britain at that late stage could not reschedule ''[[His Majesty's Instrument of Abdication Act]]'' as the King had already signed the abdication and dated it. The rest of the Commonwealth subscribed to the attitude of "de Valera screwed up. It is his problem. We are not delaying to let him clean up his mess" and went ahead. Ironically, just how bad a mess de Valera had made of things was never made known at the time and the neither the opposition nor [[the media]] copped on. (There is a lot more to it. De Valera ended up with an abolished governor-general who hadn't technically been abolished - he ended up asking him to ''pretend'' that he had been abolished and play along with the scam while de Valera drew up a new law - and invalidly installed a Chief Justice and half the Supreme Court - the governor-general was central to installing judges. De Valera forgot to change the procedure only to have the Chief Justice drop dead at the worst possible timing. The new guy played along with a sham ceremony which de Valera had insisted he had created in a law some months earlier (he hadn't).
:::(ROFL! - Mediator SV.)
:And he even had an invalidly installed Attorney-General when he overlooked the fact that he couldn't appoint the AG: the governor-general (the supposedly abolished office that wasn't ''really'' abolished) alone could. (Oh and his ex-pal, Governor-General Ua Buachalla was suing him for damages over it all - as well as for damage to curtains, a table and a dog kennel ''no. I'm not making it up. It is one of the funniest stories in the Irish National Archives. I couldn't stop laughing while reading the files on the farce!''.)
:The whole thing was like an episode of [[Fawlty Towers]]. But de Valera covered it all up and got away with it. The only thing he couldn't hide was that he had left the Free State with King Edward VIII for a day longer than everyone else.
[[User:Jtdirl|<font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Tricolour.gif|40px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup><font color=black>]] 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::Regardless of whose fault it was, the fact remains that Edward VIII's abdication was legal without Ireland's consent. Had the preamble of the Statute of Westminster been binding on British legislation then that wouldn't have been possible, Britain's abdication act would have been invalid until Ireland's external relations act was passed.
::Back to [[Rouleau]], with a closer reading of what he said he only refers to the "Crown of Canada" once and that's in discussion of the hypothetical sitution of Canada having not recognized Edward's abdication (in which case there would have been a Candian Crown). I didn't "admit" anything, gbambino, I simply answered your question about what Rouleau might have meant and in rereading the entire judgement I think I was wrong and that he was not implying there are "numerous crowns within the 'British Crown'" as you put it. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]]
:::Of course it was all legal-- it was technically a breach of convention on the part of ''every'' Realm, including the UK and Canada, as they ''all'' agreed to proceed with their legislations despite the lagging of Ireland, and they thus broke no actual laws.
:::What this also points out is how independent the crowns in right of each realm are -- Ireland, due to its domestic machinations, ended up with a seperate king from the other realms for one day. That's precisely what Rouleau was refering to when he speaks of the Crown of Canada and the concequences of Canada not passing the Succession to the Throne Act.
:::Sorry, Andy, but you can't go back and change your answer when you've realised you've just contradicted yourself. You acknowledged the existence of multiple crowns within the one, and that's all there is to that particular matter. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
A few things to point out:
*''The concept of multiple Crowns is a useful metaphor for describing the shared vs. separate character of the monarchy. It is apparently not, in Canadian law at least, the correct usage of 'Crown' as a legal term.'' Rouleau clearly discussed '''one''' shared Crown - "Canadian Crown" was only used in a counterfactual, so clearly there are not two Crowns to be compared. Of course, Crown, as an ''informal'' word, may mean the Crown as shared (physical person) or separate (legal person) depending on the context.
*The Irish Free State '''deliberately''' "opted out" of the shared succession, so it's not a precedent.
*Royal marriages do not require changes in legislation.
*In Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, I would guess, everywhere else, all of these obscure legal technicalities have been superceded by more recent legislation.
*Various French, English, and British laws have applied in Canada, and in some cases continue in force to some degree. '''New''' legislation in the UK '''including''' amendments do not apply in Canada. If the UK changed the succession and Canada wanted to follow suit, it would still need a s.41 amendment in order to be recognized by Canadian courts of law. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 21:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Gbambino, I see that Peter has kindly reaffirmed his point that there is legally no "Canadian Crown" and that his reading of Rouleau's use of the term concurs with mine. So, the multiple crown theory has no standing in Canadian constitutional law. So, no, there's no reason to remove the "One Crown or several" section.[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 21:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:No, he's affirmed what I've been saying all along -- one Crown shared, one Crown operating distinctly within each legal jurisdiction. You've acknowledged this situation as well, and so the section goes. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
So a single crown and not a multiple crown, in contradistinction to the MLC's argument that there is a "maple crown" and various refernces to "multiple crown" theory which, as Peter says, "is apparently not, in Canadian law at least, the correct usage of 'Crown' as a legal term".
Please, try to read for comprehension in future. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 22:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:"Of course, Crown, as an informal word, may mean the Crown as shared (physical person) or separate (legal person) depending on the context." One Crown acts seperately in each legal jurisdiction -- sound familiar?
:How about you give reading for comprehension a try. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 22:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
"The Irish Free State deliberately "opted out" of the shared succession, so it's not a precedent."
Would that have been possible had the preamble of the Statute of Westminster been binding? One can't say something's not a precedent just because one of the parties was being difficult since it means there's nothing barring Britain, for instance, from opting out of the shared succession as long as they did it deliberately.[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 22:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
"Royal marriages do not require changes in legislation."
Unless they violate the Royal Marriages Act. But anyway, the marriage of Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson would not have required any change in legislation yet the dominions were consulted and asked their opinion, whether they agreed with allowing the marriage, wanted a morgantic marriage, or wanted abdication if the marriage went ahead. The Commonwealth Realm PMs (with the exception of Tony Blair) were not consulted this time even though it's quite possible one or more of them could have opposed the marriage and insisted that Charles give up his claim to the throne. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 22:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
*"Multiple Crowns" is a metaphor that the Monarchist League of Canada uses, so I would suggest that ''for that article only'' it should be mentioned with notice taken that it's not technically true in the legal sense. In other contexts the shared vs. separate natures may have to be spelled out with more general language. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 22:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
*In legal terms, 'Crown' ''in context'' may mean the Crown specifically of Canada or of a province. A provincial Crown Corporation is obviously not shared across the Commonwealth. The point is that it's not the term used when the distinction is explicit. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 22:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The MLC's multiple crown theory is propaganda meant to make the Crown acceptable to Canadian nationalists in a post-imperial age. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 22:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:Please refer again to the numerous non-MLC sources given above which confirm that one Crown operates seperately in each realm. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 23:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
So the Crown in Canada is British then? [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 23:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
:British in historical terms, yes. British as in under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament, no. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 23:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
''Multiple crowns'' is not an MLC theory. That's a bit like saying wearing white was a decision of Pope Benedict. Academics the world over talk of multiple crowns, and that included academics who have never heard of the MLC. [[User:Jtdirl|<font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Tricolour.gif|40px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup><font color=black>]] 23:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::Couple points - Prof. James, thanks for the input, (and the ROFL). Andy/Homeontherange (?) theres no point whatsoever in seeking concession or approval from Gbamgino, though it seems that youve made your point regarding a bias. That bias, is best emphasised by Gbambino himself, who claims that (prphrsng) 'the thing is thus, and therefore it is not debated.' Thats all for now. Very good stuff guys. Now how best to redirect the energy from the talks toward particular articles. I need to make a list, dont I? Let me make a link: [[Template:Commonwealth]]. ''[[The Terminator|Ill be back]].'' ROFL. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 01:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
"Britain cannot simply alter the Statute of Westminster at its whim"
Britain can alter the Statute of Westminster the same way it can alter any ordinary piece of statute of law. By introducing a bill, having it go through three readings in the Commons and three readings in the House of Lords and then give it royal assent. Britain cannot mandate that any such change have any jurisdiction outside of the UK but it can amend or repeal the Statute of Westminister as far as British statute books are concerned. There's certainly no legal mechanism to stop the UK from doing this if a British government was, for whatever reason, committed to doing it. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 05:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Andy strikes back ===
Yes, I suppose the mulitple crowns theory is not the MLC's invention, they've just latched on to it like white on rice. Gbambino, you asked earlier what would happen if the UK changed the succession rules and Canada did not. I gave you one answer. Now, upon further reflection, he's another possibility.
Canada's succession rules would change automatically once Britain changed its rules. Why is this?
The courts may read the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867, which reads ''"Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"'' ...and they may rule that what this means is that whoever is monarch of the UK is automatically monarch of Canada. Of course, that's not absolutely clear as a) it's in the preamble and may or may not be binding (then again, if the preamble of the Statute of Westminster is binding on Canada wouldn't the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 be as well?).
Second, the courts could well rule that this whereas clause simply explains how the act came to being and is not intended to be interpretive. But Rouleau reads the whereas clause above and interprets it in the following manner: ''"[21] This portion of the preamble confirms not only that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, but also that Canada is united under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. A constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is shared with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries, is, in my view, at the root of our constitutional structure."''
Further Rouleau also says ''"The same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain."'' Well, if that's the case then Canada is bound to Britain's rules of succession regardless of what the Canadian parliament says.
Now, Peter has interpreted part of Rouleau's ruling... ''"Such changes would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982."'' ...as meaning that the rules of succession in Canada can only be changed through a constitutional amendment ''even if'' the other realms change theres.
Well, hold on a second, let's look at the whole paragraph " '' '''Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession,''' whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would be contrary to the commitment given in the Statute of Westminster, would break symmetry and breach the principle of union under the British Crown set out in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Such changes '''would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.''' ''
Well, I see that as meaning that a constitutional amendment is needed for ''unilateral changes'' to the rules of succession, not that one is needed for a non-unilateral change. I think a very strong argument can be made that any change by Britain in the rules of succession would automatically apply to Canada by virtue of what the current constitution of Canada says. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 01:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
;'''New''' legislation in the UK '''including''' amendments do not apply in Canada
Prior to the Statute of Westminster, the British parliament could pass a law which carried within it a declaration that it would apply in this or that dominion. Britain cannot pass a law and declare that it is binding in Canada or Australia etc. However, that does not stop a Commonwelath realm from voluntarily adhering to British jurisdiction in a certain area. Arguably, the Canadian constitution does this in the case of British laws pertaining to the succession.
New Zealand's constitution does this explicitly in a related area: (Section 4 Regency) "(1) Where, under the law of the United Kingdom, the royal functions are being performed in the same and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent, the royal functions of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by that Regent. [http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nz00000_.html]
Hence, notwithstanding the Statute of Westminster, New Zealand's constitution declares that the country is bound by "the law of the United Kingdom" as it pertains to a regency. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 02:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:''And my second question from earlier:'' If Canada is subsurvient to British constitutional law, then why does the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster specifically state that the Realms are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another", as Rouleau points out?
Because neither the Balfour Declaration nor the Statute of Westminster amended what was then called the [[British North America Act, 1867]] in order to remove the preamble committing Canada to having the same monarch as the United Kingdom. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 02:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:This is trying to confuse an involuntary or "accidental" change in law with a voluntary one. Canada is not keeping the monarchy against its will. A sovereign nation can make any law it wishes, including choosing to have another country's law have effect. Income tax law is full of examples of this. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 03:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
::This is also a very creative 'interpretation' which still remains AndyL's, and AndyL's alone. He still hasn't provided any examples of constitutional scholars, lawyers, judges, etc., who agree with or support this interpretation. Unless AndyL himself is one such person, I can't see how this interpretation can be taken as encyclopaedic. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Hm, it seems that in your own rather grudging way you are conceding that my points about the constitution are correct and that your previous assertion is incorrect.
The fact remains that, at least according to Rouleau's reading of the 1867 preamble, Canada is bound by whatever Britain decides to do with the succession. The opposite is not true making Canada a subordinate partner whether by design or by "accident".
As for Canada being able to get rid of the monarchy whenever it chooses, only if you accept the McWhinney formula. Otherwise, unanimous consent is required among the federal government and all the provinces which is not an easy chore as monarchists eagerly point out at every opportunity and has never actually been accomplished, even in the case of the 1982 Constitution Act.
Certainly, Peter, you meant something when you argued that if Britain changed the succession unilaterally, it would have no legal impact on Canada? Now, that at least according to Rouleau, that seems not to be the case, certainly that has a detrimental effect on our argument? You cannot assert that the former would be a significant proof and then say the latter is insignficant and of no importance. And if you don't think a situation where a foreign country can unilateraly determine who another country's head of state with impacts on the latter country's sovereignty then you must have a unique definition of sovereignty. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 05:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
* The point was with respect to the Constitution of New Zealand. Plus a regent is not a head of state.
* ''at least according to Rouleau'' Incorrect. (Again.) [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 10:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
What a stunning rebuttal!
On your first "point" I didn't say a regent was a head of state. I said that passage of NZ's constitution was an example of a Commonwealth Realm deferring to current British law.
On your second point, assertion is not fact (or even an argument in this case).
Do you actually have a counterargument? [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 14:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
::"As for Canada being able to get rid of the monarchy whenever it chooses, only if you accept the McWhinney formula." Another of Andy's creative interpretations. I wonder if he is aware of the ammending formula in the Constitution Act 1982. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:::You really should try to read the entire paragraph when you cite a quotation. The sentence immediately after the one you quote is: "Otherwise, unanimous consent is required among the federal government and all the provinces which is not an easy chore as monarchists eagerly point out at every opportunity and has never actually been accomplished, even in the case of the 1982 Constitution Act." So yes, I am aware of the "ammending" (sic) formula in the Constitution Act 1982.[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 23:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:(1) Then we agree that ''deferring to current British law'' is not in any way a compromise of sovereignty. (2) Is there an argument to counter? It's a misrepresentation of Rouleau's judgement, plain and simple. This seems to be your earlier tactic of taking a comment on the 1867 act out of context by ignoring '''all''' the legislation in the nearly 140 years since then. Rouleau in 2003: ''alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain''. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 14:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
: Rouleau in 2003: alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain.
There Rouleau is relaying the intent of the Statute of Westminster, to commit the UK to not unilaterally changing its rules of succession. He does not comment on what would happen if the UK were to disregard this commitment. As we know, under parliamentary supremacy, there is nothing stopping the UK from altering the rules if it so wishes and there is no mechanism to prevent the UK from doing so and we have seen in the example of Edward VIII"s abdication the requirement for unanimous action by the realms is not necessary in practice. If the UK were to break its commitment to not change rules unilaterally what would happen? Would Canada be forced to follow the UK's new succession law because of the preamble of the 1867 Constitution (as other parts of Rouleau's ruling suggest). Could a court rule that since the UK broke its commitment in the Statute of Westminster, Canada is not bound by the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867. We don't know and you don't know. However, the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 suggests that as with New Zealand's constitution, Canada has wedded itself to whatever law exists in Britain in a particular matter notwithstanding the Statute of Westminster's provision that Britain can no longer legislate for the dominions. Again, as you concede in the case of the NZ constitution, Canada has voluntarily committed itself to harmonization with British law and to accepting British jurisdiction in a particular area, in Canada's case in the matter of succession, in NZ's case in the question of regency. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 15:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course deferring to a foreign law in the determination of one's head of state certainly does compromise sovereignty. How could it not? In any case I think you misread Rouleau in regards to the need for a constitutional amendment for a non-unilateral change in the succession. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 15:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
::"If the UK were to break its commitment to not change rules unilaterally what would happen?" More conjecture and hypothesis. Whatever the future holds, it does not change current, existant, accepted realities. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Things are as they are and always thus they will be. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 23:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:The New Zealand Constitution doesn't commit Canada to anything. However: Constitution Act 1982 52. (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada. Unless they made us a colony too - I hope Australia and New Zealand don't go to war over Canada. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 16:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:The New Zealand Constitution doesn't commit Canada to anything.
Of course not but, as in Canada's case, the NZ constitution commits it to accepting British jurisdiction in a particular area.[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 16:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:''as in Canada's case'' Still wrong - this was explained earlier. Also see (4) in [[Talk:Monarchist_League_of_Canada#Monarchy_and_the_Constitution_-_A_Summary|the summary]] [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 16:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
a) The Act of Settlement isn't actually listed in the schedule of the Constitution Act, 1982
b) amendments to it would not require a constitutional amendment unless they put Canada out of synchronicity with the UK (thus requiring an amendment altering the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867).
[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 16:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:Succession is part of the Constitution, notwithstanding omission from the Schedule, that was the whole point of Rouleau's finding. You're taking a quote out of context to try to defeat the very purpose the decision. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 16:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
From [[Succession to the British Throne]]: "This provision, however, is a part of the Preamble of the Act. Since it does not follow an enacting clause, it has no legal force. It only applies as a guideline"[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 16:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:First you argue Rouleau's ruling calls the preamble "legally binding", and now you're saying he argues it's not? Rouleau clearly states that it is the ''principal of the agreement between the Realms'' which is most important. In future circumstances that agreement ''could'' be adhered to, or it ''could'' be broken, but we can't sit here and hypothesise about future possibilities. Rouleau made his ruling based on the relationship of Canada to the Crown over the Realms, as well as the Crown in Right of Canada ''as it stands now''-- acknowledging that there is a Crown of Canada which is part of a larger "British Crown" but seperate from the Crown in Right of the UK (the British Crown attached to the British parliament). You've acknowledged this above, and acknowledged the existence of the Australian Crown as well. With your admission that there is a Crown in Right of Canada, and a Crown in Right of Australia, you're therefore admitting there are two seperate legal entities (crown) within the larger "British Crown". "Multiple Crowns" is an analogy -- not a legal term -- but the MLC's description of the situation doesn't change the fact that the larger "British Crown" is indeed 'divided' in its operation throughout the Realms. I've provided numerous non-MLC sources which support this.
:Possible future actions of Britain or Canada is all just a distraction from the real issue -- the needless question of: "one crown or many?" If rouleau points out there is a Crown of Canada which is a part of the larger "British Crown"; if you acknowledge that Rouleau states this, and acknowledge there is a Crown in Right of Canada; if you acknowledge there is also an Australian Crown; then how can you continue to ask "one crown or several"? The question's been answered. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
"First you argue Rouleau's ruling calls the preamble "legally binding", and now you're saying he argues it's not?"
No. The quotation I posted a) refers to the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, not to the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 b) is not from the Rouleau ruling but from the Wikipeida article on the Statute of Westminster (hence, the link prior to the quotation). The quotation supports my argument that Britain is not bound by the Statute of Westminster, particularly not on the question ofthe succession. Gbambino, this is the second example of inferior reading comprehension you've demonstrated today. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 23:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
gbambino, in his rush to deny there's any actual debate, neglects the fact that FearÉIREANN has pointed out that there are theorists who advocate the multiple crown theory while Peter Grey points out that the multiple crown theory is factually wrong.
Incidentally Gavin, you made much of your argument that Britain waited for Canada before passing the bill recognizing Edward VIII's abdication. Given that it's been confirmed that Britain *did not* wait for Ireland I'm surprised you've failed to concede that this has any implications for your argument. It's almost as if you're engaging in tunnel vision and ignoring facts that contradict your theory, even when the facts came up in response to your own question. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 03:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:Gbambino is also oversimplifying things to a ridiculous degree. The argument has never been about whether or not there's a unitary crown, it's been whether or not there is true equality between the British Crown and the "Crowns" in other countries; whether there is really an overarching British Crown which is the Queen's principle role, one that is superior to her role in the Commonwealth realms. Clearly, despite claims of equality, the British crown is superior, the Queen's role in the UK takes precedence over her role elsewhere, paritcularly, in constittutional terms, in Canada. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 03:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
*There has '''not''' been an argument as to "whether or not there is true equality". The equality principle is the easiest part of all this. What little ambiguous and indirect support there might be for that particular bit of original research has been based on quotations out of context and obsolete legislation. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 08:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:''the multiple crown theory is factually wrong'' "Crown" is simply, in terms of legal vocabulary, a less specific term. ''Crown'' has been a metaphor for the state for as long as people have been wearing crowns, and there is no question the Commonwealth realms are sovereign states. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 08:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::Thank you, Peter, you're quite right. I often suspect the vocabulary I am using is not sufficient to explain the 'many-crowns-in-one' situation with ample clarity. But your point about the word 'crown' being synonymous with 'the state' helps to clarify things immensely. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 14:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Rouleau, in any case, refers to the British crown throughout his ruling. His only use of the term "Crown of Canada", as Peter points out, is as a a [[counterfactual]], so gbambino's claims that Rouleau has been misread or taken out of context is erroneous. The passage "One Crown or Several?" is correct. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:Using your theory to back up your theory again. So, "One Crown or Several?" is not correct for an encyclopeadia. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 18:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not a matter of what my theory is or is not, it's a question about whether or not there are different views in the literature and Rouleau's view differs from the "multiple crown" theory. As Peter pointed out earlier, in Rouleau's ruling ""Canadian Crown" was only used in a counterfactual, so clearly there are not two Crowns to be compared." [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 19:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:No, ''your'' (mis)interpretation of Rouleau's ruling differs from the "multiple crown" theory. You're also misinterpreting what Peter is saying. And lastly, you're attempting to needlessly complicate things to distract from the real issue here -- using Wikipedia as your personal soapbox. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 19:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, gbambino, if you read the article titled [[the Crown]] the section on "The Crown in right of" makes it clear that what we are dealing with are a single crown and the Crown in right of only refers to that single crown's authority in a particular jurisdiction. The Crown in Right of Canada and the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom are not ''different'' or seperate crowns but the same Crown in the same way that if gbambino owned properties in Bermuda, Jamaica and Canada, gbambino's interests in Bermuda and gbambino's interests in Jamaica would not refer to different bambinos but simply to the singular bambino's interests in different areas. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:You're very, very close. The only thing to add is that there would be no overlap between my interests in Bermuda, my interests in Jamaica, or my interests in Canada save for how I am voluntarily and equally shared as their head through an agreement between them -- they would be separate and independent from each other even though they are both my interests, and my acting on behalf of the one would not coincide or interfere with my acting on behalf of the other. I'm glad you're finally beginning to understand. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The point is it's a single crown, a British crown, not several baby crowns, so the multiple crown theory is contestable. Glad you agree. The section stays as a result. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 01:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:Andy, you've gone round and round in circles, contradicting yourself, drifting into corners and then back-peddling to get yourself out again, launching into pathetic attacks as distraction from your convoluted arguments, because, as our mediator has stated, you're only here to argue your idealistic (and I'd like to add: at times ridiculous), republican viewpoint. Well, you may be argumentative, but you are hardly convincing. After all, who would you really have believe that this country is subsurvient to Britain!? As well, and perhaps this is your greatest drawback, you are ''alone'' in this. Perhaps you should be given one more chance: ''provide some credible secondary sources from experts in this matter who support your claim that there is actually an existing debate on the matter of the Crown over and in the realms.'' Don't give us Rouleau again, as it has already been clearly pointed out that it is only ''your interpretation'' of Rouleau which supports you -- a misguided theory to support a misguided theory. Rouleau's ruling supports Peter and myself, and in addition, you've been provided with other court rulings, essays by constitutional theorists, legal documents, reports from constitutional committees, and more, as support for what Peter and I are saying. Let's actually see something from you. I think it's more than fair to say that if you can't do that, your argument is a personal one, and thus has no place in an encyclopaedia. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
===gbambino's Irish problem===
BTW gbambino, I'm still waiting for you to comment on the signficance of the abdication of Edward VIII proceeding despite the fact that Ireland had not yet consented. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 22:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::I already did earlier. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 23:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
You didn't explain how you reconcile the Irish reality with your theory that the abdication could not have occured without the consent of every dominion parliament. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 01:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:Do we really know for sure Ireland had not consented in ''some'' form or another? Possible, but hard to believe. At any rate, the worst that it could imply would be a consitutional crisis '''lasting only one day'''. It's not exactly an issue now. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 23:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Do we really know for sure Ireland had not consented in ''some'' form or another?
We know that the requirements outlined in the Statute of Westminster were not fulfilled.
" the worst that it could imply would be a consitutional crisis '''lasting only one day'''."
No, the worst that it could imply is that the preamble of the Statute of Westminster is '''not binding''' and that the claim that the UK cannot unilaterally change the succession is fallacious. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 01:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:But you argued before that Rouleau said the preamble was binding. Do you now disagree with Rouleau? These are your circles I spoke about earlier. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 04:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
(sigh) I can't believe I'm correcting you for the *same* mistake a second time. I was aruging that Rouleau said the preamble to the [[Constitution Act, 1867]] was binding. What I am referring to in the post directly above yours is the preamble to the [[Statute of Westminster]]. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 13:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:Oh, Andy. Allow me to remind you. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino#Statute_of_Westminster User talk:Gbambino/12 Statute of Westminster]:
::gbambino: "Parliamentary supremacy is still irrelevant to the altering of a Realm's line of succession as the preamble to the Statute is ''not'' leaglly binding, it is a convention only. Though Canada does face more challenges than New Zealand when it comes to constitutional ammendments, the Canadian governments could still alter the line of succession to the Canadian Throne without the consent of the other Realms anyway! Whether or not the words in the preamble to the Statute are there or not, each Realm can alter its line of succession if it so chooses. The words merely verbalise the importance of the maintenance of the amicable and agreed upon relationship between the Commonwealth Realms as central to the unity of the Crown. --gbambino 8 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)"
::AndyL: "'''Rouleau ruled that the preamble was legally binding''' (in Canada anyway), otherwise he couldn't have dismissed O'Donohue's challenge."
::AndyL: "But the only part of the Statute of Westminster that deals with the monarchy and the succession is the preamble and it is the wording of the preamble that Rouleau based his ruling upon. '''Therefore the preamble is legally binding''', at least in Canada."
::AndyL: "But in any case, in clause 31 of his ruling, Rouleau specifically invokes the preamble to the Statute of Westminster without any qualification whatsoever and treats it as the equal of ever other part of the codified constitution, ie that part of the constitution that is supreme law (there are other parts of the Canadian Constitution that are simple statute law and thus are not supreme, I suspect the Act of Settlement would be an example of this '''were it not for the preamble to the Statute of Westminster which Rouleau cites as legally binding'''.)"
:So, as you were saying? --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
No, it just means the abdication wouldn't have been effective until the following day. Canada is independent - why do you find that so hard to accept? Why do you hate Canada so much? [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 02:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
You're smarter than to demean yourself with a question like that. It's as unfair as asking a monarchist why he or she hates democracy so much? Anyway, the poitn, as you well know, is that the failure to meet the requirements of the Statute of Westminster was insufficient to delay the abdication by even one day. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 03:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:This is irrelevent to Canada's sovereignty, and the Crown of Canada, aside from the fact that it demonstrates that each realm does indeed have its own crown within its government's control. Had this ''not'' been the case, Ireland would have had George VI forced on it (which is what you claim would happen to Canada if the UK unilaterally altered its line of succession). However, instead of having a new king forced upon them, Ireland had ''a seperate king'' for one day until ''the Irish Parliament'' passed ''it's own Act'' recognising the abdication and assention of the new king. The Irish Parliament was in ''no'' way forced by the UK, or any other Realm for that matter, to do anything! Sounds like sovereignty and independence to me. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 03:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:"This is irrelevent to Canada's sovereignty, and the Crown of Canada, aside from the fact that it demonstrates that each realm does indeed have its own crown within its government's control."
No, it's not irrelevent. It means that under the current constitution Canada is not free to alter the rules governing who is our head of state while a reciprocal arrangement does not exist for the UK. It also means that, due to the preamble to the ''Constitution Act 1867'' we are obligated to follow the UK's succession rules ie a foreign country determines who our head of state is. (And in case gbambino is still getting his preambles confused I am referring to the premable to the 1867 constitution, '''not''' the preamble to the Statute of Westminster.)[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 13:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Legalese does not equate to encyclopedic language ===
Then at issue, it would seem that, if Britain theoretically changed "the" Statute of Westminster, that the Realms would be left with original copies, not the UK version. But alteration of that document would, theoretically breach the overall contract agreement, and therefore null and void the wider aggreement entirely. Naturally the loyalist argument would be "thats never going to happen" simply because the UK has no interest in doing that: "Her Majesty" is everyone's "Her Majesty," and no else's "her majesty" is theirs, so the UK doesnt seem likely to do such.
So, in the end, the "law" as instituted by The Statute, by Balfour, etc., etc., by various other agencies, were simply the visible formalities for a disorganized, improper, and a sometimes unethical executive process, by a ruling monarch (and its prime ministers) to establish revised concepts of [[Reserve powers]] and of the Commonwealth itself, whilst making the necessary and impending transition from a classical monarchy to a "modern" and "ceremonial" one, due to the humanist changes brought by WW I, the "loss" of India, WW II, etc. Thats perhaps the encyclopedic way of summarizing the actual nature of the transition, and hence give a general, very honest sense of the history of the creation of the Commonwealth itself.
Naturally, its not clear that a non-democratic process would be sufficient to appease more developed (or current) concepts of democracy and republic. Hence, the loyalist argument (as always) is one based in stability and continuity of the general society. (Though a strictine "deference" to such established law, as it simply echoes thier values, is simply a game for loyalists to play.) The reasonably mild and benevolent temperment of the current UK monarch has served to strenghten popular support for this view, wheras some future monarch might by their actions severely test that support, forcing people in Commonwealth entities to rethink the status of their relationship to the UK monarch. At such a time, the concept of loyalism would naturally change from a popular sense of continuity, to a narrow and "legalistic" claim to "[[originalism]]" in interpretation. Thats the basics, as I see it, from an objective view. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 16:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Initially, the Statute of Westminster only applied to the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and the Irish Free State. Even then, it was difficult getting all the realms on the same page when a crisis came up as we see with the Irish situation. Now there are 16 realms with much more disparate interests than the "original six". Say Charles comes to the throne and some of the realms are less than thrilled and wish to skip to William. Could consensus be achieved among the 16? Frankly, it's more likely that some realms will withdraw from the monarchy entirely... but what if Britain wishes to change the succession rules for some reason, whether for reasons of principle in order to remove the bar on Catholics and the practice of male primogeniture or because a sitting or prospective King (say, [[Prince Harry of Wales|Harry]]) is considered "unreliable" or a "loose cannon" as far as being a constitutional monarch is concerned. The system really does depend on a monarch who is willing to abide by the constitution, if a monarch is a short fused, intellectually limited hothead who feels he knows better than the PM and wishes to exercise actual power parliament would have little choice but to remove him. But if Britain faced this sort of crisis would it really wait for the 15 other realms to agree, particularly if some of them are holding out for their own reason (say a poorer country wanting something in exchange for their consent, or a country with an ideosyncratic PM who happens to like having a right wing fanatic for a king)? Would Westminster really defer or would it go ahead and (regrettably, they would no doubt say) act uniltaerally? Of course, Britain could just declare itself a republic at that point (which would create a new set of headaches for the "realms" stuck with a homeless monarchy) but if Britain wanted to retain a monarchy but just have a different monarch I find it hard to believe that Westminster would allow, say, Grenada to exercise a veto. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 17:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:[[Sovereignty]] at work. Maybe this should go under [[Politics of the United Kingdom]]. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 17:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
::''Peter: "Sovereignty at work. Maybe this should go under [[Politics of the United Kingdom]]."'' Well, Andy's right in the sense that the concept of Monarchy is removed from politics, and therefore to claim that such debates are all political without accounting for the ultimate Royal trump cards is a bit constrained. In my country, for example, our "politics" is largely money-driven, which means its corporate and "elite"-driven. (You could say its also consumer-driven, greed-driven and fear-driven.)
But there are two separate entities, considering the political individual and the political corporation, but both still debate on the field of "politics." The UK monarch does not debate, because to do so would symbolize thier need to ask permission, which she doesnt need. Conversely the monarch doesnt directly excercise her supreme powers much, because that would open the door to the fact that such are not democratic.
::I think the interesting thing, because this diverges from both Andy and Gbambinos general points, is the fact that the monarchy has been maintained only by its relative silence. It was not in fact instituted by law, but rather the "laws" and "treaties" were simply the byproduct of a process by which it executively changed itself. It remains simply because it remains quiet, not because its bound to do so, but because its ''obliged'' (politically) to do so by the precariousness of its continuum, relative to the everpresent democratic potential for removing it. So, yes, at a certain level it would seem that the monarchy is a "political balance," though the term political seems to have different meaning when talking about "supreme" authorities. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
You've never given the monarchy much actual thought, have you Peter? How is it justifiable in a democratic society supposedly based on principles of equality and merit to have its nominally highest office determined by heredity? How is it justifiable in Canada to have as part of our constitution the exclusion of Catholics from an office of state? Monarchist claims that monarchy is above politics or the embodiment of the nation do not withstand serious examination. Take Edward VIII's Nazi sympathies, his father's meddling in regards to Ramsay Macdonald's Labour government or George VI and his consort heartily endorsing the Munich Pact by greeting Chamberlain on the balcony before the deal had even been debated in parliament.
Sure, make snide remarks, use reductio ad absurdum arguments, gnash your teeth all you like but I think you know underneath that the romantic illusion of monarchy is incompatible with and ultimately untenable in a modern democratic society. You're smarter than Gbambino; hopefully you'll come around at some point. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 18:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:''You've never given the monarchy much actual thought''. Incorrect. Perhaps you should give some thought to what might be wrong with an extremely small minority trying to impose a narrow vision of democracy on others. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 21:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
What on god's green earth are you talking about? Where are these republican minorities imposing their will on monarchist majorities? [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 23:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:"You're smarter than Gbambino"? What happened to no personal attacks, Andy? Your hypocracy shines through yet again. Your republican bias is also shining strong -- full of weak argument, manipulation, and sales-tactics as always. I was accused earlier of having bias by Stevertigo. I hope he can now see the motives behind your attempts to push your own misinterpretation of law, convention and rulings, and your hypotheticals, as fact, all still lacking any secondary sources from experts or scholars who agree with your theories. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 23:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:: I agree that Andy is acting a bit out of line, and seeking [[m:more heat than light]]. I do understand that hes fishing for a more balanced view, which Im sure you can be of help with. -[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:I certainly agree that a balanced view should be maintained where opposing views actually exist. However, in this case the only opposing view is Andy's own personal one. His question "one crown or many?" implies a debate. Yet, though Andy has been asked to provide other respectible sources (constitutional scholars, judges, lawyers, parliamentarians, academics, even anything published in a journal somewhere) as example of others who question the accepted reality of the operation of the Crown over and in the Realms, he has not. He certainly attempted to say that the ruling of Ontario Justice Rouleau has put the situation into question, but Andy has only used ''his interpretation'' (influenced by heavy and convenient editing) of Rouleau's ruling to back up ''his own questioning'' of the Crown -- using a theory to back up a theory! To prove how weakly the ruling supports Andy's assertions, Peter Grey and myself have used the same ruling as verification of ''our'' points. Thus, without concrete evidence of any debate, I can't see what opposing view actually needs to be balanced with the accepted one. Also, it seems in some ways that Andy is coming round, against his own will mind you, to seeing things as they are. He's acknowledged the existance of the Australian Crown, he's acknowledged the existence of the Canadian Crown (Crown in Right of Canada, Crown of Canada), and by doing so has acknowledged that at least two seperate legal entities (crowns) exist within the larger "British Crown." He thus answers his own question "one crown or many?" -- it is one crown ''and'' many, many in one. That, of course, would end this debate on whether or not there is a debate about the Crown in and over the Realms. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 01:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::Let's see, you suggest I'm unaware of the amending formula to the constitution based on your partial reading of a paragraph when, had you read the entire thing, you would have known I'm quite aware of the formula and then you read a quote from an article on the Statute of Westminster and think it's a quote by Rouleau on the Constitution Act 1867. Two sloppy examples of failure to read comprehensively in a few minutes and you have the nerve to protest my claim that Peter Grey is smarter than you? I think you owe Peter an apology. I suggest in future you read everything twice in hopes that you might actually understand what is being said and be able to make a semi-intelligent contribution.[[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 23:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Getting back to [[Commonwealth realm]]:''' The Constitution (in Canada) works, and the courts don't think there's anything wrong with it. Perhaps there are a few people who don't like ''how'' it works, but that is not the same thing. Could Consitutional amendment become desirable in practical (as opposed to ideological) terms because of a change in circumstances? Of course - that's true of any legislation. Would Canadian politicians blindly follow the rules of another country and pass up the opportunity to assert Canada's sovereignty, and all the potential photo-ops that that might involve? Would the courts even allow them to? A matter of speculation. The original concern was AndyL misrepresenting, seemingly intentionally, a political opinion as a question of law. A political opinion may merit a mention in an appropriate context, but deliberate, politically motivated errors of fact do not belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 00:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Good of you, Peter, to come to gbambino's defence. Well, in any case, good of you to try to change the topic even if you don't feel moved to defend poor Gavin.
Anyway, I'm still curious about this purported minority trying to impose its views on a democracy. Give us some details, Peter. Who are these people and what are they trying to do? Can republicans be so dastardly as to try to impose their views by encouraging a democratic discussion followed by a vote? How devious of those bastards! Imagine, encouraging debate when we all know that only a tiny minority of 48% of Canadians (according to Ipsos-Reid) favour the replacement of the monarchy following the Queen's demise. Anyone with a different view should shut up rather than try to "impose" them by expressing them in public since we all know that voicing a dissenting opinion is an imposition on everyone who is happy with the status quo. How undemocratic of them to exercise their "rights" to express their views!
In any case, despite Peter's straw dog arguments about supposed errors of fact, we have through this discussion, cleared up the "multiple crown" myth (which has resulted in corrections being made to various articles). As the professor points out, though, this theory is purported by various theorists so there is some purpose in discussing the debate in the article, notwithstanding gbambino's confused and ever shifting objections.
I'm curious though how Peter reckons that the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 which Rouleau cites in his ruling has ceased to be binding? If it ceased to be binding how can Rouleau refer to it and use it to reject O'Donohue's petition?
I'm also rather moved by Peter's confidence that unanimity amongst the provinces is no obstacle to the demoratic will of the people. But as a democrat, Peter, (and aren't all monarchists democrats at heart?) don't you think it would make more sense to allow the monarchy to be abolished by a simple majority in a national referendum? [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 01:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:Encouraging misinformation is not compatible with "encouraging a democratic discussion". [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 02:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
So then, the misinformation promoted by the MLC concerning "multiple crowns" and the "Canadian monarchy" is beyond the pale in your opinion? Then you should speak up and tell them that! Or is there some other misinformation you are referring to? Since you are casting aspersions in such a vague way (the norm with smears) it's difficult to know precisely what you are talking about. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 02:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
=== MHTL ===
:Andy, with all due respect, I think youre putting out [[m:more heat than light|more heat than light]], and instead of arguing over what ifs or what should or should not be, you should focus on answering the material issues, which are ''how to best represent the material and explain the issue.'' At this point, Im a bit sympathetic to Peter and Gbambino, because at least they tend to be more brief. I dont need a history lesson. Rather I need to know what your actual purpose is. Your interest seems to be much more in arguing rather than helping clarify this topic for others (ie. at least the simplistic and strict approach promises to be "clarifying").
:For example, you go into statements like these: "...Could consensus be achieved among the 16? Frankly, it's more likely that some realms will withdraw from the monarchy entirely..." This becan as a hypothetical, for which you gave your speculative opinion, stating it as "Frank[]" fact. You could be more tactful. Your questions seem like they contain their own answers: ''"How is it justifiable in a democratic society supposedly based on principles of equality and merit to have its nominally highest office determined by heredity? How is it justifiable in Canada to have as part of our constitution the exclusion of Catholics from an office of state?"'' I personally would tend to agree that the single Crown concept was and still is undemocratic, but you appear as if on a quest to convince those who may not have quite an idealistic concept of "democracy" as others.
:At the root of your motivations is a youthful and naive concept of idealism, which simply ignores the "pragmatic" "real-world" notions which are ''somewhat'' embodied in conservative traditionalism and loyalism. From the conservative POV, societies arent created in a day, and therefore things which are too radically changing (like bloody revolution) simply weaken the society, hence they are considered dangerous. Meaning, that popular revolt may very well equal war and famine, etc. and that undoes the both the work of building the society, as well as the work of the society itself --to make a more "secure" future for people. From that point of view, "change" often does more real damage in contrast to the idealistic good that comes from idealistic change. But from the liberal pro-democracy side, stalled progress toward greater idealism simply means that society can slip backwards, which likewise leads to damage and destruction. Though democracy is a principled thing, its name is typically trampled through the mud, and its commonly understood that the acceptance of a trampling climate (for example in my country) leads to destruction, just as assuredly as it leads to revolt.
:So, understanding all of that, I think your purpose (if there really is one) is to make some kind of contrast between the idealistic concept of a democracy, (as in the U.S. for example? LOL) and the monarchy-Commonwealth system established by the UK and its former outposts, colonies, and slave camps. But, if you understand history, then you can understand this is cyclical between shifing popular poles. I see this debate as more an issue of youthful interpretation on your part, than on the facts themselves. ("Issues" are somewhere between interpretation and facts). Lastly, the issues you raise are overly general, --perhaps you chould centralise your efforts on [[democracy]] article itself. The fact of the matter is that "democracy" is, as you suspect, under attack from many fronts. In light of political panderism and corporate influence over my country's "democracy," I cant say that the "ultimate deference to the Queen" model is any worse. But, again, this isnt the place for discussions. Sinreg, [[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 06:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
=== So many Crowns, so little content ===
It strikes me that for the article to raise the question rhetorically, "One Crown or several?", and describe the various meanings which people attach to the word ''crown'', would be an excellent way of presenting the shared vs. separate dichotomy of the <s>crown</s>monarchy, rather than trying to pin down exactly one answer to the question. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 19:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
That would make sense for [[the Crown]] article but it would be a largely irrelevent tangent for [[Commonwealth realm]]. [[User:Homeontherange|Andy]] 21:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
== "Rise of Republicanism" ==
The sub-title "Rise of Republicanism" was based on nothing but POV and read like a republican call to arms. There have been republican sentiments in every Commonwealth Realm since they were first colonised, and though there continue to be those with republican leanings in the Realms, including the UK, there is nothing to prove there is a Commonwealth-wide ''rise'' in these feelings.
What's more, much of what was stated in the section exists almost verbatim in articles relating to republicanism within individual realms (ie. [[Republicanism in Australia]], [[Canadian Republicanism]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada#Debate_on_the_monarchy Monarchy in Canada/Debate on the monarchy] -- these links have been included in the "Controversy" section. All other information was shifted down to the "Controversy" section, and some was moved to the more relevant [[Republicanism in Australia]]. Very little, if anything at all, was removed. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
== Edits to 'Commonwealth Realms and the Crown' ==
For well over one month now AndyL has been attempting to use Wikipedia as a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|soapbox]] to push his biased [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|POV]] through the use of personal interpretations of a primary source, which constitutes [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. Throughout more than a month of debate he has been asked to provide proper secondary sources of constitutional experts, judges, lawyers, parliamentarians, scholars, or publications of any kind, which also support his theories, but has given none. Thus, the passage has been edited to remove any POV and original research. --[[User:Gbambino|gbambino]] 14:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
| 