Commonwealth realm

A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state that is a

member of the Commonwealth of Nations and shares the
same person, currently Elizabeth II, as its head of state and
reigning constitutional monarch, but retains a crown legally
distinct from the other realms. As of 2017, there are sixteen
Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia,
Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New
Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands,
The Bahamas, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom. Current Commonwealth realms

The Statute of Westminster 1931 provided for the then Former Commonwealth realms or Dominions
Dominions—named therein as Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State,
and Newfoundland—to have full legislative independence as equal members of the
British Commonwealth of Nations, having, together with the United Kingdom, one
person as the sovereign of each. Subsequently, India and Pakistan (both in 1947) and
Ceylon (in 1948) became Dominions. By the early 1950s, in order to reflect the
equality between the countries in that group, each (including the United Kingdom,
but not the former Irish Free State and India, which had by that time become
republics) came to be known as a realm. The word was formally used in Britain's
proclamation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952 and was adopted for the modern royal
styles and titles under the legislation enacted by the individual countries. The
principle was applied to other countries as they became Commonwealth realms,
having sovereign status granted directly. The phrase Commonwealth realm, though
used officially, is not a statutory term.

Elizabeth II is the reigning sovereign

of each of the 16 Commonwealth
Contents realms.

Current Commonwealth realms

Relationship of the realms
The Crown in the Commonwealth realms
Royal succession and regency
Monarch's role in the realms
Religious role of the monarch
Royal family
Flags
Historical development
Dominions emerge
Between the wars
Statute of Westminster
Independent Dominions
Post-war evolution
From the accession of Queen Elizabeth II
 Former Commonwealth realms
List of states
Republican referendums
See also
Notes
References
Citation
Bibliography
External links

Current Commonwealth realms

There are 16 Commonwealth realms currently with a combined area (excluding Antarctic claims) of 18.7 million km2 (7.2 million
mi2)[1] and a population of 144 million,[2] of which all but about two million live in the six most populous: the United Kingdom,
Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica.
 Date Sovereign's
Country[Note 1] Population[3](2016) Monarchy [Note 2] Queen's title[Note 3]
royal standard

Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Monarchy
Antigua Queen of Antigua
of Antigua
100,963 1981 and Barbuda and of None
and Barbuda and
Her other Realms
Barbuda
and Territories,
Head of the
Commonwealth.
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Monarchy Queen of Australia
Australia 24,125,848 1942
of Australia and Her other
Realms and
Territories, Head of
the Commonwealth.
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Queen of the
Monarchy
The Commonwealth of
391,232 of the 1973 None
Bahamas the Bahamas and
Bahamas
of Her other Realms
and Territories,
Head of the
Commonwealth.
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Monarchy
Barbados Queen of Barbados
284,996 of 1966
and of Her other
Barbados
Realms and
Territories, Head of
the Commonwealth
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Belize Monarchy Queen of Belize and
366,954 1981 None
of Belize of Her Other Realms
and Territories,
Head of the
Commonwealth
Canada 36,289,822 Monarchy 1931 English: Elizabeth
of Canada the Second, by the
Grace of God of the
United Kingdom,
Canada and of 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[4]
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Queen of the
United Kingdom of
Grenada Monarchy Great Britain and
107,317 1974 None
of Grenada Northern Ireland
and of Grenada
and Her other
Realms and
Territories, Head of
the Commonwealth
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Monarchy Queen of Jamaica
Jamaica 2,881,355 1962
of Jamaica and of Her other
Realms and
Territories, Head of
the Commonwealth
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Queen of New
New Monarchy
Zealand and Her
4,660,833 of New 1947
Zealand[Note 4] Zealand
Other Realms and
Territories, Head of
the Commonwealth,
Defender of the
Faith[5]
Elizabeth the
Second, Queen of
Monarchy Papua New Guinea
Papua of Papua and Her other
8,084,991 1975 None
New Guinea New Realms and
Guinea Territories, Head of
the
Commonwealth[6]
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Monarchy
Saint Kitts Queen of Saint
of Saint
54,821 1983 Christopher and None
and Nevis Kitts and
Nevis and of Her
Nevis
other Realms and
Territories, Head of
the Commonwealth
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Monarchy
Saint Queen of Saint
178,015 of Saint 1979 None
Lucia Lucia and of Her
Lucia
other Realms and
Territories, Head of
the Commonwealth
Saint 109,643 Monarchy 1979 Elizabeth the None
Vincent and of Saint Second, by the
the Grenadines Vincent Grace of God,
and the Queen of Saint
Grenadines Vincent and the
Grenadines and of
Her other Realms
 and Territories,
Head of the
Commonwealth
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Monarchy
Solomon Queen of Solomon
599,419 of Solomon 1978 None
Islands Islands and of Her
Islands
other Realms and
Territories, Head of
the Commonwealth
Elizabeth the
Second, by the
Grace of God,
Monarchy Queen of Tuvalu
Tuvalu 11,097 1978 None
of Tuvalu and of Her other
Realms and
Territories, Head of
the Commonwealth
English: Elizabeth
the Second, by the
Grace of God, of
the United
Kingdom of Great
Britain and
Northern Ireland
and of Her other
Realms and
Monarchy Territories Queen,
United of the Head of the
65,788,574 1931
Kingdom[Note 5] United Commonwealth,
Kingdom Defender of the
Faith
Latin: Elizabeth
Secunda Dei Gratia
Britanniarum
Regnorumque
Suorum Ceterorum
Regina Consortionis
Populorum Princeps
Fidei Defensor[7]

1. The flags shown are the current national flags of the Commonwealth realms. The current
Canadian flag was adopted
in 1965.
2. Dates indicate the year each country became a member of the Commonwealth, as from the year of enactment of the
Statute of Westminster or the year of the country's independence.
3. Differences shown here in bold.
4. Niue and the Cook Islands are under the sovereignty of the Queen of New Zealand as self-governingstates in free
association with New Zealand. New Zealand and its associated states, along withTokelau and the Ross
Dependency, compose the Realm of New Zealand.
5. Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man—the Crown dependencies—are self-governing possessions of the British
Crown, under the sovereignty of the Queen of the United Kingdom.ogether
T with the UK, these comprise theBritish
Islands.

Relationship of the realms

The Commonwealth realms are, for purposes of international relations, sovereign states. They are united only in their voluntary
connection with the institution of the monarchy,[8] the succession, and the Queen herself; the person of the sovereign and the Crown
were said in 1936 to be "the most important and vital link" between the realms.[9] Political scientist Peter Boyce called this grouping
of countries associated in this manner, "an achievement without parallel in the history of international relations or constitutional
law."[10] Terms such as personal union,[11][12][13][14][15][16] a form of personal union,[ † 1][18] and shared monarchy,[19] among
others,[ † 2][22] have all been advanced as definitions since the beginning of the Commonwealth itself, though there has been no
agreement on which term is most accurate,[21][22] or even whether personal union is applicable at all.[† 3][24]

Since the Balfour Declaration of 1926, the realms have been considered "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."[25][8][26][27][28][29] and the
monarch is "equally, officially, and explicitly [monarch] of separate, autonomous realms."[8][26][30][28] Andrew Michie wrote in 1952
"Elizabeth II embodies in her own person many monarchies: she is Queen of Great Britain, but she is equally Queen of Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and Ceylon... it is now possible for Elizabeth II to be, in practice as well as theory,
equally Queen in all her realms."[31] Still, Boyce holds the counter-opinion the crowns of all the non-British realms are "derivative, if
not subordinate" to the crown of the United Kingdom.[32] The United Kingdom no longer possesses any legislative power over any
country besides itself, although some countries continue to use, by their own volition, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as
part of their own judiciary; usually as the highest court of appeal.

Since each realm has the same person as its monarch, the diplomatic practice of exchanging ambassadors with letters of credence and
recall from one head of state to another is redundant. Diplomatic relations between the Commonwealth realms are thus at a cabinet
level only and high commissioners are exchanged between realms (though all other countries in the Commonwealth of Nations also
follow this same practice, but for traditional reasons). A high commissioner's full title will thus be High Commissioner for Her
Majesty's Government in [Country]. For certain ceremonies, the order of precedence for the realms' high commissioners or national
flags is set according to the chronological order of, first, when the country became a Dominion and then the date on which the
country gained independence.[33]

Conflicts of interest have arisen from this relationship amongst independent states, ranging from minor diplomatic matters—such as
the monarch expressing on the advice of one of her cabinets views that counter those of another of her cabinets[† 4] —to more serious
conflicts regarding matters of armed conflict, wherein the monarch, as head of state of two dif
ferent realms, may be simultaneously at
war and at peace with a third country, or even at war with herself as head of two hostile nations.[ † 5] In such cases, viceroys have
tended to avoid placing the sovereign directly in the centre of the conflict, meaning that a governor-general may have to take
reserve powers.[† 6]
controversial actions entirely on his or her own initiative through the exercise of the

In recent years, advocates have argued for free movement of citizens among a subset of the Commonwealth realms: the United
Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which they argue "share the same head of state, the same native language, [and] the
same respect for the common law."[36][37][38][39] Opinion on the prospect of the plan coming to fruition is mixed.[40] British
Eurosceptics (those critical of the European Union) have expressed a preference for a relationship "similar in nature and goals to the
EU" between the same four countries: the CANZUK Union without repeating the "mistakes of Europe" —though this possibility has
also been characterised as "difficult and in some ways far-fetched".[41] Despite this, public opinion polling conducted by
organisations such as CANZUK International and YouGov have indicated widespread support for free movement of goods and
people across Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, with support for the proposals ranging from between 58-
[42][43]
64% in the United Kingdom, 70-72% in Australia, 75-77% in Canada and 81-82% in New Zealand.

The Crown in the Commonwealth realms

The evolution of the Commonwealth realms has resulted in the Crown having both a shared and a separate character, with the one
individual being equally monarch of each state and acting as such in right of a particular realm as a distinct legal person guided only
by the advice of the cabinet of that jurisdiction.[8][26][44][45][46][47] This means that in different contexts the term Crown may refer to
the extra-national institution associating all 16 countries, or to the Crown in each realm considered separately.[† 7] However, though
[44][47] having become "domesticated" in each of the realms,
the monarchy is therefore no longer an exclusively British institution, [27]

it may in the media and legal fields often still be elaborated as the British Crown for reasons historical, of convenience, or political,
regardless of the different, specific, and official national titles and terms used when addressing the Queen of the citizenry in each
jurisdiction. For example, inBarbados the Queen is titled as Elizabeth II, Queen of Barbados, or simply the Queen of Barbados, with
her full title making mention of her position as queen of the other Commonwealth realms.
From a cultural standpoint, the sovereign's name and image and other royal symbols unique to each nation are visible in the emblems
and insignia of governmental institutions and militia. The Queen's effigy, for example, appears on coins and banknotes in some
countries, and an oath of allegiance to the Queen is usually required from politicians, judges, military members and new citizens. By
1959, it was being asserted by Buckingham Palace of [48]
ficials that the Queen was "equally at home in all her realms."

Royal succession and regency

To guarantee the continuity of multiple states sharing the same person as monarch,
the preamble of the Statute of Westminster 1931 laid out a convention that any
alteration to the line of succession in any one country must be voluntarily approved
by the parliaments of all the realms.[† 8][49] This convention was first applied to the
abdication of Edward VIIIin 1936. For expediency and to avoid embarrassment, the
British government had suggested that the Dominion governments automatically
regard the monarch of the UK, whoever this may be, as their monarch also. But the
Dominions rejected this: Prime Minister of Canada William Lyon Mackenzie King Charles, Prince of Wales (left), heir
pointed out that the Statute of Westminster required Canada's request and consent to apparent to Queen Elizabeth II; his
any legislation passed by the British parliament before it could become part of elder son, Prince William, Duke of
Cambridge (centre), the second in
Canada's laws and affect the line of succession in Canada.[50] Sir Maurice Gwyer,
the line of succession; and Charles'
first parliamentary counsel in the UK, reflected this position, stating that the Act of second son, Prince Henry of Wales
Settlement was a part of the law in each Dominion.[50] Though today the Statute of (right), third in line at the time of the
Westminster is law only in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom,[51] the photograph (2006) (now fifth)
convention of approval from the other realms was reasserted by thePerth Agreement
of 2011, in which all 16 countries agreed in principle to change the succession rule
to absolute primogeniture, to remove the restriction on the monarch being married to a Catholic, and to reduce the number of
members of the Royal Family who need the monarch's permission to marry. These changes came into effect on 26 March 2015.
Alternatively, a Commonwealth realm may choose to cease being such by making its throne the inheritance of a different royal house
.[52]
or by becoming a republic, actions to which, though they alter the country's royal succession, the convention does not apply

Agreement among the realms does not, however, mean the succession laws cannot diverge. During the abdication crisis in 1936, the
United Kingdom passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act with the approval of the parliament of Australia and the
governments of the remaining Dominions. (Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa gave parliamentary assent later.[53] ) The Act
effected Edward's abdication in the United Kingdom on 11 December; as the Canadian government had requested and consented to
the Act becoming part of Canadian law, and Australia and New Zealand had then not yet adopted the Statute of Westminster, the
abdication took place in those countries on the same day. The parliament of South Africa, however, passed its own legislation—His
Majesty King Edward the Eighth's Abdication Act, 1937
—which backdated the abdication there to 10 December
. The Irish Free State
recognised the king's abdication with the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 on 12 December.[53][54][55] According
to Anne Twomey, this demonstrated "the divisibility of the Crown in the personal, as well as the political, sense."[53] For E H
Coghill, writing as early as 1937, it proved that the convention of a common line of succession "is not of imperative force".[56] and
Kenneth John Scott asserted in 1962 that it ended the "convention that statutory uniformity on these subjects would be maintained in
[57]
the parts of the Commonwealth that continued to owe allegiance to the Crown".

Today, some realms govern succession by their own domestic laws, while others, either by written clauses in their constitution or by
convention, stipulate that whoever is monarch of the United Kingdom is automatically also monarch of that realm. It is generally
ef in all the realms.[† 9]
agreed that any unilateral alteration of succession by the UK would not have fect

Following the accession of George VI to the throne, the United Kingdom created legislation that provided for a regency in the event
that the monarch was not of age or incapacitated. Though input was sought from the Dominions on this matter, all declined to make
themselves bound by the British legislation, feeling instead that the governors-general could carry out royal functions in place of a
debilitated or underage sovereign;[60] some realms that were later created incorporated this principle into their constitutions.[61] New
Zealand included in its Constitution Act 1986 a clause specifying that, should a regent be installed in the United Kingdom, that
[62]
individual would carry out the functions of the monarch of New Zealand.
Monarch's role in the realms
The monarch holds the highest position in each Commonwealth realm and may perform such functions as issuing executive orders,
commanding the military forces, and creating and administering laws.[63] However, each country now operates under the
Westminster system of parliamentary democracyand the concept of responsible government, meaning that the monarch exercises her
powers only on the advice of her Crown ministers, who are usually drawn from, and thus responsible to, the elected chamber of the
relevant parliament. In some realms, such asPapua New Guinea, these conventions are codified in constitutional law
.

King George VI, with Queen
Elizabeth, grants Royal Assent to
bills in the Senate of Canada, 1939
The sovereign resides predominantly in her oldest realm, the United Kingdom, and
thus carries out her duties there mostly in person. The Queen appoints viceroys to
perform most of the royal constitutional and ceremonial duties on her behalf in the
other realms: in each, a governor-general as her personal national representative, as
well as a governor as her representative in each of the Australian states. These
appointments are all made on the advice of the prime minister of the country or the
premier of the state concerned, though this process may have additional
requirements.[ † 10] In certain other cases, the extent of which varies from realm to
realm, specific additional powers are reserved exclusively for the monarch—such as
the appointment of extra senators to the Canadian Senate, the creation of honours, or
the issuance of letters patent—and on occasions of national importance, the Queen
may be advised to perform in person her constitutional duties, such as granting
Royal Assent or issuing a royal proclamation. Otherwise, all royal powers, including
the Royal Prerogative, are carried out on behalf of the sovereign by the relevant
viceroy, who, apart from those already mentioned, include a lieutenant governor in
each province of Canada (appointed by the Governor General of Canada). In the
United Kingdom, the Queen appoints Counsellors of State to perform her
constitutional duties in her absence.

Similarly, the monarch will perform ceremonial duties in the Commonwealth realms to mark historically significant events.[64] He or
she does so most frequently in the United Kingdom and, in the other countries, during tours at least once every five or six years,
meaning the Queen is present in a number of her dominions outside the UK, or acting on behalf of those realms abroad,
approximately every other year. For this work, the sovereign receives no salary from any state; instead, only the expenses incurred for
each event (security, transportation, venue, etc.) are, due to the nature of the Crown in the realms, funded by the relevant state
individually through the ordinary legislative budgeting process and, if called for, by the organisation that invited the sovereign's
attendance. These engagements are organised in order for the Crown to honour, encourage, and learn about the achievements or
endeavours of individuals, institutions, and enterprises in a variety of areas of the lives of the Queen's subjects.

Citizens in Commonwealth realms may request birthday or wedding anniversary messages to be sent from the sovereign. This is
available for 100th, 105th, and beyond for birthdays; and 60th ("Diamond"), 65th, 70th ("Platinum"), and beyond for wedding
anniversaries.[65]

The monarch, in the form of theJudicial Committee of the Privy Councilacts as the court of highest appeal in some but not all realms
(and also, by agreement, for certain other former colonies which are not realms).

Religious role of the monarch

The sovereign's religious role differs from country to country. In all realms except Papua New Guinea, the Queen is sovereign "by the
Grace of God", a phrase that forms a part of her official title within those states. In Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand,
"Defender of the Faith" (in Latin: fidei defensor)—the ancient phrase first granted in 1521 by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII—is
also included as a part of the royal title and the sovereign is anointed as such in the only coronation that takes place in any of the
realms,[66] a ceremony in the context of a church service imbued with theological and constitutional symbolism and meaning, held at
Westminster Abbey in London, United Kingdom.
However, it is solely in the United Kingdom that the Queen actually plays a role in organised religion. In England, she acts as the
Supreme Governor of the Church of England and appoints its bishops and archbishops who thereafter act as her Lords Spiritual. In
Scotland, she swears an oath to uphold and protect the Church of Scotland and sends to meetings of the church's General Assembly a
[67]
Lord High Commissioneras her representative, when she is not personally in attendance.

Royal family
There is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the royal family. The group is loosely defined as the
extended family of the monarch who, either as representatives of the monarch or as part of their own charitable endeavours, perform
public duties at events throughout the 16 realms each year. Events are funded in the same way as the monarch's ceremonial roles, and
are formally recorded in the Court Circular. Members of the royal family draw enormous media coverage in the form of
photographic, written, and televised commentary on not only their activities and public roles, but also family relationships, rites of
passage, personalities, attire, and behaviour.

Flags
The Queen employs various royal standards to mark her presence, the particular one
used depending on which realm she is in or acting on behalf of at the time. There are
currently unique flags for Australia, Barbados, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand, and two
variations for the United Kingdom—one for Scotland and another for the rest of the
country. All are heraldic banners displaying the shield of the sovereign's coat of arms
for that state, and each, save for those of the UK, are defaced in the centre with the
The Royal Standard ofPrince
Queen's Personal Flag, a crowned E for Elizabeth surrounded by a garland of roses
William, Duke of Cambridge, in
representing the countries of the Commonwealth. This latter flag on its own is used for Canada
realms that do not have a unique personal standard for the monarch, as well as for
general use in representing the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. The monarch
previously held royal standards for Sierra Leone, Mauritius, Malta, and Trinidad and
Tobago, but these banners became obsolete when the countries becamerepublics.

Other members of the Royal Family have their own personal standards. In the United
The Royal Standard of Prince
Kingdom, most have their own distinctive banner or banners. The Prince of Wales,
William, Duke of Cambridge, in
Duke of Cambridge, Princess Royal, Duke of York, and Earl of Wessex also have one the United Kingdom
each for Canada, and the remaining members of the Royal Family use a specific ermine-
bordered banner of the Canadian royal arms. Those who do not possess a standard for
Some members of the royal
an individual realm other than the UK will use their British standard to identify
family have different heraldic
themselves when touring other Commonwealth realms and foreign countries.
standards for use in the
appropriate realm
The governors-general throughout the Commonwealth realms also each use a personal
flag, which, like that of the sovereign, passes to each successive occupant of the office.
Most feature a lion passant atop a St. Edward's royal crown with the name of the country across a scroll underneath, all on a blue
background. The two exceptions are those of, since 1981, Canada (bearing on a blue background the crest of the Royal Coat of Arms
of Canada) and, since 2008, New Zealand (a St. Edward's Crown above the shield of the Coat of Arms of New Zealand). The
lieutenant governors of the Canadian provinces each havetheir own personal standards, as do the governors of the Australian states.

Historical development

Dominions emerge
The possibility that a colony within the British Empire might become a new kingdom was first mooted in the 1860s, when it was
proposed that the British North American territories of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Province of Canada unite as a
confederation that might be known as theKingdom of Canada.[68][69][70] In light of geo-political circumstances at the time, however,
the name was abandoned in favour of theDominion of Canada.[† 11] As more British colonies followed Canada in gaining legislative
independence from the United Kingdom, Prime Minister of Canada Sir Wilfrid Laurier insisted at the 1907 Imperial Conference that
a formula be created to differentiate between the Crown and the self-governing colonies. For the latter the Canadian precedent was
followed, and the term Dominion was extended to apply to Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and the colonies of the Cape,
Natal, and Transvaal, before and after they merged in 1910 with the Orange River Colony to form the Union of South Africa. These
countries were joined by theIrish Free State in December 1922, as part of theAnglo-Irish Treaty.

Although the Dominions were capable of governing themselves internally, they

William Orpen's The Signing of
Peace in the Hall of Mirrors: a
compiled portrait of the main
delegates to the signing of theTreaty
of Versailles, including some of the
Dominion delegates[† 12]
technically remained—especially in regard to foreign policy and defence—subject to
British authority, wherein the governor-general of each Dominion represented the
British monarch-in-Council reigning over these territories as a single imperial
domain. It was commonly held in some circles that the Crown was a monolithic
element throughout all the monarch's territories; A.H. Lefroy wrote in 1918 that "the
Crown is to be considered as one and indivisible throughout the Empire; and cannot
be severed into as many kingships as there are Dominions, and self-governing
colonies."[71] This unitary model began to erode, however, when the Dominions
gained more international prominence as a result of their participation and sacrifice
in the First World War, in 1919 prompting Canadian prime minister Sir Robert
Borden and South African minister of defence Jan Smuts to demand that the
Dominions be given at the Versailles Conference full recognition as "autonomous
nations of an Imperial Commonwealth." The immediate result was that, though the
King signed as High Contracting Party for the empire as a whole,[72] the Dominions
were also separate signatories to the Treaty of Versailles, as well as, together with
India, founding members of the League of Nations. In 1921 the Prime Minister of
the United Kingdom David Lloyd George stated that the "British Dominions have
[73]
now been accepted fully into the community of nations."

Between the wars

King George V with his prime
ministers at the Imperial Conference
of 1926[† 13]
The pace of independence increased in the 1920s, led by Canada, which exchanged
envoys with the United States in 1920 and concluded the Halibut Fisheries Treaty in
its own right in 1923.[72] In the Chanak crisis of 1922, the Canadian government
insisted that its course of action would be determined by the Canadian
parliament,[74] not the British government, and, by 1925, the Dominions felt
confident enough to refuse to be bound by Britain's adherence to the Treaty of
Locarno.[75] These developments, combined with a realisation that the Crown was
already operating distinctly and separately within each of the jurisdictions of the
Canadian provinces and Australian states,[ † 14][72][77] appeared to put to rest
previous assertions that the Crown could never be divided amongst the Dominions.

Another catalyst for change came in 1926, when Field Marshal the Lord Byng of
Vimy, then Governor General of Canada, refused the advice of his prime minister (William Lyon Mackenzie King) in what came to
be known colloquially as the King–Byng Affair.[78] Mackenzie King, after resigning and then being reappointed as prime minister
some months later, pushed at the Imperial Conference of 1926 for a reorganisation of the way the Dominions related to the British
government, resulting in the Balfour Declaration, which declared formally that the Dominions were fully autonomous and equal in
status to the United Kingdom.[79] What this meant in practice was not at the time worked out; conflicting views existed, some in the
United Kingdom not wishing to see a fracturing of the sacred unity of the Crown throughout the empire, and some in the Dominions
[27]
not wishing to see their jurisdiction have to take on the full brunt of diplomatic and military responsibilities.

What did follow was that the Dominion governments gained an equal status with the United Kingdom, a separate and direct
relationship with the monarch, without the British Cabinet acting as an intermediary, and the governors-general now acted solely as a
personal representative of the sovereign in right of that Dominion.[† 15][81] Though no formal mechanism for tendering advice to the
monarch had yet been established—former Prime Minister of Australia William Morris Hughes theorised that the Dominion cabinets
would provide informal direction and the British Cabinet would offer formal advice[82] —the concepts were first put into legal
practice with the passage in 1927 of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, which implicitly recognised the Irish Free State as
separate from the UK, and the King as kingof each Dominion uniquely, rather than as the British kingin each Dominion. At the same
time, terminology in foreign relations was altered to demonstrate the independent status of the Dominions, such as the dropping of
the term "Britannic" from the King's style outside of the United Kingdom.[83] Then, in 1930 George V's Australian ministers
employed a practice adopted by resolution at that year's Imperial Conference,[72] directly advising the King to appoint Sir Isaac
Isaacs as his Australian governor-general, against the preferences of the British government and the King himself.

Statute of Westminster
These new developments were explicitly codified in 1931 with the passage of the Statute of Westminster, through which Canada, the
Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State all immediately obtained formal legislative independence from the UK, while in the
other Dominions adoption of the statute was subject to ratification by the Dominion's parliament. Australia and New Zealand did so
in 1942 and 1947, respectively, with the former's ratification back-dated to 1939, while Newfoundland never ratified the bill and
reverted to direct British rule in 1934. As a result, the parliament at Westminster was unable to legislate for any Dominion unless
requested to do so,[72] although the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was left available as the last court of appeal for some
Dominions.[84] Specific attention was given in the statute's preamble to royal succession, outlining that no changes to that line could
be made by the parliament of the United Kingdom or that of any Dominion without the assent of all the other parliaments of the UK
and Dominions, an arrangement a justice of the Ontario Superior Court in 2003 likened to "a treaty among the Commonwealth
[85]
countries to share the monarchy under the existing rules and not to change the rules without the agreement of all signatories."

This was all met with only minor trepidation, either before or at the time,[† 16] and
the government of Ireland was confident that the relationship of these independent
countries under the Crown would function as apersonal union,[18] akin to that which
had earlier existed between the United Kingdom and Hanover (1801 to 1837), or
between England and Scotland (1603 to 1707). Its first test came, though, with the
abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936,[72] for which it was necessary to gain the
consent of the governments of all the Dominions and the request and consent of the
Canadian government, as well as separate legislation in South Africa and the Irish
[87]
Free State, before the resignation could take place across the Commonwealth.

The civil division of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales later found in 1982
that the British parliament could have legislated for a Dominion simply by including
in any new law a clause claiming the Dominion cabinet had requested and approved
of the act, whether that was true or not.[88] Further, the British parliament was not
obliged to fulfil a Dominion's request for legislative change. Regardless, in 1935 the
British parliament refused to consider the result of the Western Australian secession King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson
referendum of 1933 without the approval of the Australian federal parliament. In on holiday in the Mediterranean,
1936
1937, the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa ruled unanimously
that a repeal of the Statute of Westminster in the United Kingdom would have no
effect in South Africa, stating: "We cannot take this argument seriously. Freedom once conferred cannot be revoked."[89] Others in
Canada upheld the same position.[72]
Independent Dominions
At the 1932 British Empire Economic Conference, delegates from the United
Kingdom, led by Stanley Baldwin (then Lord President of the Council),[90] hoped to
establish a system of free trade within the British Commonwealth, to promote unity
within the British Empire and to assure Britain's position as a world power. The idea
was controversial, as it pitted proponents of imperial trade with those who sought a
general policy of trade liberalisation with all nations. The Dominions, particularly
Canada, were also adamantly against dispensing with their import tariffs,[91] which
[90] The meeting, however, did
"dispelled any romantic notions of a 'United Empire'." The prime ministers of five
produce a five year trade agreement based upon a policy, first conceived in the Commonwealth countries at the 1944
1900s,[92] of Imperial Preference: the countries retained their import tariffs, but Commonwealth Prime Ministers'
lowered these for other Commonwealth countries.[91][93] Conference; from left to right: William
Lyon Mackenzie King (Canada), Jan
During his tenure as Governor General of Canada, Lord Tweedsmuir urged the Smuts (South Africa), Winston
organisation of a royal tour of the country by King George VI, so that he might not Churchill (United Kingdom), Peter
Fraser (New Zealand), and John
only appear in person before his people, but also personally perform constitutional
Curtin (Australia)
duties and pay a state visit to the United States as king of Canada.[94] While the idea
was embraced in Canada as a way to "translate the Statute of Westminster into the
actualities of a tour," throughout the planning of the trip that took place in 1939, the British authori
ties resisted at numerous points the
[95] The Canadian prime minister (still Mackenzie
idea that the King be attended by his Canadian ministers instead of his British ones.
King) was ultimately successful, however, in being the minister in attendance, and the King did in public throughout the trip
ultimately act solely in his capacity as the Canadian monarch. The status of the Crown was bolstered by Canada's reception of Geor
ge
VI.[94]

When World War II began, there was some uncertainty in the Dominions about the ramifications of Britain's declaration of war
against Adolf Hitler. Australia and New Zealand had not yet ratified the Statute of W
estminster; the Australian prime minister, Robert
,[96][97][98] while New Zealand coordinated a declaration
Menzies, considered the government bound by the British declaration of war
of war to be made simultaneously with Britain's.[99] As late as 1937, some scholars were still of the mind that, when it came to
declarations of war, if the King signed, he did so as king of the empire as a whole; at that time, W
. Kennedy wrote: "in the final test of
sovereignty—that of war—Canada is not a sovereign state... and it remains as true in 1937 as it was in 1914 that when the Crown is
at war, Canada is legally at war,"[100] and, one year later, Arthur Berriedale Keith argued that "issues of war or neutrality still are
decided on the final authority of the British Cabinet."[101] In 1939, however, Canada and South Africa made separate proclamations
of war against Germany a few days after the UK's. Their example was followed more consistently by the other realms as further war
was declared against Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, and Japan.[72] Éire (the independent Irish state) remained neutral.[98] At the
war's end, it was said by F.R. Scott that "it is firmly established as a basic constitutional principle that, so far as relates to Canada, the
[102]
King is regulated by Canadian law and must act only on the advice and responsibility of Canadian ministers."

Post-war evolution
Within three years following the end of the Second World War, India, Pakistan, and Ceylon became independent realms within the
Commonwealth (then still called Dominions), though it was made clear at the time that India would soon move to a republican form
of government. Unlike the Republic of Ireland and Burma at the time of their becoming republics, however, there was no desire on
the part of India to give up its membership in the British Commonwealth, prompting a Commonwealth Conferenceand the issuance
of the London Declaration in April 1949, which entrenched the idea of Canadian prime minister Louis St. Laurent that different royal
houses and republics be allowed in the Commonwealth so long as they recognised as the international organisation's symbolic head
the shared sovereign of the United Kingdom and the Dominions.[103] Shortly before the London Declaration, Newfoundland, which
had remained a Dominion in name only, had become a province of Canada.
At approximately the same time, the tabling in 1946 of the Canadian parliament's Canadian Citizenship Act had brought into question
the homogeneity of the King's subjects, which, prior to that year, was uniformly defined in terms of allegiance to the sovereign,
without regard to the individual's country of residence. Following negotiations, it was decided in 1947 that each Commonwealth
member was free to pass its own citizenship legislation, so that its citizens owed allegiance only to the monarch in right of that
country.

As these constitutional developments were taking place, the Dominion and British governments became increasingly concerned with
how to represent the more commonly accepted notion that there was no distinction between the sovereign's role in the United
Kingdom and his or her position in any of the Dominions. Thus, at the 1948 Prime Ministers' Conference the term Dominion was
[104]
avoided in favour of Commonwealth country, in order to avoid the subordination implied by the older designation.

From the accession of Queen Elizabeth II

With the British proclamation of Elizabeth II's accession to the throne in 1952, the phrases Commonwealth realm and Head of the
Commonwealth became established, deriving from the words that declared the monarch as "of this Realm, and of her other Realms
and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth." Previously, the term realm in its singular form was understood to refer to the
[105]
entire British Empire, rather than a "separate kingdom" under a shared crown.

The Commonwealth realms' prime ministers thereafter discussed the matter of the
new monarch's title, with St. Laurent stating at the 1953 Commonwealth Conference
that it was important to agree on a format that would "emphasise the fact that the
Queen is Queen of Canada, regardless of her sovereignty over other Commonwealth
countries."[45] The result was a new Royal Style and Titles Act being passed in each
of the seven realms then existing (excluding Pakistan), which all identically gave
formal recognition to the separateness and equality of the countries involved, 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. The change in perspective was summed up
by Patrick Gordon Walker's statement in the British House of Commons: "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."[44]
Queen Elizabeth II in 1953
In the same period, Walker also suggested to the British parliament that the Queen
should annually spend an equal amount of time in each of her realms. Lord
Altrincham, who in 1957 criticised Queen Elizabeth II for having a court that encompassed mostly Britain and not the
Commonwealth as a whole,[106] was in favour of the idea, but it did not attract wide support.[107] Another thought raised was that
viceregal appointments should become trans-Commonwealth; the Governor-General of Australia would be someone from South
Africa, the Governor-General of Ceylon would come from New Zealand, and so on. The prime ministers of Canada and Australia,
[108]
John Diefenbaker and Robert Menzies, respectively, were sympathetic to the concept, but, again, it was never put into practice.

The principle of complete separation and equality was followed in all future grants of independence to countries which became
realms, including those that came through the winds of change that swept through Africa in the 1960s, the collapse of the Federation
of the West Indies in 1962, and at later dates. The most recently created Commonwealth realm is Saint Kitts and Nevis, which
achieved the status in 1983. The process of separation was completed when the residual rights of the British parliament in the affairs
of Canada, Australia and New Zealand reserved by the Statute of Westminster were repealed in the 1980s, through the Constitution
Act 1982 for Canada, the Australia Act 1986 and the Constitution Act 1986 for New Zealand, and corresponding legislation in
Britain.
Within a few years of gaining independence, the African realms drafted new constitutions in order to become republics within the
Commonwealth; South Africa, having been a Dominion and then a realm for 51 years, also became a republic in 1961. When the
white minority government of Rhodesia issued its unilateral declaration of independence in 1965, Prime Minister Ian Smith and his
ministers initially continued to profess loyalty to Elizabeth II, recognising her as "Queen of Rhodesia." Her representative in the
colony, Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs, immediately sacked Smith and his entire government on orders from Whitehall. However,
this action was ignored by Smith. Without the Queen's consent, he appointed his deputy, Clifford Dupont, as "officer administering
the government" to perform the governor's constitutional duties. This was originally intended as a preliminary step to having Dupont
appointed as Governor-General. When Smith attempted to recommend Dupont as Governor-General, Elizabeth rejected the advice
almost out of hand. She never consented to becoming "Queen of Rhodesia," nor did she accept the title. Rather, the United Kingdom–
with the near-unanimous support of the international community–continued to maintain that Gibbs was the only legitimate
representative of Elizabeth II in what it still maintained was Southern Rhodesia, and hence the only lawful authority in the area. This
state of affairs continued until 1970, when Smith's government declared Rhodesia a republic.

Several non-African realms have also become republics within the Commonwealth, starting with India in 1950 and Pakistan in 1956.
The most recent change is Mauritius, which became a republic in 1992. In a number of Commonwealth realms, including the United
Kingdom, movements have emerged advocating a republican government in place of constitutional monarchy; they were, and
continue to be, countered by monarchist leagues that support the existing system and/or celebrate the historical and modern
connections the common monarchy provides. Unsuccessful referenda on proposed models of republics have taken place in Australia,
Tuvalu, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

On 6 July 2010, Queen Elizabeth II addressed the United Nations in New York City as queen of all 16 Commonwealth realms.[109]
The following year, Portia Simpson-Miller, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, spoke of a desire to make that country a
republic,[110][111] while Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party (which favours
Scottish independence), stated an independent Scotland "would still share a monarchy with... the UK, just as... 16 [sic] other
Commonwealth countries do now."[112] Dennis Canavan, leader of Yes Scotland, disagreed and said a separate, post-independence
referendum should be held on the matter.[113]

Following the Perth Agreement of 2011, the Commonwealth realms, in accordance with convention, together engaged in a process of
amending the common line of succession according to each country's constitution, to ensure the order would continue to be identical
in every realm. In legislative debates in the United Kingdom, the termCommonwealth realm was employed.[114][115]

Former Commonwealth realms

List of states
 Initial post- Royal
Country[Note 1] From To Method of transition
transition system Standard
Parliamentary
Ceylon[Note 2] 1948 1972 New constitution
republic
Parliamentary
Fiji 1970 1987 Military coup
republic
The Gambia 1965 1970 Presidential republic Referendum

Ghana 1957 1960 Presidential republic Referendum

Guyana Parliamentary Constitutional

1966 1970
republic amendment
Parliamentary
India[Note 3] 1947 1950 New constitution
republic
Irish Free State / Parliamentary
1931 1949[Note 4] Act of parliament
Ireland[Note 3] republic

Kenya Constitutional
1963 1964 Presidential republic
amendment
Malawi 1964 1966 One-party republic New constitution

Malta Parliamentary Constitutional

1964 1974
republic amendment

Mauritius Parliamentary Constitutional

1968 1992
republic amendment
Parliamentary Constitutional
Nigeria 1960 1963
republic amendment

Pakistan Parliamentary
1947 1956 New constitution
republic

Sierra Leone 1961 1971 Presidential republic New constitution

South Africa Parliamentary Referendum and new

1931 1961
republic constitution

Tanganyika[Note 5] 1961 1962 Presidential republic New constitution

Trinidad and Tobago Parliamentary

1962 1976 New constitution
republic

Uganda Parliamentary Constitutional

1962 1963
republic amendment

1. The flags shown are the national flags of each country at the time it became a Commonwealth realm.
2. Renamed Sri Lanka upon becoming a republic. TheCeylonese flag changed in 1951.
3. Part of the group of independent countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations that shared the same person
as their reigning monarch, but only ever designated asDominions, each becoming a republic or joining another
sovereign state before the termCommonwealth realmsbegan to be used.
4. See also: Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949.
5. Now a part of Tanzania.

In addition to the states listed above, the Dominion of Newfoundland was a dominion when the Statute of Westminster 1931 was
given royal assent but effectively lost that status in 1934, without ever have assented to the Statute of Westminster, and before the
term Commonwealth realm ever came into use. Due to a domestic financial and political crisis, the Newfoundland legislature
petitioned the UK to suspend Dominion status, the UK parliament passed the Newfoundland Act 1933, and direct rule was
orld War II, it became a province of Canada in 1949.[116]
implemented in 1934. Rather than reclaiming dominion status after W
Republican referendums
A number of Commonwealth realms have held referendums to consider whether they should become republics. As of January 2017,
of the eight referendums held, only three have been successful: in Ghana, in South Africa and the second referendum in Gambia.
Referendums which rejected the proposal were held in Australia, twice in Tuvalu, and in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. There are
Australia in 2010.[117]
currently no planned referendums, but interest in holding a second referendum was expressed in

Year Margin of victory

Country Yes No Republic
held (%)

Ghana 1,008,740 131,145

1960 877,595 (77%)
(88.49%) (11.51%)

Union of South Africa 850,458 775,878

1960 74,580 (5%)
(52.29%) (47.71%)

1965 The Gambia 61,563 (65.85%) 31,921 (34.15%) N/A1

1970 The Gambia 84,968 (70.45%) 35,638 (29.55%) 49,330 (41%)

1986 Tuvalu 121 (5.34%) 2,144 (94.66%) 2,023 (89%)

5,273,024 6,410,787
1999 Australia 1,137,763 (10%)
(45.13%) (54.87%)

2008 Tuvalu 679 (35.02%) 1,260 (64.98%) 581 (30%)

Saint Vincent and the

2009 22,646 (43.71%) 29,167 (55.29%) 6,521 (12%)
Grenadines

Notes

1. ^ In this referendum the "yes" votes failed to reach the required two-thirds (66%) total, therefore the proposal was
rejected.

See also
British Empire
Commonwealth Family
Imperial Federation
Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations
States headed by Elizabeth II
Union of the Crowns

Notes
1. F.R. Scott stated: "The common kinship within the British group today establishes a form of personal union, the
members of which are legally capable of following dif ."[17]
ferent international policies even in time of war
2. W.Y Elliott stated: If a personal union be chosen, the Crown will be forced to act on the king's own discretion [and]
since personal discretion is a modern monarch is unthinkable, the only alternative would be a league of states with a
common but symbolic crown",[20] and Alexander N. Sack stated: "Whatever the future development of the British
Commonwealth may be [it] 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.[21]
3. J. D. B. Miller stated:[T]he survey concludes with an attempt to classify the Commonwealth. It is no longer a
[23]
federation, nor a military alliance, nor a personal union.
4. During a British state visit to Jordan in 1984, Queen Elizabeth II made a speech expressing opinions of her British
Cabinet that countered the views of herAustralian Cabinet, [34] though the Queen was evidently not representing
Australia at that time. Similarly, Elizabeth II undertook a visit to Latin America to promote British goods at the same
time a Canadian ministerial trip was underway in the same region in order to promote Canadian products. [35]
 5. On 3 September 1939, the United Kingdom declared war onNazi Germany, but it was only on 6 September that,
under the articles of the Statute of Westminster, the Union of South Africa did same, followed by Canada on 10
September. Therefore, from 3 to 10 September, King George VI, as king of the United Kingdom, South Africa and
Canada, was both at war and at peace with Germany . Similarly, as he was still technicallymonarch of Ireland, it was
George VI's duty to validate the credentials of theGerman consul to Ireland, which remainedneutral throughout the
war.
A more extreme example was theIndo-Pakistani War of 1947, in which George VI, as head of state of both warring
nations, was, in a legal sense, at war with himself. Similarly
, in 1983 Queen Elizabeth II was monarch ofGrenada
when her governor-general thererequested the invasion of the countryby a number of other Caribbean states,
including some that were also realms of the Queen; an undertaking that was opposed by a number of Elizabeth's
other governments, such as those of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Belize.
6. In the example of the 1983 invasion of Grenada, the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon, invited the intervention of
foreign troops deliberately without ever having informed the Queen. Also, whenSir John Kerr dismissed the
Australian governmentin 1975, he did not inform the Queen of his intent to do so.
7. One Canadian constitutional scholar, Dr. Richard Toporoski, stated on this: "I am perfectly prepared to concede,
even happily affirm, that the British Crown nolonger 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 bythe term is the Crown acting or expressing itself within the context of
that particular jurisdiction".[47]
8. See Sue v Hill.
9. Noel Cox stated: "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 inef fective 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
."[58] Richard Toporoski similarly stated: "[I]f, let ussay, an
obtained in respect of any such alteration in the law
alteration were to be made in the United Kingdom to the Act of Settlement 1701, providing for the succession of the
Crown. It is my opinion that the domestic constitutional law of Australia or Papua New Guinea, for example, would
provide for the succession in those countries of the same person who became Sovereign of the United Kingdom ... If
the British law were to be changed and we [Canada] did not change our law ... the Crown would be divided. The
person provided for in the new law would become king or queen in at least some realms of the Commonwealth;
Canada would continue on with the person who would have become monarch under the previous law[59] ...
10. In the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu, the prime minister must consult the legislature in confidence; inPapua New
Guinea, the governor-general is nominated to the Queen by a parliamentary vote.
11. The Colonial Office in London opposed this potentially "premature" and "pretentious" reference for a new country
,
and were also wary of antagonising theUnited States, which had emerged from itsCivil War as a formidable military
power with unsettled grievances because of British support for theConfederate cause. See also: Name of Canada
§ Adoption of Dominion.
12. The Australian and South African prime ministers,Billy Hughes and Louis Botha, stand first and second from the
right; the Canadian delegate,Sir George Foster, stands fourth from left. The representatives of New Zealand and
Newfoundland are not shown.
13. The figures in the photo are, back row, left to right: Walter Stanley Monroe, Prime Minister of Newfoundland; Gordon
Coates, Prime Minister of New Zealand; Stanley Bruce, Prime Minister of Australia; James Hertzog, Prime Minister
of South Africa, and W.T. Cosgrave, President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State ; front row, left to right:
Stanley Baldwin, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; the King; and William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister
of Canada.
14. The Viscount Haldane said in 1919 that in Australia the Crown "acts in self-governing States on the initiative and
advice of its own ministers in these States."[76]
15. The ministers in attendance at the Imperial Conference agreed that: "In our opinion it is an essential consequence of
the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Governor
General of a Dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in
relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and
that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that
Government".[80]
16. P.E. Corbett in 1940 questioned whether there were any existing terms that could be used to describe any or all of
the "possessions of the British Crown,"[22] while Scottish constitutional lawyer Arthur Berriedale Keithwarned before
1930 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."[86]

References

Citation
1. Figures totalled from member state profiles at theCommonwealth of Nationssecretariat, rounded to the nearest
100,000.
2. Figures totalled from the table below.
3. "World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision" (https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DataQuery/). ESA.UN.org (custom
data acquired via website).United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
Retrieved 10 September 2017.
4. Loi sur les titres royaux(https://web.archive.org/web/20131105041628/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/fra/lois/R-12/pag
e-1.html). Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada. 1985. R.S., 1985, c. R-12. Archived fromthe original (http://laws-lois.j
ustice.gc.ca/fra/lois/R-12/page-1.html)on 5 November 2013. Retrieved 3 May 2009.
5. Royal Household. "The Queen and the Commonwealth > Queen and New Zealand"(https://web.archive.org/web/20
130926053754/http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandcommonwealth/newzealand/thequeen sroleinnewzealand.aspx).
Royal Household. Archived fromthe original (http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/NewZealand/The
QueensroleinNewZealand.aspx)on 26 September 2013. Retrieved 18 August 2013.
6. Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea(http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=199188#
LinkTarget_1841), S.85, retrieved 22 May 2015
7. Velde, François. "Royal Arms, Styles and Titles of Great Britain" (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm
#1953). Heraldica. François R Velde. Retrieved 24 January 2012.
8. Trepanier, Peter (2004). "Some Visual Aspects of the Monarchical Tradition" (http://www.revparl.ca/27/2/27n2_04e_tr
epanier.pdf) (PDF). Canadian Parliamentary Review. Ottawa: Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.27 (2): 28.
Retrieved 2 May 2009.
9. Berriedale, Kieth (1936), "The King and the Imperial Crown: The Powers and Duties of His Majesty", in Coates, Colin
MacMillan, Majesty in Canada: essays on the role of royalty(https://books.google.com/books?id=FhFyvhpPx8MC&p
rintsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) , Toronto: Dundurn Press Ltd.
(published 2006), p. 12,ISBN 978-1-55002-586-6, retrieved 16 January 2011
10. Boyce, Peter (2008). The Queen's Other Realms(https://books.google.com/books?id=kY-Tk0-quyoC&printsec=front
cover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) . Annandale: Federation Press. p. 1.ISBN 978-1-
86287-700-9.
11. Oppenheim, Lassa (1952). Lauterpacht, Hersch, ed.International law: a treatise(https://books.google.com/?id=tNYs
AAAAMAAJ&q=personal+union). 1. London: Longmans. p. 163.ISBN 1-58477-609-9. Retrieved 29 January 2010.
12. Clerk of the House of Commons (1947).Debates: official report (https://books.google.com/?id=3ktOAAAAMAAJ&dq
=%22United+Kingdom+and+Canada%22+%22personal+union%22&q=%22The+United+Kingdom+and+Canada+ar
e+to+be%22). 1. Ottawa: King's Printer for Canada. p. 591. Retrieved 29 January 2010.
13. Coolidge, Archibald Cary; Armstrong, Hamilton Fish (1927).Foreign affairs, Volume 6 (https://books.google.com/?id
=xtYSAAAAIAAJ&q=%22personal+union%22) . New York: Council on Foreign Relations. pp. 124–125, 127.
Retrieved 7 November 2009.
14. Library of Parliament (1947). Special war session, Volume 1 (https://books.google.com/?id=3ktOAAAAMAAJ&dq=%
22United+Kingdom+and+Canada%22+%22personal+union%22&q=%22The+United+Kingdom+and+Canada+are+t
o+be%22). Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada. p. 591. Retrieved 7 November 2009.
15. "Personal Union" (http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au/index.php/australian-crown/personal-union). Crowned
Republic. Retrieved 29 January 2010.
16. Hudson, Wayne (2004). Restructuring Australia: Regionalism, Republicanism and Reform of the Nation-State
(http
s://books.google.com/books?id=oC0lKtAxveMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepa
ge&q&f=false). Sydney: Federation Press. p. 86.ISBN 9781862874923.
17. Scott, F. R. (January 1944), "The End of Dominion Status", The American Journal of International Law, American
Society of International Law, 38 (1): 34–49, doi:10.2307/2192530 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2192530),
JSTOR 2192530 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2192530)
18. "Black v Chrétien: Suing a Minister of the Crown for Abuse of Power
, Misfeasance in Public Office and Negligence"
(http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/cox93.html). Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law. 9 (3).
September 2002. Retrieved 2 October 2008.
19. Trepanier 2004, p. 27
20. Elliott, W.Y (November 1930). "The Sovereignty of the British Dominions: Law Overtakes Practice".The American
Political Science Review. American Political Science Association.24 (4): 971–989. doi:10.2307/1946754 (https://doi.
org/10.2307%2F1946754). JSTOR 1946754 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1946754).
21. Sack, Alexander N.; Stewart, Robert B. (March 1940). "Treaty Relations of the British Commonwealth of Nations".
University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register . The University of Pennsylvania Law Review
. 88
(5): 637–640. doi:10.2307/3308937 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3308937). JSTOR 3308937 (https://www.jstor.org/sta
ble/3308937).
22. Corbett, P. E. (1940). "The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law". The University of Toronto Law
Journal. University of Toronto Press. 3 (2): 348–359. doi:10.2307/824318 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F824318).
JSTOR 824318 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/824318).
23. Miller, J.D.B (October 1959). "The Commonwealth in the World". The American Historical Review. Washington, DC:
American Historical Association.65 (1). doi:10.1086/ahr/65.1.111 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2Fahr%2F65.1.111)
.
24. Keith, Arthur Berriedale (1929).The sovereignty of the British dominions(https://books.google.com/?id=GjcGAAAAM
AAJ&q=%22personal+union%22). New York: Macmillan and Co. Ltd. p. xvii.ISBN 0-8371-8668-4. Retrieved
7 November 2009.
25. Balfour, Arthur (November 1926). "Imperial Conference 1926"(http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcript
s/cth11_doc_1926.pdf)(PDF). Balfour Declaration. London: Inter-Imperial Relations Committee. p. 3. E (I.R./26)
Series. Retrieved 6 May 2009.
26. Cox, Noel (19 October 2003),The Development of a Separate Crown in New Zealand(http://www.reocities.com/noel
coxfiles/Development_of_Separate_Crown_in_New_Zealand.pdf)(PDF), Auckland University of Technology, p. 18,
retrieved 3 January 2011
27. Mallory, J.R. (August 1956). "Seals and Symbols: From Substance to Form in Commonwealth Equality".The
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science . Montreal: Blackwell Publishing.22 (3): 281–291. ISSN 0008-
4085 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0008-4085). JSTOR 13843 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/13843).
28. Trepanier, Peter (2006), "A Not Unwilling Subject: Canada and Her Queen", in Coates, Colin MacMillan, Majesty in
Canada: essays on the role of royalty(https://books.google.com/books?id=FhFyvhpPx8MC&pg=P A144&dq=%22co
mmonwealth+realms%22+equally&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sGntUb2FPMiQyQGZ7YCABA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepa
ge&q=%22commonwealth%20realms%22%20equally&f=false) , Toronto: Dundurn Press Ltd., p. 144,ISBN 978-1-
55002-586-6, retrieved 11 June 2017
29. Twomey, Anne (2006). The Chameleon Crown(https://books.google.com/books?id=YrOFei5WRRkC&printsec=front
cover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=equal&f=false) . Sydney: Federation Press. p. 81.
ISBN 9781862876293.
30. Michie, Allan Andrew (1952).The Crown and the People(https://books.google.com/books?id=lXwzAAAAIAAJ&q=%
22equally+queen%22+%22elizabeth+II%22&dq=%22equally+queen%22+%22elizabeth+II%22&hl=en&ei=fHUhTY u
QCsPtnQe98_20Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result) . London: Secker & Warburg. pp. 52, 369. Retrieved 11 June
2017.
31. Michie 1952, p. 52
32. Boyce 2008, p. 23
33. "British Flag Protocol > Order for Commonwealth Events Held in the UK (but not the Commonwealth Games)" (http://
www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags/flying-flags-in-the-united-kingdom/british-flag-protocol/#index26)
. Flag Institute.
Retrieved 1 October 2015.
34. Cohen, Zelman (1995)."Further Reflections on an Australian Republic"(https://web.archive.org/web/200709280555
40/http://www.menzieslecture.org/1995.html). Sir Robert Menzies Lecture Trust. Archived from the original (http://ww
w.menzieslecture.org/1995.html)(Lecture) on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 3 May 2009.
35. Sharp, Mitchell (1994). Which Reminds Me..., A Memoir. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-0-
8020-0545-8.
36. " 'Commonwealth' movement petition gains 35,000 backers"(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31948964).
BBC. 18 March 2015.
37. "Free movement proposed between Canada, U.K, Australia, New Zealand"
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c
olumbia/free-movement-proposed-between-canada-u-k-australia-new-zealand-1.2998105). CBC. 17 March 2015.
Retrieved 20 November 2015.
38. Schaefer, Glen (20 April 2015)."Some 70,000 sign petition to end immigration controls between Canada, Australia,
New Zealand and U.K."(http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/some-70000-sign-petition-to-end-immigration-co
ntrols-between-canada-australia-new-zealand-and-u-k)National Post. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
39. "Australians and New Zealanders should be free to live and work in UK, report says"
(https://www.theguardian.com/
world/2014/nov/03/australians-new-zealanders-free-live-work-uk-report)
. The Guardian. 3 November 2014.
Retrieved 11 November 2015.
40. Hembry, John (20 March 2015)."Free movement between Canada, U.K., Australia and New Zealand unlikely"
(htt
p://www.cbc.ca/news/free-movement-between-canada-u-k-australia-and-new-zealand-unlikely-1.3001945)
. CBC.
Retrieved 20 November 2015.
41. Lilico, Andrew (8 April 2014),"The key Brexit question: who will our new pals be?"(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finan
ce/andrewlilico/100026988/the-key-brexit-question-who-our-new-pals-will-be/) , The Telegraph, retrieved
20 November 2015
42. Skinner, James (2 April 2017),Survey Reveals Support For CANZUK Free Movement(http://www.canzukinternation
al.com/2017/04/significant-support-for-canzuk-free.html)
, CANZUK International, retrieved 21 December 2017
43. UK public strongly backs freedom to live and work in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand
(https://www.thercs.org/as
sets/Press-Releases/UK-polling-release-embargoed-13.03.16-1.pdf)(PDF), Royal Commonwealth Society, 13
March 2016, retrieved 21 December 2017
44. Bogdanor, Vernon (12 February 1998), The Monarchy and the Constitution(https://books.google.com/?id=mN6SzMe
fot4C&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=%22overseas+realms%22), New York: Oxford University Press, p. 288,
ISBN 978-0-19-829334-7
45. High Commissioner in United Kingdom (24 November 1952)."Royal Style and Titles" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0111123050633/http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=3498) .
Documents on Canadian External Relations > Royal Style and itles. T 18 (2). DEA/50121-B-40. Archived fromthe
original (http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=3498)on 23
November 2011.
46. Smy, William A. (2008). "Royal titles and styles"(https://archive.is/20120711172851/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_hb1372/is_1_46/ai_n29437278/). The Loyalist Gazette. Toronto: United Empire Loyalists Association of Canada.
XLVI (1). Archived from the original (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb1372/is_1_46/ai_n29437278/)on 11 July
2012. Retrieved 3 January 2011.
47. Toporoski, Richard. "The Invisible Crown" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080209220704/http://www .monarchist.ca/
mc/invisibl.htm). Monarchy Canada. Archived fromthe original (http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/invisibl.htm)on 9
February 2008. Retrieved 20 April 2008.
48. Buckner, Phillip (2005). "The Last Great Royal Tour: Queen Elizabeth's 1959 Tour to Canada". In Buckner, Phillip.
Canada and the End of Empire(https://books.google.com/?id=27IggObUC9kC&printsec=frontcover&q=) . Vancouver:
UBC Press. p. 66. ISBN 0-7748-0915-9. Retrieved 24 October 2009.
49. Statute of Westminster, 1931 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/contents). Westminster: Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office. 11 December 1931. c. 4 (U.K.). Retrieved 22 May 2015.
50. Anne Twomey (18 September 2014).Professor Anne Twomey - Succession to theCrown: foiled by Canada?(http://
vimeo.com/108335929)(Digital video). London: University College London.
51. Twomey, Anne (October 2011),Changing the Rules of Succession to the Throne
, Sydney Law School, pp. 10–11,
SSRN 1943287 (https://ssrn.com/abstract=1943287)
52. Twomey 2011, p. 12
53. Twomey 2011, p. 9
54. "Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936"(http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1936/en/act/pub/0058/sec0003.ht
ml#zza58y1936s3). Dublin: Office of the Attorney General. 12 December 1936. 3.2. Retrieved 6 May 2009.
55. Morris, Jan (2010), "15" (https://books.google.com/books?id=W6Kx28VD_4MC&pg=RA3-PT173&dq=ireland+abdica
tion+%22December+12%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OjxfV eLRMYOyyASKmYCIBw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=i
reland%20abdication%20%22December%2012%22&f=false) , Farewell the Trumpets, London: Faber & Faber, Note
13, retrieved 22 May 2015
56. Coghill, E H (1937). "The King – Marriage and Abdication".Australian Law Journal. Sydney. 10 (393): 398.
57. Scott, Kenneth John (1962).The New Zealand Constitution. London: Clarendon Press. p. 68.
58. Cox, Noel (1999), written at Auckland University of eTchnology, School of Law, Macquarie University, ed., "The
Dichotomy of Legal Theory and Political Reality: The Honours Prerogative and Imperial Unity",Australian Journal of
Law and Society, North Ryde: Macquarie University Press (published 23 August 2003), 14, ISSN 0729-3356 (https://
www.worldcat.org/issn/0729-3356), SSRN 420752 (https://ssrn.com/abstract=420752)
59. Toporoski, Richard (1988)."The Invisible Crown" (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617074036/http://www
.monarchi
st.ca/mc/invisibl.htm). Monarchy Canada. Toronto: Monarchist League of Canada (Summer 1998). Archived fromthe
original (http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/invisibl.htm)on 17 June 1997. Retrieved 21 May 2015.
60. Mallory, J. R. (1984). The Structure and Function of Canadian Government(2 ed.). Toronto: Gage. pp. 36–37.
61. Elizabeth II (1978), Constitution of Tuvalu (http://www.paclii.org/tv/legis/consol_act/cot277/), Funafuti: Pacific Islands
Legal Information Institute, 58(1), retrieved 25 May 2015
62. Elizabeth II (13 December 1986),Constitution Act, 1986 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/w
hole.html#dlm94204), 4.1, Wellington: New Zealand Government, retrieved 22 May 2015
63. Boyce 2008, p. 4
64. "The current Royal Family"(https://web.archive.org/web/20090710092956/http://www .royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalF
amily/Overview.aspx). Royal Household. Archived fromthe original (http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/
Overview.aspx) on 10 July 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.
65. "Queen and anniversary messages – Who is entitled?"(https://web.archive.org/web/20101204005418/https://www
.ro
yal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/Queenandanniversarymessages/Whoisentitled.aspx). Royal Household. Archived fromthe
original (http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/Queenandanniversarymessages/Whoisentitled.aspx) on 4 December
2010. Retrieved 22 February 2011.
66. "World Who's Who > Reigning Royal Families > United Kingdom" (http://www.worldwhoswho.com/public/views/royal
_families.html?country=UNITED_KINGDOM). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved 3 May 2009.
67. "The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Church > Queen and Church of Scotland"(https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20081028202032/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4709.asp). Royal Household. Archived fromthe
original (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4709.asp)on 28 October 2008. Retrieved 25 October 2008.
68. Farthing, John (1985).Freedom Wears a Crown. Toronto: Veritas Paperback. ISBN 978-0-949667-03-8.
69. Pope, Joseph (2009). Confederation: Being a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Documents Bearing on the British
North America Act. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing. p. 177.ISBN 978-1-104-08654-1.
70. Hubbard, R.H. (1977).Rideau Hall. Montreal and London: McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 9.ISBN 978-0-7735-
0310-6.
71. Lefroy, A. H. (1918). A Short Treatise on Canadian ConstitutionalLaw. Toronto: Carswell. pp. 59–60.ISBN 0-665-
85163-4.
72. Heard, Andrew (1990),Canadian Independence(https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html), Vancouver:
Simon Fraser University, retrieved 6 May 2009
73. Dale, W. (1983). The Modern Commonwealth. London: Butterworths. p. 24.ISBN 0-406-17404-0.
74. Phillip Alfred Buckner (2008).Canada and the British Empire(https://books.google.com/books?id=KmXnLGX7FvEC
&pg=PA98). Oxford University Press. p. 98.ISBN 978-0-19-927164-1.
75. John F. Hilliker (1990). Canada's Department of External Affairs: The Early Y
ears, 1909-1946 (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=MZD0inJnMJQC&pg=PA131). McGill-Queen's Press — MQUP. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-7735-6233-2.
76. Theodore v. Duncan, 696, p.706 (Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 1919).
77. Clement, W.H.P. (1916). The Law of the Canadian Constitution(3 ed.). Toronto: Carswell. pp. 14–15.ISBN 0-665-
00684-5.
78. Williams, Jeffery (1983). Byng of Vimy: General and Governor General. Barnsley, S. Yorkshire: Leo Cooper in
association with Secker & Warburg. pp. 314–317. ISBN 0-8020-6935-5.
79. Marshall, Peter (September 2001). "The Balfour Formula and the Evolution of the Commonwealth".
The Round
Table. 90 (361): 541–53. doi:10.1080/00358530120082823(https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00358530120082823) .
 80. Balfour 1926, p. 4
81. Twomey 2006, p. 111
82. Jenks, Edward (1927). "Imperial Conference and the Constitution".Cambridge Law Journal. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Law Society. 3 (13): 21. doi:10.1017/s0008197300103915(https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs00081973001039
15). ISSN 0008-1973 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0008-1973).
83. Walshe, Joseph P. (29 August 1927). Documents on Irish Foreign Policy > Despatch from Joseph .PWalshe (for
Patrick McGilligan) to L.S. Amery (London) (D.5507) (Confidential) (Copy)
(http://www.difp.ie/docs/Volume3/1927/83
1.htm). Royal Irish Academy. Retrieved 24 October 2009.
84. Baker, Philip Noel (1929). The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law
. London:
Longmans. p. 231.
85. O'Donohue v. Canada, J. Rouleau (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii41404/2003canlii41404.htm
l), 33 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 17 April 2013).
86. Keith, Arthur Berriedale(1928). Responsible Government in the Dominions. 1 (2 ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
p. xviii. ISBN 0-665-82054-2.
87. Williams, Susan (2003).The People's King: The True Story of the Abdication. London: Penguin Books Ltd. p. 130.
ISBN 0-7139-9573-4.
88. Manuel et al. v. Attorney General, 822, p. 830 (Court of Appeal of England and W
ales 1982).
89. Ndlwana v. Hofmeyer, 229, p.237 (Supreme Court of South Africa 1937).
90. Kaufman, Will; Macpherson, Heidi Slettedahl (2005),Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History(https://
books.google.com/books?id=HbBbn3x7PZsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage
&q&f=false), ABC-CLIO, p. 976, ISBN 9781851094318, retrieved 5 November 2015
91. The Cabinet Papers 1915-1986 > Policy , protectionism and imperial preference(http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/c
abinetpapers/themes/policy-protectionism-imperial-preference.htm), National Archives, retrieved 4 November 2015
92. National Archives 2015, Glossary (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/help/glossary-i.htm#imperial_pr
eference)
93. Imperial Preference (http://www.britannica.com/topic/imperial-preference), Encyclopædia Britannica, retrieved
4 November 2015
94. Library and Archives Canada. "The Royal Tour of 1939" (https://web.archive.org/web/20091030064730/http://www .co
llectionscanada.gc.ca/king/023011-1070.06-e.html). Queen's Printer for Canada. Archived fromthe original (http://w
ww.collectionscanada.gc.ca/king/023011-1070.06-e.html) on 30 October 2009. Retrieved 6 May 2009.
95. Galbraith, William (1989)."Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1939 Royal Visit" (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/en
glish/issue.asp?param=130&art=820). Canadian Parliamentary Review. Ottawa: Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association. 12 (3). Retrieved 6 May 2009.
96. Hasluck, Paul (1952). The Government and the People, 1939–1941. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. pp. 149–
151.
97. "Menzies' announcement of the declaration of war"(http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/wardeclared/). Department of
Veterans Affairs. Retrieved 26 June 2013.
98. Boyce 2008, p. 27
99. Monckton-Arundell, George(1949). "Documents Relating to New Zealand's Participation in the Second W orld War
1939–45 > 9 – The Governor-General of New Zealand to the Secretary of State for Dominion fairs" Af (http://www.nze
tc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-1Doc-c1-9.html). In Historical Publications Branch.The Official History of New Zealand
in the Second World War 1939–1945 (http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-1Doc-c1-9.html). 1. Wellington:
Victoria University of Wellington (published 4 September 1939). Retrieved 6 May 2009.
100. William Paul McClure Kennedy (1938).The Constitution of Canada, 1534-1937: An Introduction to Its Development,
Law and Custom. Oxford University Press. pp. 540–541.
101. Keith, A. Berriedale (1938). The Dominions as Sovereign States. London: Macmillan. p. 203.
102. Scott 1944, p. 152
103. de Smith, S. A. (July 1949). "The London Declaration of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, April 28, 1949".
The
Modern Law Review. 12 (3): 351–354. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1949.tb00131.x(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2
230.1949.tb00131.x). JSTOR 1090506 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1090506).
104. Statistics New Zealand.New Zealand Official Yearbook 2000. Auckland: David Bateman. p. 55.
105. Powell, Enoch (3 March 1953). "Speech on the Royal Titles Bill" (http://www.enochpowell.net/fr-74.html).
enochpowell.net. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
106. Pimlott, Ben (5 June 2002).The Queen. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. p. 280. ISBN 978-0-00-711436-8.
107. Boyce 2008, pp. 9–10
108. Boyce 2008, p. 11
109. "Address to the United Nations General Assembly"(https://web.archive.org/web/20100711003016/http://www .royal.g
ov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Speechesandarticles/2010/AddresstotheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly6July2010.aspx)
. Royal Household. 6 July 2010. Archived fromthe original (http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Speechesa
ndarticles/2010/AddresstotheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly6July2010.aspx) on 11 July 2010. Retrieved 6 July
2010.
110. "Jamaica plans to become a republic"(http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=702384&vId=). Sky News
Australia. 31 December 2011. Retrieved 31 December 2011.
111. "Jamaica to break links with Queen, says Prime Minister Simpson Miller"
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-ame
rica-16449969). BBC News. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 8 January 2012.
112. Salmond, Alex. "Scottish independence "good" for England"(https://web.archive.org/web/20120216021559/http://ww
w.snp.org/blog/post/2012/feb/scottish-independence-good-england). Scottish National Party. Archived from the
original (http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2012/feb/scottish-independence-good-england)on 16 February 2012.
Retrieved 16 February 2012.
113. Barnes, Eddie (29 July 2013)."Scottish independence: Call for vote on monarchy"(http://www.scotsman.com/news/s
cottish-independence-call-for-vote-on-monarchy-1-3018623) . The Scotsman. Retrieved 16 August 2013.
114. Chloe Smith, Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (22 January 2013).Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United
Kingdom: House of Commons.
115. Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister (22 January 2013).Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of
Commons. col. 211.
116. J. K. Hiller. (2002). The Newfoundland Royal Commission, 1933 (The Amulree Commission). (http://www.heritage.nf.
ca/articles/politics/amulree-commission.php)Government and Politics Bibliography. heritage.nf.ca
117. "Australia's Gillard backs republic after Queen's death"(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10995425).
BBC. 17 August 2010. Retrieved 17 July 2013.

Bibliography
Bogdanor, Vernon (1995). The Monarchy and the Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cox, Noel (2002). "The Theory of Sovereignty and the Importance of the Crown in the Realms of The Queen".
Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal . 2 (2).
Forsey, Eugene (1968) [1943].Royal Power of Dissolution on Parliament in the British Commonwealth
. Toronto:
Oxford University Press.
Maitland, Frederick (1901). "The Crown as a Corporation".Law Quarterly Review. 17 (131).
McIntyre, P. (1999). "The Strange Death of Dominion Status".Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History
. 27 (2).

External links
The Commonwealth at the Royal Family website

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_realm&oldid=828591739

"

This page was last edited on 3 March 2018, at 15:04.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.