Talk:Personal union

Removed Albania and Ethopia. Italy annexed them outright and so it wasn't a personal union.

Roadrunner 04:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could you please prove that the Italian government ever proclaimed Ethiopia and Albania to be parts of the Kingdom of Italy? I am quite certain that they never did. Victor Emmanuel was proclaimed Emperor of Ethiopia and King of Albania, which suggests that the formal nature of the junction was a personal union. The case is much similar to that of the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Russian Empire. Please note that the concept of personal union is a very formal one – it has little to do with which state actually possessed power over the other, nor by what means that relation had arosen. -- Jao 07:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the definition given in the first paragraph, are not the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in a personal union with the United Kingdom? Should they be added? Or maybe the definition needs refining?

The question, perhaps, is whether all territories need to be one of A) a sovereign state, or B) a part of a larger sovereign state. Jersey or the IOM certainly are not B (as they are formally not parts of the UK), and if they are A they are to be included here. But isn't their status more like those of associated states like the Cook Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia -- and then, is that an A, a B, or rather a third alternative? The question is open, here. The definitions are not obvious. -- Jao 09:31, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Realms could include a large number of other states. See for example King of India and Pakistan. --Henrygb 01:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy problem.

I don't think a colony that has the same head of state as its coloniser can be considered to be in a state of "personal union". With the possible exception of India, states that became Commonwealth Realms upon independence should not be listed as having been "personal unions" when they were colonies since they were consitutionally linked with the "mother country" by means of being its possession where a "personal union" suggests no constitutional linkages other than a shared head of state. Homey 10:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I understand your objection. I was the person who added many of the former Commonwealth Realms, and dates to those present ones already in there, and my intention was definitely to include them based on independence from Britain or Australia till change to the monarchy. Taking Papua New Guinea, for example, it says:

Since 1975 upon independence from Australia, a Commonwealth Realm, officially a personal union since 1927 (see Antigua and Barbuda, above, for past and present participants)

which is meant to say that it's been in Personal Union with the other Commonwealth Realms since 1975, and the Commonwealth has been a personal union since 1927 (before my edits it simply said it had been a realm, which since 1927 was a personal union—I had the same objections as you!). Notice especially also:

Not all of these were a personal union between Antigua and Barbuda and the mentioned country because they ceased to be Commonwealth Realms before Antigua and Barbuda's independence, but are included here for conciseness.

which clearly mentions independence as a criterion. Notice also that not all Commonwealth members are mentioned—those which became republics on independence are missed out entirely.

Is it simply a dating/series of dating error(s)? I copied them across from the article on the Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth Realms, but might've made some mistakes. In that case, edit till your heart's content.

Is it the 1927 that you object to? I admit it might be ambiguous, and probably if I was writing it today I wouldn't include it past Antigua and Barbuda—or maybe Ireland, being the first independent Commonwealth Realm IIUC. I won't remove it today, though, but feel free to if you want.

Felix the Cassowary 09:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A personal union refers to two (or more) different and constitutionally distinct states that share a monarch. This term cannot be used to describe colonies as they are not constitutionally distinct but are possessions of another country. Antigua and Barbuda, for instance, did not have a prime minister attending imperial conferences in the 1920s and is not one of the countries mentioned in the 1931 Statute of Westminster ie it was not a dominion. The only countries in the British Commonwealth that might be said to have become personal union countries in 1927 were Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa and, of course, Britain. See the Statute of Westminster article please. Homey 13:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of that conflicts with either what I've said or the article says. It says Antigua and Barbuda has been a personal union since 1981 upon obtaining independence. (BTW: The Statute of Westminster dates to 1931, and didn't affect Australia and New Zealand until the 1940s, so you can't say they became personal union countries till after 1927. Which, I note, the article already does.) Felix the Cassowary 13:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is:

Since 1981 upon obtaining independence, a Commonwealth Realm, officially a personal union since 1927,

That is incorrect. Antigua has not been a personal union since 1927, officially or unofficially. Indeed, I don't think you can say that Canada, Australia or any of the dominions became personal unions in 1927 as the UK could still legislate for them without their permission until the Statute of Westminister was enacted and even then the UK Parliament had to pass constitutional amendments for Canada until 1982. I don't think Canada, for instance, can be described as being a "personal union" state until 1982 since, prior to that, it was constitutionally linked with the UK. Homey 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(a) It's not what I say, it's what the article says. (b) It's not incorrect, it's ambiguous. I read it as intending to say the Commonwealth Realm was officially a personal union since 1927, and I kept that much of the wording through my changes. As for Canada, I have no wish to get into that debate, and I'm going by Commonwealth Realm. Felix the Cassowary 14:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

which is meant to say that it's been in Personal Union with the other Commonwealth Realms since 1975, and the Commonwealth has been a personal union since 1927

Then you should rewrite it since what you have actually written doesn't say that but suggests it's been a personal union since 1927. Homey 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well for godssake change it then! Felix the Cassowary

Please re-add the relevant information you deleted (you may choose where) in short order, or I will revert your deletion. — Felix the Cassowary 13:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Finland, there is a well-argued case that the Grand Duchy of Finland was not in personal union with Russia, despite having a separate constitution and governmental structures. The basic point seems to be that Finland was conquered, and only then, separately, was Finland granted its autonomous status and continuance of the old Swedish constitution by the czar, which means that the czar did not succeed the previous king by legal means. Opinions? 130.188.8.9 12:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this point of view. In my encyclopaedia, printed in St Petersburg in 1909, Finland is called 'a Grand Duchy, annexed to the Russian Empire in 1809'. Finland was not a separate country in a personal union with Russia, it was an autonomous part of the Russian Empire. Mapple 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not limited to Finland. though. There are plenty of other analogous "conquered-then-given-autonomy" cases listed, such as the Commonwealth Realms and Ethiopia and Albania. Should they also be removed? Or should there be a separate section for cases like these, where some people have claimed a personal union to exist, even when it was strictly speaking not true? 130.188.8.9 08:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organization - a suggestion

Perhaps the unions would be easier to explain by listing the unions involved, rather than the individual countries. That would give the Commonwealth Realms their own section, where the relationship can be explained more clearly. That relationship, by design, evolved gradually, from the Treaty of Versailles (1919) recognizing a kind of autonomous status, to recognitiono of separate relationship to the Crown in 1927, to independence and equality starting in 1931 (or Dominion status, for later dominions). Also that relationship can be contrasted with others such as the British Crown dependencies, which are in a sort of associated state relationship with the United Kingdom but not other Commonwealth realms. Peter Grey 15:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Realms: source needed

Can someone cite an official source or legal opinion that supports the assertions given in this article about when the dominions separated from the British crown? As it stands, I'm worried that the article is just conjecture dressed up as fact. There is a lot said on Wikipedia about the division of the British crown, but no evidence provided for it.

Ben Arnold 10:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t that what the Statute of Westminster did? (Honest question.) I suspect that, especially in the cases of the earlier separations, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anything that actually says it ... too much of Westminster systems and the break-up of the British Empire was tradition, habit, and gradual change. It’s how Australia’s Constitution went from being that of a Colony to that of a fully-fledged, independent nation with hardly a change. But IANAL, and my knowledge is mostly based on Wikip. anyway, so it’s hardly evidence... — Felix the Cassowary 12:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Statute of Westminster ended the ability of the UK parliament to pass legislation unilaterally for the realms but the consent of the UK paraliament was still needed for constitutional changes in the realms. It was not until the Canada Act 1982 that the UK stopped legislating for Canada, the Australia Act 1986 that it stopped legislating for Australia. It's not until these points that we can truly talk of personal union as, until then, you did have constitutional linkage between the UK parliament and those of the realms. I'm unclear as to New Zealand. It's 1986 Constitution Act seems not to have had to go through Westminster but I'm unfamiliar with the contents of the The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act 1947 (which did pass Westminster) and don't know if that Act ended the UK's ability to legislate for NZ. Homey 12:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On New Zealand:

New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster in order to access the “request and consent” procedures provided by section 4 of the Statute. Having adopted the United Kingdom statute, the General Assembly then passed legislation requesting the grant of full constituent powers. The Constitution Amendment (Request and Consent) Act 1947 requested, and consented to, the United Kingdom Parliament enacting legislation “in the form or to the effect of” the draft bill set out in the schedule to the Act.[131] The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act 1947 (UK) provides that: [132]

It shall be lawful for the Parliament of New Zealand by any Act or Acts of that Parliament to alter, suspend, or repeal, at any time, all or any of the provisions of the New Zealand Constitution Act, 1852; and the New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1857, is hereby repealed. [1] Homey 12:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the limitation, then Australia *still* has constitutional links to the UK: The High Court can be overruled by the House of Lords, but only if they issue a certificate allowing it (which they never will). Almost-impossible-to-change constitution does this kind of a think for you. — Felix the Cassowary 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felix the Cassowary asked the question, Isn’t [dividing the crown] what the Statute of Westminster did?. The Balfour Declaration, 1926 seems to suggest otherwise:

There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development—we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They 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.
[...]
Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our Inter-Imperial Relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence, we require also flexible machinery - machinery which can, from time to time, be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world.

One reading of this is that the crown has already been divided by 1926, but the degree of practical independence is on a course of evolution, i.e. many crowns, but some shared government.

So it's not entirely clear when the crown was divided. Unless we can cite a constitutional authority on the matter, or find a more explicit document, we should probably use safe language like "sometime in the early-to-mid 20th century".

Ben Arnold 23:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The crown was never "divided", that term is used to describe what would happen if various realms adopt different succession rules resulting in different lines of succession. The crown is a shared crown, that is the concept you see used in constitutional law.

Secondly, the Statute of Westminster, while giving dominions equal status to the UK, only ended the ability of the UK Parliament to pass unilateral legislation that impacted the dominions. It was not until 1947 that individual "realms" gained the ability to amend their own constitutions without also having a bill passed through Westminster. New Zealand gained this ability soon after the war, other colonies gained this ability upon becoming independent (India, Pakistan etc), Canada and Australia did not gain this ability until the 1980s. Until there is a situation when the only remaining constitutional link between two countries is a shared sovereign, one cannot speak of there being a "personal union" since there remain other constitutional links bonding the countries other than a shared sovereign. Therefore, while the Statute of Westminster is a step towards there being only a "personal union" it did not accomplish that in and of itself. Homey 00:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd argue that the term Queen in Right of New Zealand as used in New Zealand supports the one throne/multiple crowns concept. Regardless I agree that any theory such as this is conjecture and we need some hard evidence or at least authoritative speculation. Ben Arnold 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not "Crown in Right in New Zealand"?Homey 23:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It varies:

Constitution Act 1986 (NZ): The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time.

Constitution of the Cook Islands: Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand shall be the Head of State of the Cook Islands.

Ben Arnold 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Commonwealth Realm dates

I have been prompted into action by Jfruh removing the POV tag. Since we haven't been able to find supporting evidence for the dates used in the article I have removed them.

I accept that the term commonwealth realm refers to a divided crown. New Zealand has been a realm at least since 1983 when a letters patent reconstructed the office of the Governor-General and the term Realm of New Zealand is used explicitly. Using this as a yardstick, I think we can be fairly certain that by 1990 all "dominions" had become "commonwealth realms", and had a divided crown.

The upshot of this reasoning is that I have removed all the dates from the sections of the article that refer to commonwealth realms. I have also removed any countries that had moved to a local head of state by 1990. This leaves only Mauritius and the current commonwealth realms.

I want to be clear about a few things:

I am not saying that the dates in the article were wrong. They might be right; I suspect a lot of them are, but we haven't been able to find evidence to support them. They are still in the edit history if we need to get them back.

I am willing to entertain a stricter line than the line I have drawn. I appreciate that there is still debate over whether the commonwealth realms are a personal union at all. We may need to have that debate before we can move forward.

My reason for removing the dates and the debatable countries is that it's better to not say something than to say something that's wrong. I'm personally of the opinion that dominion status divided the crown, but I think that with the currently available evidence I can only be confident enough to say that that the crown has been divided in all countries since at least 1990.

Ben Arnold 14:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit to being baffled by this dispute. The countries you removed from the list were independent countries. Everyone recognized them as such. They exchanged ambassadors with other countries, acted on their own and not under the direction of the UK government, etc. Their head of state was the same as the head of state of the UK and other dominions/commonwealth realms. How can this be construed as anything other than a personal union?

I understand that the evolution from the British Empire to a group of independent countries in personal union was complex. Should perhaps past and present Dominions/C.R.s be put in their own section, with a header paragraph discussing some of the intricacies (Statue of Westminster, repatriation of constituions, etc.)? --Jfruh 14:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Commonwealth Realms the reasons for the dates are quite clearly outlined in each entry. IE in most cases it was "independence" (ie generally in post-WW2 cases of decolonization). For the preWWII "dominions" it's more complex because of the nature of dominion status and thus dates are determined by specific legislation ie the Canada Act 1982, the Australia Act 1986, The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act 1947. What was incorrect was the earlier assumption that all "dominions" became personal unions either sometime in the 1920s or with the Statute of Westminster. Homey 22:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In South Africa's case the British Parliament retained some jurisdicition in regards to constitutional amendments until the Union of South Africa declared itself a republic in the early 1960s so it was never a "personal union". Homey 22:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jfruh is baffled by my removing "independent" countries. The problem is that the Cook Islands is independent in all senses except that its head of state is the Queen of New Zealand. The Cook Islands is not in personal union with New Zealand, because the title Queen of New Zealand includes the Cook Islands. Similarly Scotland and England are not in personal union because the kingdoms have been united.

In other words, you can have a single realm that contains multiple governments that effectively independent. These are not personal unions. So arguing that a Commonwealth realm or dominion is self-governing is not sufficient to prove that it is in personal union with the United Kingdom. You need better proof.

A good example of proof was the Acts of Union 1707 where the England and Scotland were united. Another good example is an Act that changes the title of the sovereign.

And I have good news in this regard. I have found an article which gives us dates that some titles were granted. I haven't checked thoroughly, but it looks like a seperate title was created for all dominions/realms created after about 1960. It would nice to be able to cite specific legislation for each country, but this is certainly enough support to include these countries in the article. Finding that article also reminded me that there was a similar Royal Titles Act passed in New Zealand in 1953.

So when I have a bit more time I'll edit Personal union, bearing this new evidence in mind. But I will remove any statement that we have not yet substantiated with evidence.

Just to reiterate: being legally self-governing is not enough to be a separate realm. So a statement like "New Zealand has been in personal union since the adoption of the Constitution Amendment Act" will be removed. Why? Given the evidence so far presented it is possible that New Zealand became separate realm any time between 1907 (when it became a dominion) and 1953 (when the Queen's title was officially changed). To identify any specific date we need to cite evidence, otherwise it's just conjecture.

Ben Arnold 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made those changes. They are less drastic than my previous changes, although I'm not entirely comfortable with having so many realms included merely because of our assumptions.

Summary of changes:

Australia, Canada, New Zealand

Replaced date of legislative independence with a reference to their respective 1953 Titles Acts. The rationale is that a country doesn't have to be legislatively independent to be in personal union. The 1953 Acts were all of the form Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen[...]. This is an explicit statement that the United Kingdom and New Zealand are separate realms.
Noted in each of these that 1953 was the latest possible date that personal union was achieved, and that the status before this is uncertain. It's uncertain to us, and most of the stuff I've read about it makes it sound like it was pretty uncertain at the time.
Left a reference to the date of legislative independence for clarity and information purposes.

Ceylon

Removed this entry entirely, as Ceylon was independent before 1953. It's possible that it was in personal union before that, but no one has provided a source so we can't say it.

Pakistan

Removed this entry because according to our main source, Pakistan never passed a Titles Act. Again it's possible that Pakistan was in personal union by virtue of being a dominion, or some other reason, but because we haven't got a source we can't say it.

Ben Arnold 01:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should discuss this more. The Royal Style and Titles Acts are not constitutional acts per se and as Canada, Australia etc maintained legislative links with the UK following the passage of these Acts these countries were not "personal union" contries yet. IE Canada did not become a personal union country until 1982 when the UK Parliament's ability to legislate in Canadian matters was completely terminated. Homey 15:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not discussing it: you're just reiterating your assertion that personal union is defined by legislative independence. I do not believe that is true, for reasons I have stated a number of times. I made various attempts at a compromise, based on what has been agreed but they have been reverted. So I guess we're at an impasse until you can address the arguments I've made or find some evidence to support your assertion. Ben Arnold 22:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy tag

Anyway I've tagged the article as accuracy-disputed. I believe the claims in the article about Commonwealth Realms are:

factually inaccurate: It is clear from the example of the Cooks that legislative independence does not create a personal union.
original research: Various editors of the article have compiled the dates based on their own research (and interpretation) of legislation. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. We need independent, verifiable, cited sources for complicated contraversial topics like this.

Note that I do not dispute that the legislation in question caused New Zealand/Canada/wherever to complete the transition to legislative freedom. The dispute is whether this constitutes personal union. Since that legislation does not say that, it is not a sufficient source.

Ben Arnold 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same goes then for the assertion that the Royal Styles and Titles Act creates a personal union. Do we actually have any authoritiative source that says "Country X was a personal union and became such in Year Y"? If not, perhaps the entire list should be scuttled as original research?Homey 02:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same does go for the Royal Styles & Titles Acts. At the time I hadn't appreciated that they would be controversial.

Perhaps the list should be scuttled. I'd prefer that we find sources for the points that are in dispute. If our sources disagree with each other then we should state both opinions and attribute them to our sources.

Ben Arnold 05:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a definitive definition of "personal union" that we can use as a guideline?Homey 15:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the Spain section

"1460 to 1864 parts or all of the duchies in personal union with Denmark". I believe this shouldn't be in the "Spain" section (Schleswig-Holstein perhaps?). Could you correct that please?

Commonwealth Realms debate, Dominion = Kingdom?

I notice that apparently what was once an undisputed page is now pasted with warnings about accuracy and that much of this stems from some debate over the minutiae of whether or not "such and such a place" was truly independent until "such and such time" according to "such and such document". What I find strange is that nobody seems to have gone back to what either a Dominion or a Commonwealth Realm is. If you look in wikipedia's Dominion entry you will see that when the term was first adopted it was meant as a ruse and a compromise. The Canadians wanted to call their country "the Kingdom of Canada", but the Americans wouldn't have it (something about monarchy in north America and whatnot), so the term "Dominion" was used (while at the same time informing the Canadian leaders that "Dominion" meant the same thing as "Kingdom" for the purpose of Canada). Now even if we do not take the various Realms to be separate kingdoms (which is what they are if the term Dominion was originally being used by the British as a substitute for Kingdom and then eventually just got applied to all other colonies achieving independence), then we need to take into account the title of the monarchs in the various Realms. If King George VI was called "King of Canada" and Canada is a monarchy and the term Dominion was originally used to mean Kingdom, then doesn't it also mean that upon the formation of the Dominion of Canada, that a constitutionally separate Kingdom was setup? It would have rather been like the 1707 Act of Union in reverse. Besides, the situation for the all the Dominions (whether after formation or upon independence) was quite similar to the England-Scotland situation before 1707. At that time their were two separate parliaments with one monarch. Also, how can this controversy arise when the definitions are in agreement? According to the articles (I added the italics) on Personal Union, Commonwealth Realm and Dominion: "A personal union is a political union of two or more entities that, internationally, are considered separate states, but through established law, share the same head of state" and "Commonwealth Realm is any one of the 16 sovereign states of the Commonwealth that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen and head of state. In each Realm, she acts as the monarch of that state, and is titled accordingly.." and that a "Dominion is a wholly self-governing or virtually self-governing state of the British Empire or British Commonwealth, particularly one which reached that stage of constitutional development in the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as Canada and New Zealand. Prior to attaining Dominion status these states had always been Crown colonies, under direct rule from Britain and/or a self-governing colony, or they have been formed from groups of such colonies. In the early 20th century, the main differences between a Dominion and a self-governing colony were that a Dominion had attained the status of "nationhood", if not unambiguous political independence, from the United Kingdom. By comparison, a self-governing colony controlled its internal affairs, but did not control foreign affairs, defence or international trade. Initially, Dominions conducted their own trade policy, some limited foreign relations and had autonomous armed forces, although the British government claimed and exercised the exclusive power to declare wars. However the independence of the Dominions in foreign policy, including war, was made clear by the passing and ratification of the Statute of Westminster in 1931." So if all these definitions are correct (unless someone wishes to change them) then when the various Dominion ratified the Statute of Westminster and when any Dominions were established thereafter, they were independent. It cannot get clearer than that because the British Empire and Commonwealth evolved so there probably aren't and probably never will be, any articles out there that definitively say "Country X was a personal union and became such in Year Y" and as such, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were in personal union with each other and the United Kingdom the moment they ratified the Statute.

England and France under Henry VI of England

Why isn't it written yet? De jure, France has been connected to the Crown since Edward III Plantagenet and up until Henry IX Stuart died. The UK has been a repository for exiled Frenchmen for a millenium, with vice versa being the general rule as well. Thank Offa of Mercia and Charlemagne for that. See English claims to the French throne for reasons why Huguenots entered the English colonies; why New France is still around in British North America. The French royal Fleur-de-lis of the Catholic Crown still exists as of 2005 on the Coat of Arms of Canada. 68.110.9.62 04:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]