Revision as of 03:21, 3 October 2008 editG2bambino (talk | contribs)19,847 edits →Relationship of the realms: Expand on Corbett← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:45, 4 October 2008 edit undoLawe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,638 edits Reverted to older revision of this page edited by PrinceOfCanada (Talk | contribs) at 14:43, 2 October 2008Next edit → | ||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
==Relationship of the realms== | ==Relationship of the realms== | ||
{{rquote|right|<small>Any alteration by the ] in the law touching the succession to the throne would, except perhaps in the case of ], be ineffective to alter the succession to the throne in respect of, and in accordance with the law of, any other independent member of the ] which was within the Queen’s realms at the time of such alteration. Therefore it is more than mere constitutional convention that requires that the assent of the Parliament of each member of the Commonwealth within the Queen’s realms be obtained in respect of any such alteration in the law.</small>|] Chairman| Professor Noel Cox}} | {{rquote|right|<small>Any alteration by the ] in the law touching the succession to the throne would, except perhaps in the case of ], be ineffective to alter the succession to the throne in respect of, and in accordance with the law of, any other independent member of the ] which was within the Queen’s realms at the time of such alteration. Therefore it is more than mere constitutional convention that requires that the assent of the Parliament of each member of the Commonwealth within the Queen’s realms be obtained in respect of any such alteration in the law.</small>|] Chairman| Professor Noel Cox}} | ||
The Commonwealth realms are ] states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy,<ref></ref> the succession, and the Queen herself. | |||
The |
The relationship between the monarchies in the Commonwealth has been described as being, or being similar to,<ref name="Zines">Zines, ''The High Court and the Constitution'', 4th ed. (1997) at 314: "The Queen as monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is in a position resembling that of the King of Scotland and of England between 1603 and 1707 when two independent countries had a common sovereign."</ref> a '],'<ref name="scott1">{{cite journal|title = The End of Dominion Status|author = F. R. Scott|journal = The American Journal of International Law|volume = 38|number = 1|date = January 1944|pages = 34–49|url = http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28194401%2938%3A1%3C34%3ATEODS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B|doi = 10.2307/2192530| quote=The common kinship within the British group today establishes a form of personal union, the members of which are legally capable of following different international policies even in time of war.}}</ref><ref name="murdoch1" /> that is, an arrangement whereby a single person is simultaneously and separately the monarch of two or more independent countries.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Keeton|first=George W|date=1948|title=Western European Federation|journal=The International Law Quarterly|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=Volume 2|issue=Number 2|pages=pp 214-227|quote=A personal union exists when two or more sovereign independent States as associated by the factor that they possess a common ruler. In all other respects the identities of the two states remain distinct.}}</ref> P.E. Corbett, a Canadian lawyer, argued in 1940 that | ||
"ssociations of states are traditionally classified in the literature of international law under six heads: federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vassalage, protectorate,"<ref name="corbett1">{{cite journal|title = The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law|author = P. E. Corbett|journal = The University of Toronto Law Journal|volume = 3|number = 2|date = 1940|pages = 348–359|url = http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-0220%281940%293%3A2%3C348%3ATSOTBC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J|doi = 10.2307/824318|year = 1940|issue = 2}}</ref> and then further notes that attempts to define the precise nature of the relationship between countries under the British crown are difficult. However, Lalor argues that the concept of personal union must include not only that the countries involved must be represented by the same "diplomatic agent,"<ref name="lalor1">{{cite book|coauthors=Various Authors|title=Cyclopaedia of Political Science||last=Block|first=Maurice|editor=Lalor, John Joseph|publisher=Maynard, Merrill, and Co|location=New York|date=1899|url=http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/YPDBooks/Lalor/llCy821.html|accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref> but that "it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions,"<ref name="lalor1"/> while Corbett's argument concludes with the observation that "the much wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as ''sui generis''."<ref name="corbett1"/> Other sources echo Corbett and Lalor's conclusions,<ref name="miller1">{{cite journal|last=Miller|first=J.D.B|date=October 1959|title=The Commonwealth in the World|journal=The American Historical Review|publisher=American Historical Association|location=Washington, DC|volume=Volume 65 |issue=Number 1|quote=...the survey concludes with an attempt to classify the Commonwealth. It is no longer a federation, nor a military alliance, nor a personal union.}}</ref><ref name="sack1">{{cite journal|last=Sack|first=Alexander N|date=March 1940|journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register|volume=Volume 88 |issue=Number 5|pages=pp 637-640|quote=Whatever the future development of the British Commonwealth may be can be described as a that of associations or unions of States, as distinguished from "personal" unions, on the one hand, and federal States, on the other.}}</ref> though for occasionally different reasons.<ref name="elliott1">{{cite journal|last=Elliott|first=W.Y|date=November, 1930|title=The Sovereignty of the British Dominions: Law Overtakes Practice|journal=The American Political Science Review|volume=Vol. 24|issue=No. 4|pages=pp. 971-989|quote=If a personal union be chosen, the Crown will be forced to act on the king's own discretion since personal discretion is a modern monarch is unthinkable, the only alternative would be a league of states with a common but symbolic crown.}}</ref> | |||
The United Kingdom no longer holds any legislative power over any country besides itself, although some countries continue to use the British ] as part of their judiciary. | The United Kingdom no longer holds any legislative power over any country besides itself, although some countries continue to use the British ] as part of their judiciary. | ||
Line 116: | Line 118: | ||
Although the Dominions were self-governing, their ability to legislate remained theoretically subject to British authority, and the ] nominally reigned over these territories as a single ] domain, with a ] representing the ] in each Dominion; the United Kingdom retained responsibility for the Dominions' foreign policy and defence. In practice, this unitary model continued to erode as the international role of the Dominions increased as a result of their participation and sacrifices in the ], which prompted ], Prime Minister of Canada, and ], the South African Minister of Defence, to demand that the Dominions be given full recognition at the ], as "autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth." As a result, the Dominions were separate signatories to the ], and obtained seats in the ], together with ]. In 1920, Canada exchanged envoys with the ], and, in 1923, it concluded a treaty in its own right: the Halibut Fisheries Treaty. In 1925, the Dominions refused to be bound by the British signature to the ]. | Although the Dominions were self-governing, their ability to legislate remained theoretically subject to British authority, and the ] nominally reigned over these territories as a single ] domain, with a ] representing the ] in each Dominion; the United Kingdom retained responsibility for the Dominions' foreign policy and defence. In practice, this unitary model continued to erode as the international role of the Dominions increased as a result of their participation and sacrifices in the ], which prompted ], Prime Minister of Canada, and ], the South African Minister of Defence, to demand that the Dominions be given full recognition at the ], as "autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth." As a result, the Dominions were separate signatories to the ], and obtained seats in the ], together with ]. In 1920, Canada exchanged envoys with the ], and, in 1923, it concluded a treaty in its own right: the Halibut Fisheries Treaty. In 1925, the Dominions refused to be bound by the British signature to the ]. | ||
The ], embodying agreements reached at the 1926 ], formally recognised that, in practice, the Dominions had in recent years evolved into full sovereignty; it declaring that the Dominions were autonomous and equal in status to the United Kingdom. This had the result of each of the governments of the Dominions establishing a separate and direct relationship with the monarchy, the ] now acting as a personal representative of the sovereign in right of that Dominion only. |
The ], embodying agreements reached at the 1926 ], formally recognised that, in practice, the Dominions had in recent years evolved into full sovereignty; it declaring that the Dominions were autonomous and equal in status to the United Kingdom. This had the result of each of the governments of the Dominions establishing a separate and direct relationship with the monarchy, the ] now acting as a personal representative of the sovereign in right of that Dominion only. The first legal enshinement of this new convention was the ] of 1927{{ndash}} which implicitly recognised the Irish Free State as separate from the United Kingdom, and the King as king ''of'' each Dominion rather than the British king ''in'' each Dominion{{ndash}} followed, in 1931, by the ], through which Canada, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State all immediately obtained legislative independence from the ], while, in other Dominions, adoption of the statute was subject to ratification by the Dominion parliament; Australia and New Zealand did this in 1942 and 1947, respectively (Australia's ratification being ]d to 1939). The statute also covered Newfoundland, but it was never ratified there, and the Dominion reverted to colonial status in 1934, eventually joining Canada in 1949. | ||
There remained in the Statute of Westminster, however, the reservations of the right of the parliament in London to legislate for a Dominion by request, as well as the ] as the last court of appeal for some Dominions. This left the definition of the Dominions' status as independent nations somewhat vague; in 1940, Corbett questioned which terms, if any, applied to any or all of the "possessions of the British Crown."<ref name="corbett1" /> Still others found the new arrangement to be detrimental to the unity of the Crown: ] constitutional lawyer ] warned that "the suggestion that the King can act directly on the advice of Dominion Ministers is a constitutional monstrosity, which would be fatal to the security of the position of the Crown."<ref>''Responsible Government in the Dominions''; Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1928; Vol. 1; 2nd ed.; pg. xviii</ref> Indeed, between 1931 and the 1940s, there was confusion over how advice would be tendered to the sovereign: former ] ] theorised that the British Cabinet would tender formal advice, while the Dominion cabinets would provide informal direction.<ref>''Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates''; House of Representatives; March 22, 1927; Vol. 115; pg. 863; cf Jenks, Edward; "Imperial Conference and the Constitution"; ''Cambridge Law Journal''; Vol. 3, No. 13; 1927; pg. 21</ref> while the Irish government saw the relationship of these independent countries under the Crown as a ].<ref name="murdoch1">{{cite web|url=http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/cox93.html|title=Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law|date=September 2002|work=Black v Chrétien: Suing a Minister of the Crown for Abuse of Power, Misfeasance in Public Office and Negligence|pages=Volume 9, Number 3|accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref> By 1939, Prime Minister of Canada ], in collaboration with then ] ], had King ] appear in person in Canada to perform constitutional duties, and, with his consort, ], travel to the United States specifically as ].<ref></ref> The whole was affair meant to "translate the Statute of Westminster into the actualities of a tour," and, though Mackenzie King was ultimately successful, he met resistance from British authorities at many points, they believing that the British Ambassador to the United States should accopany the King to the United States, as opposed to the Canadian Prime Minister.<ref name="Parl"></ref> It was the outbreak of the ] that affirmed the right of the Dominion cabinets to minister the King without interference from his British advisors; Canada and South Africa made separate proclamations of war against Germany in 1939, followed by Australia and New Zealand.<ref>Hasluck, Paul; ''The Government and the People, 1939-1941''; Canberra: Australian War Memorial; 1952; pg. 149-151; cf ''New Zealand Gazette''; December 9, 1941; p 3877</ref> | There remained in the Statute of Westminster, however, the reservations of the right of the parliament in London to legislate for a Dominion by request, as well as the ] as the last court of appeal for some Dominions. This left the definition of the Dominions' status as independent nations somewhat vague; in 1940, Corbett questioned which terms, if any, applied to any or all of the "possessions of the British Crown."<ref name="corbett1" /> Still others found the new arrangement to be detrimental to the unity of the Crown: ] constitutional lawyer ] warned that "the suggestion that the King can act directly on the advice of Dominion Ministers is a constitutional monstrosity, which would be fatal to the security of the position of the Crown."<ref>''Responsible Government in the Dominions''; Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1928; Vol. 1; 2nd ed.; pg. xviii</ref> Indeed, between 1931 and the 1940s, there was confusion over how advice would be tendered to the sovereign: former ] ] theorised that the British Cabinet would tender formal advice, while the Dominion cabinets would provide informal direction.<ref>''Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates''; House of Representatives; March 22, 1927; Vol. 115; pg. 863; cf Jenks, Edward; "Imperial Conference and the Constitution"; ''Cambridge Law Journal''; Vol. 3, No. 13; 1927; pg. 21</ref> while the Irish government saw the relationship of these independent countries under the Crown as a ].<ref name="murdoch1">{{cite web|url=http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/cox93.html|title=Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law|date=September 2002|work=Black v Chrétien: Suing a Minister of the Crown for Abuse of Power, Misfeasance in Public Office and Negligence|pages=Volume 9, Number 3|accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref> By 1939, Prime Minister of Canada ], in collaboration with then ] ], had King ] appear in person in Canada to perform constitutional duties, and, with his consort, ], travel to the United States specifically as ].<ref></ref> The whole was affair meant to "translate the Statute of Westminster into the actualities of a tour," and, though Mackenzie King was ultimately successful, he met resistance from British authorities at many points, they believing that the British Ambassador to the United States should accopany the King to the United States, as opposed to the Canadian Prime Minister.<ref name="Parl"></ref> It was the outbreak of the ] that affirmed the right of the Dominion cabinets to minister the King without interference from his British advisors; Canada and South Africa made separate proclamations of war against Germany in 1939, followed by Australia and New Zealand.<ref>Hasluck, Paul; ''The Government and the People, 1939-1941''; Canberra: Australian War Memorial; 1952; pg. 149-151; cf ''New Zealand Gazette''; December 9, 1941; p 3877</ref> |
Revision as of 09:45, 4 October 2008
A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch. The term is informal, having no legal or official status.
These countries have a combined area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims), and a combined population of 131 million The relationship of the realms to each other is analagous to a personal union and is sometimes referred to as such (that is, the realms, though completely sovereign, are united in that they share one monarch as their own). While the term Dominion has never been officially revoked, since the 1950s it has been replaced by use of the word realm in order to reflect the relationship of equality amongst all 16 countries.
Commonwealth realms are each members of, but distinguished from, the Commonwealth of Nations, which is an organisation of mostly former British colonies. Within the Commonwealth, there is no difference in status between the Commonwealth realms and other Commonwealth members.
Current Commonwealth realms
Flag | Country | Monarchy | Date | Queen's Title | Royal Standard |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Antigua and Barbuda | Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda | 1981 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Antigua and Barbuda and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. | None | |
Australia | Monarchy of Australia | 1942 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. | ||
The Bahamas | Monarchy of The Bahamas | 1973 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. | None | |
Barbados | Monarchy of Barbados | 1966 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Barbados and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | ||
Belize | Monarchy of Belize | 1981 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Belize and of Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | None | |
Canada | Monarchy of Canada | 1931 | English: 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 French: Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi |
||
Grenada | Monarchy of Grenada | 1974 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Grenada and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | None | |
Jamaica | Monarchy of Jamaica | 1962 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Jamaica and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | ||
New Zealand | Monarchy of New Zealand | 1947 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith | File:Royal Standard of New Zealand.svg | |
Papua New Guinea | Monarchy of Papua New Guinea | 1975 | Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | None | |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | Monarchy of Saint Kitts and Nevis | 1983 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Saint Christopher and Nevis and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | None | |
Saint Lucia | Monarchy of Saint Lucia | 1979 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Saint Lucia and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | None | |
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | Monarchy of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 1979 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | None | |
Solomon Islands | Monarchy of the Solomon Islands | 1978 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the Solomon Islands and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | None | |
Tuvalu | Monarchy of Tuvalu | 1978 | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Tuvalu and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth | None | |
United Kingdom | Monarchy of the United Kingdom | n/a | Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith |
Year of Statute of Westminster enactment (Canada), adoption by realm (Australia and New Zealand), or grant of independence (all others except the UK).
Adoption of Statute of Westminster was declared retroactive to 1939.
Not applicable to the United Kingdom as it was the realm from which other realms have become independent.
The date shown here only reflects the Monarch as being Head of State since independence. This date does not reflect the time from when the Monarch was the Head of State over the non-independent territory.
Under the 1981 Cook Islands constitution, the Queen in Right of New Zealand is head of state, but any change in the succession made by New Zealand would have no effect in the Cook Islands unless separately ratified there.
Further information: Monarchy of the Cook IslandsRelationship of the realms
Any alteration by the United Kingdom Parliament in the law touching the succession to the throne would, except perhaps in the case of Papua New Guinea, be ineffective to alter the succession to the throne in respect of, and in accordance with the law of, any other independent member of the Commonwealth which was within the Queen’s realms at the time of such alteration. Therefore it is more than mere constitutional convention that requires that the assent of the Parliament of each member of the Commonwealth within the Queen’s realms be obtained in respect of any such alteration in the law.
— Monarchist League of New Zealand Chairman, Professor Noel Cox
The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself.
The relationship between the monarchies in the Commonwealth has been described as being, or being similar to, a 'personal union,' that is, an arrangement whereby a single person is simultaneously and separately the monarch of two or more independent countries. P.E. Corbett, a Canadian lawyer, argued in 1940 that "ssociations of states are traditionally classified in the literature of international law under six heads: federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vassalage, protectorate," and then further notes that attempts to define the precise nature of the relationship between countries under the British crown are difficult. However, Lalor argues that the concept of personal union must include not only that the countries involved must be represented by the same "diplomatic agent," but that "it is also necessary that their armies should be united into one, and consequently, that the two countries should have common finances; from which it follows, that the two countries united must have, besides, their respective chambers for the special affairs of each country, a common parliament authorized to deal with international questions," while Corbett's argument concludes with the observation that "the much wiser course is to treat the Commonwealth as sui generis." Other sources echo Corbett and Lalor's conclusions, though for occasionally different reasons.
The United Kingdom no longer holds any legislative power over any country besides itself, although some countries continue to use the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as part of their judiciary.
The Crown in the Commonwealth realms
The relationship of these sovereign states has created the scenario wherein the Crown has both a separate and a shared character, being an institution that operates separately within the jurisdiction of each Commonwealth realm, with the Queen in right of each country being a distinct legal person, acting on the advice only of the government of that state. The Crown is thus unitary through its shared character, but divided in its jurisdictional operation, meaning that in different contexts, Crown may mean the Crown as shared or the Crown in each realm considered separately.
The monarchy is therefore no longer an exclusively British institution, although it may often be called British for historical reasons, for convenience, or for political (usually republican) purposes. One Canadian constitutional scholar, Dr. Richard Toporoski, stated on this: "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". Expressing this concept, through the proclamation of Elizabeth II's new titles in 1952, in each realm the Queen is known by the title appropriate for that realm; for example, in Barbados she is known as "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Barbados," or, simply, the Queen of Barbados.
As a consequence of this relationship, as per the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, any alterations to the line of succession to the throne must be approved by the parliaments of all the realms in order to guarantee continuity of a single monarch. For example, there have been suggestions of removing the religious requirements from the Act of Settlement, which currently defines the succession. In practice, since each realm is a sovereign state, this requires the voluntary cooperation of all 16 of the countries. Alternatively, a realm could choose to end its participation in the shared monarchy.
In realms other than the United Kingdom, the Queen normally exercises only those powers related to her appointment of a Governor-General, usually on the advice of the prime minister of the realm concerned; in the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu the Prime Minister is required to consult the legislature in confidence; in Papua New Guinea the Governor-General is nominated to the Queen by parliamentary vote. In some realms certain other powers are reserved exclusively for her, such as the appointment of extra senators to the Canadian Senate, the creation of honours, or the issuance of letters patent. The monarch is also represented by a Governor in each state of Australia, by a Lieutenant Governor in each province of Canada, and by a Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands. In these cases, she is represented in her role as Queen in right of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand respectively. Within the United Kingdom, the Queen appoints Counsellors of State to perform her duties in her absence. These officials exercise almost all the powers of the constitutional monarch with mostly symbolic, figurehead duties, but they also have reserve powers, called the Royal Prerogative.
From a cultural standpoint, the shared nature of the Crown is less clear. In all realms, the sovereign's name and image continue to play a prominent role in political institutions and symbols. For example, her effigy usually appears on coins and banknotes, and an oath of allegiance to the Queen is usually required from politicians, judges, and new citizens. Some argue, however, that the Crown within their particular country remains essentially British and primarily of the United Kingdom, whereas others emphasise the Crown as a shared link between the Commonwealth realms, with the Crown in right of their own nation as having specific domestic characteristics.
Monarch's role in the realms
Though the Queen's constitutional position is virtually identical in each realm, she lives in the United Kingdom. Consequently, the constitutional duties she personally exercises as Queen of the UK are in other realms generally performed by a Governor-General, who serves as her representative. The extent to which these duties are explicitly assigned to the Governor-General, rather than the Queen, varies from realm to realm, but the Queen does act personally in right of any of her other realms when required, for example when issuing Letters Patent, or on occasions of significant political importance. Similarly, the monarch usually performs ceremonial duties in the Commonwealth realms to mark historically significant events during visits at least once every five or six years, meaning she is present in a number of her realms outside the UK every other year, or on behalf of those realms abroad. She is also represented at various ceremonial events throughout all the realms by other members of the Royal Family, such as the Queen's children, grandchildren or cousin, who also reside in the United Kingdom, but act on behalf of the government of the particular realm they're in; meaning the Royal Family also has both a unitary and divided nature. The other realms may receive two to three such visits each year.
Further information: List of Commonwealth visits made by Queen Elizabeth IIThe unique relationship between the Commonwealth realms has led to situations where the monarch has a potential or actual conflict of interest. For example, Queen Elizabeth II, in 1984, while on a state visit to Jordan representing the United Kingdom, made a speech expressing opinions of the British government that did not reflect the view of her Australian government. This raised questions in Australia about the propriety of such an action, though the Queen was clearly not representing Australia at that time. Another documented situation was when Elizabeth II was in Latin America to promote British goods at the same time a Canadian ministerial trip to the same area was underway to promote Canadian products. The External Affairs Minister at the time, Mitchell Sharp, stated on the situation: "We couldn't ask Her Majesty to perform the function she was performing for Britain on that Latin American trip because the Queen is never recognized as Queen of Canada, except when she is in Canada." However, the Queen subsequently represented Canada abroad on a number of following occasions.
More serious potential conflicts of interest have arisen in connection with matters of war and peace. In 1939, South Africa and Canada declared war a few days after the UK did, so that George VI, as king of all three countries, was, for a few days, simultaneously at war and at peace with Germany. In South Africa the declaration of war had followed an initial declaration of neutrality which had precipitated a political crisis resulting in the replacement of the prime minister. Ireland (as the Irish Free State had renamed itself in 1937), which was arguably a Dominion until 1949, remained neutral throughout the war and the King had to validate the German consul's credentials. (No possibility of such a conflict of interest arose with Australia or New Zealand. The Australian Prime Minister, Robert Menzies stated that, as a result of the British declaration of war, Australia was also at war with Germany; New Zealand made a separate declaration of war which was timed to coincide with the British declaration.)
A more extreme example is the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. George VI, as head of state of both warring nations, was, in a legal sense, at war with himself. In 1983, during the invasion of Grenada, Queen Elizabeth was the Queen of Grenada while it was being invaded by many other Caribbean countries of which she was also queen. Additionally, the invasion was also opposed by several other countries in which she was queen, notably the United Kingdom, Canada and Belize.
An important role of a governor-general is to act in such situations in a way that avoids placing the sovereign in such a conflict of interest. In practice, this may require a governor-general to take a controversial action entirely on his or her own initiative through the exercise of reserve powers. The Grenada invasion was formally initiated by an invitation for American forces to invade, issued by the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon; this action was deliberately undertaken without informing the Queen. Similarly, when Sir John Kerr dismissed the Australian government in 1975, he did not inform the Queen of his intent to do so. This was possible because the Australian constitution invests this power in the Governor-General, not the sovereign. The Governor-General may also have wished to avoid being dismissed by the Queen on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.
Religious role of the monarch
In some realms, the Queen is the sovereign "by grace of God," and, in the United Kingdom, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The coronation itself takes place within the context of a church service, at Westminster Abbey, imbued with theological, as well as constitutional, meaning. In some realms, the Queen retains the ancient title Fidei Defensor, a title first granted in 1521 by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII, prior to the Reformation. Most other Commonwealth nations have removed those words from the Queen's title.
The Church of England remains the established church in England; archbishops and bishops are formally appointed by the British monarch and sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. In practice, the monarch delegates authority in the Church of England to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Certain churches (known as Royal Peculiars) have royal patronage, and are outside the normal diocesan administrative structures; the best-known example is Westminster Abbey. There are six royal chapels outside of the UK.
The role of the sovereign differs considerably in the other three Home Nations of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the Church of Scotland, with a Presbyterian system of church government, is recognised in law as the "national church" in which the Queen is an ordinary member. Her first act as monarch was to swear to uphold and protect the reformed church in Scotland; a similar oath for England had to wait for the coronation. The Queen has attended the annual General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on several occasions, most recently in 1977 and 2002, although, in most years, she appoints a Lord High Commissioner to represent her. Unusually for the Church of Scotland, Glasgow Cathedral and Dunblane Cathedral are both owned by the Crown. The Queen also appoints her own Chaplains from both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.
In Wales, Northern Ireland, and the other realms, there is no official religion established by law. The Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales were both disestablished, in 1871 and 1920 respectively. Though Canadian coins are minted with the inscription D.G. Regina (Queen by the Grace of God) around her portrait, and her Canadian title includes the phrase "Defender of the Faith", Elizabeth II, as Queen of Canada, plays no religious role in the country.
Royal family
As with the sovereign, a single royal family is shared by the Commonwealth realms. Though there is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the Royal Family, the Royal Family is loosely defined as the extended family of the monarch. The group is most commonly referred to as the British Royal Family, for reasons historical, political, and of convenience. The casual use of this term, however, outside of the United Kingdom, can conflict with official national titles, such as in Canada.
The Queen and other members of the Royal Family regularly perform public duties in the sixteen realms. As the Crown within these countries is a legally separate entity, official activities of the Royal Family are funded in these countries individually, through the ordinary legislative budgeting process. Members of the Royal Family each engage in hundreds of public engagements yearly, as formally recorded in the Court Circular, to honour, encourage and learn about the achievements or endeavours of individuals, institutions and enterprises in a variety of areas of life. As representatives of the Queen, they often also join the nation in commemorating historical events, holidays, celebratory and tragic occurrences. They also sponsor or participate in numerous charitable, cultural and social activities. Their work draws public attention to amicable relations within and between the Commonwealth and other nations. Their presence, activities and traditional roles constitute the apex of a modern royal court. Throughout their lives they draw enormous media coverage in the form of photographic, written and televised commentary on their activities, family relationships, rites of passage, personalities, attire, behaviour, and public roles.
Flags
Flags of the Queen in Commonwealth realms
The Queen uses various royal standards depending on which realm she is in, or of which she is acting on behalf. She has standards for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, and the United Kingdom. Each is a banner of the country's coat of arms with the Royal Cypher in the centre, and a crowned E for Elizabeth, save for the UK one, which does not have a cypher. She also has a personal flag as Head of the Commonwealth, which is used for general Commonwealth purposes, or when visiting Commonwealth countries of which she is not head of state. The Queen formerly had flags for Sierra Leone, Mauritius, Malta, and Trinidad and Tobago, but when these countries became republics they became obsolete.
- See also: Royal Standard of Australia, Royal Standard of Barbados, Royal Standard of Canada, Royal Standard of Jamaica, Royal Standard of New Zealand, Royal Standard of Scotland, and Royal Standard of the United Kingdom
Flags of Governors-General
Similarly, each of the Governors-General has a personal flag, all except two featuring a lion passant on top of a royal crown, with the name of the country written in capitals on a scroll underneath. The only two different are that of the Governor General of Canada (lion is not on a crown, but wearing one, and bears a maple leaf in one paw; the scroll is also absent from the Canadian design) and of the Governor General of New Zealand (featuring a royal crown on top of the coat of arms of New Zealand).
Historical development
Fourteen of the current Commonwealth realms, and all of the former realms, are former British colonies that have evolved into independent countries. The exceptions are the United Kingdom itself and Papua New Guinea, which was formed in 1975 as a union of the former German New Guinea– which had been administered by Australia as an international trusteeship before independence– and the former British New Guinea– which had legally been a British possession, though administered on the United Kingdom's behalf by Australia (as Papua) since 1905.
The possibility that a British colony might become a new kingdom was first mooted in the 1860s, when it was proposed that the newly confederated Canada might become known as the Kingdom of Canada. In the face of opposition from the Colonial Office, and the United States (which was itself formed from a combination of former British colonies), however, the self-governing confederation created in 1867 became officially known as the Dominion of Canada. During the latter part of the 19th century, various other colonies achieved the same status as Canada, leading to Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier insisting, at the Imperial Conference of 1907, on the need for a formula to differentiate between the crown colonies and the self-governing colonies. The term Dominion, which until this time had applied uniquely to Canada, was extended to cover all self-governing colonies, which then included Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Cape Colony, Natal, and Transvaal, and, in 1910, the three South African colonies merged with the Orange River Colony to form the Union of South Africa. In 1921, these Dominions were joined by the Irish Free State, which had unwillingly accepted Dominion status as a condition of concluding peace with the United Kingdom.
Although the Dominions were self-governing, their ability to legislate remained theoretically subject to British authority, and the monarch of the United Kingdom nominally reigned over these territories as a single imperial domain, with a governor-general representing the British government in each Dominion; the United Kingdom retained responsibility for the Dominions' foreign policy and defence. In practice, this unitary model continued to erode as the international role of the Dominions increased as a result of their participation and sacrifices in the First World War, which prompted Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, and Jan Smuts, the South African Minister of Defence, to demand that the Dominions be given full recognition at the Versailles Conference, as "autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth." As a result, the Dominions were separate signatories to the Treaty of Versailles, and obtained seats in the League of Nations, together with India. In 1920, Canada exchanged envoys with the United States of America, and, in 1923, it concluded a treaty in its own right: the Halibut Fisheries Treaty. In 1925, the Dominions refused to be bound by the British signature to the Treaty of Locarno.
The Balfour Declaration of 1926, embodying agreements reached at the 1926 Imperial Conference, formally recognised that, in practice, the Dominions had in recent years evolved into full sovereignty; it declaring that the Dominions were autonomous and equal in status to the United Kingdom. This had the result of each of the governments of the Dominions establishing a separate and direct relationship with the monarchy, the governor-general now acting as a personal representative of the sovereign in right of that Dominion only. The first legal enshinement of this new convention was the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of 1927– which implicitly recognised the Irish Free State as separate from the United Kingdom, and the King as king of each Dominion rather than the British king in each Dominion– followed, in 1931, by the Statute of Westminster, through which Canada, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State all immediately obtained legislative independence from the United Kingdom, while, in other Dominions, adoption of the statute was subject to ratification by the Dominion parliament; Australia and New Zealand did this in 1942 and 1947, respectively (Australia's ratification being back-dated to 1939). The statute also covered Newfoundland, but it was never ratified there, and the Dominion reverted to colonial status in 1934, eventually joining Canada in 1949.
There remained in the Statute of Westminster, however, the reservations of the right of the parliament in London to legislate for a Dominion by request, as well as the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council as the last court of appeal for some Dominions. This left the definition of the Dominions' status as independent nations somewhat vague; in 1940, Corbett questioned which terms, if any, applied to any or all of the "possessions of the British Crown." Still others found the new arrangement to be detrimental to the unity of the Crown: Scottish constitutional lawyer Arthur Berriedale Keith warned that "the suggestion that the King can act directly on the advice of Dominion Ministers is a constitutional monstrosity, which would be fatal to the security of the position of the Crown." Indeed, between 1931 and the 1940s, there was confusion over how advice would be tendered to the sovereign: former Prime Minister of Australia William Hughes theorised that the British Cabinet would tender formal advice, while the Dominion cabinets would provide informal direction. while the Irish government saw the relationship of these independent countries under the Crown as a personal union. By 1939, Prime Minister of Canada William Lyon Mackenzie King, in collaboration with then Governor General of Canada John Buchan, Baron Tweedsmuir, had King George VI appear in person in Canada to perform constitutional duties, and, with his consort, Elizabeth, travel to the United States specifically as King and Queen of Canada. The whole was affair meant to "translate the Statute of Westminster into the actualities of a tour," and, though Mackenzie King was ultimately successful, he met resistance from British authorities at many points, they believing that the British Ambassador to the United States should accopany the King to the United States, as opposed to the Canadian Prime Minister. It was the outbreak of the Second World War that affirmed the right of the Dominion cabinets to minister the King without interference from his British advisors; Canada and South Africa made separate proclamations of war against Germany in 1939, followed by Australia and New Zealand.
Although the Dominions were, by 1931, effectively independent kingdoms under a common monarch, and acted increasingly independently of the United Kingdom in the following years, their citizens retained a common citizenship, which was defined in terms of allegiance to the sovereign, without regard to the Dominion of residence. Although Canada (in 1921) and the Irish Free State (in 1935) had passed their own nationality legislation, this concept did not come into question until the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, which resulted in an agreement in 1947 that each Commonwealth member was free to pass their own citizenship legislation, so that their citizens only owed allegiance to the monarch in right of the country of citizenship.
The possibility that a colony might be granted independence without even remaining in the British Commonwealth was recognised for the first time in the Cripps Declaration of 1942, and the decisions by Burma and Ireland to become republics outside the Commonwealth in 1948 and 1949, respectively, were met with no opposition. At approximately the same time, India and Pakistan became independent Dominions, while Ceylon, which, as a crown colony, was originally promised "fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth of Nations," was formally granted independence as a Dominion to assure it of equal status with India and Pakistan. India, however, wished to become a republic and, unlike Burma and Ireland, remain in the Commonwealth, leading to the London Declaration of 1949, which established the formula by which republics could remain within the Commonwealth of Nations if they so chose. This process finally established the principle that former colonies, once granted independence, whether as republics or monarchies either in or out of persona union, were fully equal in status to each other and to the United Kingdom.
As these constitutional developments were taking place, the Dominion and British governments became increasingly concerned with how to represent the changes. At the 1948 Prime Ministers' Conference, the term Dominion was avoided in favour of Commonwealth country, and, at the same time, the term British Commonwealth was replaced by Commonwealth of Nations; in both cases to avoid the subordination implied by the older terms. The final step was the recognition of each Dominion under the Crown as a Commonwealth realm. This was initiated by the UK's proclamation of the accession of Elizabeth II in 1952, issued at St. James Palace, which declared her to be Queen "of this Realm, and of her other Realms and Territories". It also marked the first inclusion of the title Head of the Commonwealth, and the first reference to "representatives of other Members of the Commonwealth" as among those proclaiming. The Commonwealth prime ministers thereafter discussed the matter of the new monarch's title; Canada's then Prime Minister, Louis St. Laurent, stated at a prime ministers' meeting that it was important the new title format agreed upon would "emphasise the fact that the Queen is Queen of Canada, regardless of her sovereignty over ofther Commonwealth countries." In 1953, a new Royal Style and Titles Act was passed separately in each of the six Dominions then existing (except Pakistan), as well as the United Kingdom, which gave formal recognition to the separateness and the equality of the countries, and replaced the phrase British Dominions Beyond the Seas with Her Other Realms and Territories; the latter using the medieval French word realm (from royaume) in place of Dominion. Further, at her coronation, Elizabeth II's oath contained a provision requiring her to promise to govern according to the rules and customs of the realms, naming each one separately. At the time, it was argued that the whole point was to reflect the established fact that the Crown was now legally divisible and all the realms were legally equal in status. In the Commons debate, Patrick Gordon Walker stated: "We in this country have to abandon... any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms and to the Commonwealth as a whole".
The principle of fully separate and equal realms was followed in all future grants of independence. Other realms achieved independence through the winds of change that swept through Africa in the 1960s, the collapse of the Federation of the West Indies in 1961, or at later dates, the latest country to become a Commonwealth realm being Saint Kitts and Nevis, in 1983. When Papua New Guinea became independent of Australia in 1975, this was the first (and so far the last) time a Commonwealth realm was created from a territory that had never been made up of British colonies in its entirety. Most of these realms became independent with full constitutional autonomy, although in some cases certain links to the United Kingdom were voluntarily retained, such as the right of appeal to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.
Former Commonwealth realms/Dominions
Immediately after their granting of independence from the United Kingdom, most Commonwealth countries opted to retain the same monarch as head of state, entering into a shared monarchy with the UK. Starting in the 1930s, however, South Africa, Ireland, and then India in the late 1940s, agitated for a break from that relationship and the establishment of a republican form of government. Ireland created its office of president in 1937, but in doing so was not allowed to remain in the British Commonwealth. In 1950, however, India ended its status as a Dominion and became the first republic within the Commonwealth. Following a referendum in 1960, South Africa became a republic in 1961 and left the Commonwealth.
As the British Empire dissolved following the Second World War, most newly independent countries opted to retain the same monarch as head of state, though now distinctly as monarch of that country. However, a number of those that became Commonwealth realms drafted, within a few years, new constitutions, or amended existing ones, in order to become republics. This was especially true in post-colonial Africa, where leaders, during a time of strong anti-imperialist attitudes, preferred not to continue in a monarchical relationship with other nations, opting instead to set up a resident head of state. However, these countries followed India's lead and remained members of the Commonwealth, recognising, as per the London Declaration, the British monarch as its head.
Other former British colonies, protectorates, mandates, and trust territories never became Commonwealth realms, becoming republics or countries under a newly established, or a re-established, royal dynasty. Burma, Sudan, Cyprus, Zambia, Botswana, South Yemen, Somaliland, Nauru, the Seychelles, Dominica, Kiribati, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Vanuatu became republics immediately upon independence from Britain. Similarly, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Malaya, Zanzibar, the Maldives, Sikkim, Brunei, Tonga, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, the Trucial States, Swaziland, and Lesotho, all had their own monarchies, many of them having been British protectorates. Hyderabad, which unsuccessfully attempted to establish its independence in 1947 separately from India, and Kalat, which similarly tried to remain independent from Pakistan, also had their own monarchies.
Some former colonies did not become Commonwealth realms because they became part of larger entities, rather than achieving independence. The mandate of Palestine was divided between Israel, Jordan, and Egypt in 1948. Newfoundland, although a Dominion covered by the Statute of Westminster, never ratified the statute; instead, it reverted to colonial status in 1934 and became a province of Canada in 1949. The British-administered, former Italian territories of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania merged with the French-administered Fezzan to form the kingdom of Libya in 1951. Eritrea, a former Italian colony administered by the United Kingdom after World War II, under the authority of the United Nations, was federated with Ethiopia in 1952. In 1961, Northern Cameroons was absorbed into Nigeria, and Southern Cameroons into Cameroon. In 1963, the crown colonies of Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo joined Malaya (independent in 1957) to form Malaysia, which has its own monarchy. Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China in 1997. And finally, some former colonies that are now independent countries were never Commonwealth realms because they were formed from a successor state, rather than achieving independence from Britain directly. Singapore, which was part of Malaysia until 1965, and Bangladesh, which was East Pakistan until 1971, fall into this category.
Two territories attempted to become Commonwealth realms, but failed. The first instance was when the white minority government of Rhodesia issued its unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965, its members affirmed their loyalty to Elizabeth II as Queen of Rhodesia, a title to which she had not consented, did not accept, and was not recognised internationally. Her representative in the colony, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, immediately dismissed his Prime Minister, Ian Smith, but this action was ignored by Smith and he appointed, without the Queen's consent, an Officer Administrating the Government to perform the Governor's constitutional duties. In 1970, Smith's government declared Rhodesia a republic. The second example was when, in 1973, after mention of the United Kingdom was removed from Elizabeth II's titles in Australia, the government of the state of Queensland, concerned that this action was a first step towards declaring Australia to be a republic, sought to declare her Queen of Australia, Queensland and her Other Realms and Territories, in order to ensure that the monarchy would at least be entrenched in Queensland. The action was blocked by the High Court of Australia in the so-called Queen of Queensland case in 1974. While no other state has attempted to achieve status as a realm, the possibility was raised by both sides during the debate on the referendum of 1999 that a decision to make the country a republic might lead to the creation of separate monarchies in one or more of the individual states.
There are currently movements in some Commonwealth realms to end the country's monarchy, effectively ending the shared relationship with the other realms, most advocating a republican government in place of the present constitutional monarchy. These groups are of varying age and have exercised fluctuating influence in politics and national life in each country through the previous decades. In April 2005, four republican organisations within Commonwealth realms, Australian Republican Movement, Citizens for a Canadian Republic, the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand, and Republic in the United Kingdom, launched Common Cause. However, groups such as the International Monarchist League, the Australian Monarchist League, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, the Monarchist League of Canada, and the Monarchist League of New Zealand advocate for the retention of their respective countries' status as Commonwealth realms.
Further information: Republicanism in Australia, Republicanism in Canada, Debate on the monarchy in Canada, Republicanism in New Zealand, and Republicanism in the United KingdomThe former Commonwealth Dominions/realms, the periods in which they were Dominions/realms, and the reason(s) why they ceased to be Dominions/realms, are as follows:
Flags are those in use at the time the country was a Commonwealth realm. Ceylonese flag changed in 1951. Rhodesian flag changed in 1968.
Now Sri Lanka.
Now Zimbabwe. De facto realm but not de jure, mostly unrecognised internationally, and not a Commonwealth member. See discussion above.
Now part of Tanzania.
See also
Bibliography
- Bogdanor, V.; The Monarchy and the Constitution; Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995
- Cox, Noel; "The Theory of Sovereignty and the Importance of the Crown in the Realms of The Queen"; Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal; Vol. 2, No. 2; 2002
- Forsey, Eugene; Royal Power of Dissolution on Parliament in the British Commonwealth; Toronto: Oxford University Press; 1968
- Maitland, F; "The Crown as a Corporation"; Law Quarterly Review; Vol. 17, No. 131; 1901
- McIntyre; P.; "The Strange Death of Dominion Status", Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History; Vol. 27, No. 2; 1999; 193-212
References
- ^ Buckingham Palace: Queen and Commonwealth
- Figures totaled from 2007 CIA World Fact Book.
- http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/R-12/se:1::se:2/20070110/fr Parliament of Canada, "Loi sur les titres royaux", as of 2007-11-23.
- The Monarchy Today > Queen and State
- Trepanier, Peter; Canadian Parliamentary Review: Some Visual Aspects of the Monarchical Tradition; Vol. 27, No. 2; 2004
- Zines, The High Court and the Constitution, 4th ed. (1997) at 314: "The Queen as monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is in a position resembling that of the King of Scotland and of England between 1603 and 1707 when two independent countries had a common sovereign."
- F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law. 38 (1): 34–49. doi:10.2307/2192530.
The common kinship within the British group today establishes a form of personal union, the members of which are legally capable of following different international policies even in time of war.
- ^ "Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law". Black v Chrétien: Suing a Minister of the Crown for Abuse of Power, Misfeasance in Public Office and Negligence. September 2002. pp. Volume 9, Number 3. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- Keeton, George W (1948). "Western European Federation". The International Law Quarterly. Volume 2 (Number 2). Cambridge University Press: pp 214-227.
A personal union exists when two or more sovereign independent States as associated by the factor that they possess a common ruler. In all other respects the identities of the two states remain distinct.
{{cite journal}}
:|issue=
has extra text (help);|pages=
has extra text (help);|volume=
has extra text (help) - ^ P. E. Corbett (1940). "The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law". The University of Toronto Law Journal. 3 (2): 348–359. doi:10.2307/824318.
{{cite journal}}
: More than one of|number=
and|issue=
specified (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Block, Maurice (1899). Lalor, John Joseph (ed.). Cyclopaedia of Political Science. New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - Miller, J.D.B (October 1959). "The Commonwealth in the World". The American Historical Review. Volume 65 (Number 1). Washington, DC: American Historical Association.
...the survey concludes with an attempt to classify the Commonwealth. It is no longer a federation, nor a military alliance, nor a personal union.
{{cite journal}}
:|issue=
has extra text (help);|volume=
has extra text (help) - Sack, Alexander N (March 1940). University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register. Volume 88 (Number 5): pp 637-640.
Whatever the future development of the British Commonwealth may be can be described as a that of associations or unions of States, as distinguished from "personal" unions, on the one hand, and federal States, on the other.
{{cite journal}}
:|issue=
has extra text (help);|pages=
has extra text (help);|volume=
has extra text (help); Missing or empty|title=
(help) - Elliott, W.Y (November, 1930). "The Sovereignty of the British Dominions: Law Overtakes Practice". The American Political Science Review. Vol. 24 (No. 4): pp. 971-989.
If a personal union be chosen, the Crown will be forced to act on the king's own discretion since personal discretion is a modern monarch is unthinkable, the only alternative would be a league of states with a common but symbolic crown.
{{cite journal}}
:|issue=
has extra text (help);|pages=
has extra text (help);|volume=
has extra text (help); Check date values in:|date=
(help) - Rt. Hon. Don McKinnon, Commonwealth Secretary General; Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.; Thursday, May 25, 2006
- Dr. Toporoski, Richard; Monarchy Canada: The Invisible Crown; Summer, 1996
- Statute of Westminster, 1931; 22 George V, c. 4 (U.K.); 11th December, 1931
- "Move to change succession laws". BBC News. 2008-04-20. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
- Sir Robert Menzies Lecture Trust: Lecture by Sir Zelman Cohen, 1995
- Sharp, Mitchell; Which Reminds Me..., A Memoir; Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1994; p. 223
- ABC News: Britain, France, Canada Mark WWI Battle; April 9, 2007
- Canadian Monarchist News: Canadian Confusion at Juneau Beach; Summer, 2004
- The International Who's Who : Royal Families, United Kingdom
- Heraldica: FAQ
- Department of National Defence: The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces; pg 281
- Responsible Government in the Dominions; Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1928; Vol. 1; 2nd ed.; pg. xviii
- Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates; House of Representatives; March 22, 1927; Vol. 115; pg. 863; cf Jenks, Edward; "Imperial Conference and the Constitution"; Cambridge Law Journal; Vol. 3, No. 13; 1927; pg. 21
- The Royal Tour of 1939
- Galbraith, William; Canadian Parliamentary Review: Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1939 Royal Visit; Vol. 12, No. 3, 1989
- Hasluck, Paul; The Government and the People, 1939-1941; Canberra: Australian War Memorial; 1952; pg. 149-151; cf New Zealand Gazette; December 9, 1941; p 3877
- Documents on Canadian External Relations; Volume #15 - 2; Chapter 1, Part 2, Royal Style and Titles
- ^ A Dominion and not a Commonwealth realm
Commonwealth realms and dominions | |
---|---|
Current |
|
Former |
|
|
Commonwealth of Nations topics | |
---|---|
History | |
Governance | |
Heads of government | |
Commonwealth Family | |
Members | |
Culture | |
Lists |