Talk:The Crown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Crown dependency[edit]

The article does not make clear the meaning of crown in the expression crown dependency. Crown dependency seems to avoid the issue by using or abusing The Crown. Laurel Bush 16:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

International use[edit]

Is The Crown used anywhere other than the UK? This article has a general first sentence and then talks solely of the British use. Jon.baldwin 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Crown is also used in Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe islands as a synonym for the danish monarchy or in some cases the monarch herself. Greenland and the Faroe islands are considered 'crown territories of Denmark'. This is not compareable to that of the Commonwealth realms though, as the monarch is still (theoretically) the ruling authority in both territories. Crispy 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Kronan (the Crown) is also used in Sweden. (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It talks of Canadian, Australian, et al. usage. But, as for places like Denmark, Thailand, etc., I don't know. --gbambino 22:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I should have made that clearer. Jon.baldwin 01:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

R v Defendant[edit]

How does this article provide the information that The Crown (Rex) and The Crown (Regina) presented? I created those articles becuase someone one time changed the "R" to an "R", which is not very useful. How does redirecting from those 2 articles to Crown convey anything meaningful? And then of course removing the R. served as icing on this cake. lmno 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There should certainly be a section explaining that the Crown Prosecution Service, known in court as The Crown, prosecutes defendants in the name of the sovereign. Changing the R to an R might also help. 10:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Forgive me for being a jerk but ...

As a general rule naming an article with "The" as the first word is bad form (e.g. the article "United States" not "The United States"). Using "The" as the differentiator between two articles is silly ("Crown" vs. "The Crown"). I see the distinction that is being attempted here but this is, at best, confusing (in this case there is the additional concern of whether it is proper to say that "The Crown" uniquely identifies the British Commonwealth. I'd guess there are many Europeans that would say no).

May I suggest:

  • Crown - A disambig like it is now.
  • Crown (British Commonwealth) - This page

--Mcorazao 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ok Mcorazao. The Crown is always referred to as 'The Crown' in Commonwealth Realms. It is implicitly assumed to refer to Betty Windsor and her brood. Ozdaren 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not called the "Royal British Navy", it's "Royal Navy". People apparently understand that just fine. krikkert (Talk) 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It has evolved from Imperial times. A statement that sums it up a bit better from the Imperial Crown article: "Within the British constitution, The Crown is an abstract concept which represents the legal authority for the existence of the government, and, by acts of Parliament, the Crown is an imperial crown."
That sentence I feel sums it up well. For example, this is one of the reasons why when suing the government you would claim "The Crown", as the defendant. Due to constitutional evolution the Monarch's ultimate powers have been placed into check by the Parliament. A republic is "of, for, and by the people" but in a monarchy, it is a government on the HoS' behalf. Again this view is upheld by the British Passports being issued in Queen Elizabeth's name. CaribDigita (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
But, of course, in a constitutional monarchy, the sovereign reigns at the people's behest; in other words, they place their sovereignty in a tangible, living human being rather than an abstraction like "the state". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad move[edit]

This page now has an anachronistic title; there is no such thing as the "British Commonwealth". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it to be under a more appropriate title. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense[edit]

After the recent moves, The Crown redirects here... That makes absolutely no sense: an undisambiguated page pointing to a disambiguated page using that undisambiguated title but adding a disambiguator in brackets?!? I.e., The Crown REDIRECTS to The Crown (Commonwealth realms)?! Anyway, there is no disambiguation page: how does one find The Crown (band) if one is new to WP and doesn't understand the search function? Or what about The Crowns? Note, also, that people outside of the Commonwealth—indeed outside of the UK, even—are most unlikely to think of the Crown Prosecution Service when they hear the term. (Indeed, the article on the CPS doesn't even mention that colloquialism.) Given that there is only one usage of this name that the greatest majority of people seaching WP for "The Crown" will be looking for, i.e. the usage explored in this article, this page should, IMO, be returned to The Crown and The Crown (disambiguation) should be created for the other, far less likely, potentially intended targets such as Crown Prosecution Service, The Crown (band) and The Crowns. The dab header can then, probably, be dropped in favour of {{other|The Crown (disambiguation)}} --Jubileeclipman 13:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - the editor making the first move never sought consensus for the move. That editor also claimed: "This deals solely with the Crown in Commonwealth countries." So be it: that's how the term is used by the greatest majority of people on Earth. Other uses of the term can be given other articles and linked in a dab page. I am going to revert this, if I can. Otherwise WP:RM here we come... --Jubileeclipman 13:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Request move back to old title[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Crown (Commonwealth realms)The Crown —Relisted.-- PeterSymonds (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Crown was the original name. Page moved without obvious consensus to a title simply adding an unnecessary dab to that title. Later Good Faith move (see above) simply confused matters further. Anyway, the undabbbed name actually redirects to this dabbed name, now, pointlessly! Note the huge number of pages that link to the old name. Note for reviewers: this move will need admin assistance because of complex page histories. Jubileeclipman 13:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've certainly no objection (except a slight one to the assertion that I made matters worse with my move!). However, perhaps the editor who made the original move might want to explain their rationale beyond "This deals solely with the Crown in Commonwealth countries." Does he know of any other jurisdictions that use the term "The Crown" that we don't? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I meant that it confused me further... but that's quite easily done!  ;-) I thought, initially, that you had moved the page from the old name. The above brief discussion re "The" in the title confused me even more than your move and posts, in fact: the eventual move left the definate article in! It took made ages to figure out what had actually happened. No offence taken, I hope? Sorry if so --Jubileeclipman 15:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
No, no; none really ever was. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are "The Crown"s of non-Commonwealth realm countries. "The Crown" should redirect to the dab page for "Crown". (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Such as? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Siam/Thailand for one. Aside from that, there's already a hatnote on this article, saying that "The Crown" is a common name for the district attorney system of the UK. (and this is also the case in Canada). (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the move as restoring the primary topic to the most obvious location. There's no doubt there are other reigning and historical "crowns" in the world, but outside of those individual countries, the Commonwealth monarch is, frankly inarguably, the most well known. Others can be linked to via an appropriate dabhat and, if necessary, via Crown (disambiguation) or The Crown (disambiguation). jæs (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree with how the move was made but I think The Crown should redirect to Crown. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The definite article The makes "The Crown" a completely distinct (but obviously related) topic in the English-speaking world than simply the noun "crown." The project long ago built a very intelligent system of disambiguation headers to accomodate multiple related topics, sometimes with very similar titles. I'm surprised by how frequently folks want to fight clear primary topics and waste the powerful, simple, and helpful a dabhat system we have. jæs (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The argument that 'The Crown' can only refer to the British/Commonwealth crown is unconvincing. What about every other monarchy that is still functioning? Furthermore, I'm not entirely convinced that the British/Commonwealth is the hands down winner for primary topic for "The Crown" and nothing within the move request reasoning has convinced me to believe otherwise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support; else off with their heads. (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I always thought the primary use for The Crown was the pub down the road! Skinsmoke (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Weeelll... there is some truth in that, actually, if you live in the UK. However, which pub? There are probably 10 called The Crown within a 2 mile radius of where I live! However, the rest of the world will have absolutely no idea what we are blathering about, so that kinda answers that... ("What's a pub?") Face-wink.svg --Jubileeclipman 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "The Crown" is ambiguous, whereas the current title is not. Leave it where it si. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Crown in right of the United Kingdom[edit]

The refs. provided do not support this use. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No, they elaborate on the Crown, but they do not show that this term is used in the UK. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The point isn't how the term is used in the UK, it's whether the term exists or not. The refs I already provided support this (though it seems I somehow got the page number in the book wrong), and a search of Google books for "Crown in Right of the United Kingdom" brings up a slew of results; I'm in the midst of adding more at this moment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Your refs. refer to "the expression, The Crown ‘in right of’ the United Kingdom," they do not confirm its use as a term. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Was does one express one's self with in the absence of terms? Regardless, please look again at what the article says. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

represents the legal embodiment of governance[edit]

Does it represent it or is it it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch[edit]

But which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


First, no one knows what the Crown really is. It's apparent that its defiantly the formal head of the executive branch of government, and in this role it may be:

  • The Queen as an individual, with the same powers and rights of all other indidivuals, such as the powers to make contracts and own property.
  • A Corporation Aggregate; headed by the Queen, and made up of the departments of state, including ministers and their heads - The Government(s).
  • A Corporation Sole; with one member, the Queen; akin for example to a bishop or secretary of state.

Crown Immunities should be added to this article;[edit]

  • No Court can be enforced against the Crown, so the claimant's right to damages depends on the Crown voluntarily paying up. (civil cases) ;
  • No junctions lie against the Crown, or it's servants acting on behalf of the Crown. (civil cases);
  • In an action for breach of contact, the Crown can plead 'executive necessity', in which it can refuse to comply with a contact where it has an overriding power to take action in the public interest;
  • The Crown is not liable in tort for the acts of its officers, unless they were ordered specifically by the crown, and funded from the public purse;
  • The Crown is not bound by ANY act of Parliament unless fully stated that it binds the Crown;
  • The Crown is not liable for injuries caused in connection with bona fide acts of government policy overseas (acts of state).

Succession to the Crown and its recent changes should be added to this article.[edit]

The rules were based on medieval law governing succession to land. Preference to males over females, and the exclusion of Catholics from the Crown.

Personal Powers of the Crown (as the individual) should be added to this article[edit]

Since 1688 the personal powers of the Crown have been reduced by conventions. After the Glorious Revolution, the Crown was left as the head of the executive, dependent on parliament for funds and lawmaking power. The modern powers are:

  • To represent the nation(s);
  • To advise, encourage and warm;
  • To assent statutes;
  • To make orders in council;
  • To appoint ministers;
  • To call Proclamations, for dissolution, prorogation and summoning of parliament, of to call a state of emergency;
  • To ratify certain solemn treaties;
  • To award honours and peerages.

Intervention of the Crown should be added[edit]

In certain cases, the Crown, as the monarchy can and must exercise personal power, this can be used when:

  • Appointing a Prime Minister;
  • The dismissal of a Government and the dissolution of Parliament;
  • Refusal of dissolution, if the Government is acting unconstitutionally, such as after the loss of a General Election;
  • Refusal to grant a peerage for a biased House of Lords;
  • Royal Assent - This would only be down after considerate advice, however, if it occurs, it would turn the Crown into a supreme court; which is unlikely.

Royal Prerogative vested in the Crown should be added[edit]

The executive powers of the Government are bestowed under the Royal Prerogative, they include:

  • The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
  • The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
  • Royal Assent to bills;
  • Granting of honours, peerages and titles;
  • The appointment and regulaton of the Civil Service
  • The commissioning of officers to the armed forces;
  • To keep peace in the realm;
  • To enter, take and destroy property at home and overseas;
  • To expel aliens from its realm;
  • to appoint members of the Queens Council (senior barristers);
  • The prerogative of mercy (for sentencing remadies);
  • Granting Royal Charters to institutions, such as universities, charities, learned societies;
  • Regulation of charities;
  • The care of the vulnerable: children and the mentally ill;
  • The power to institute legal proceedings in the public interest and stop criminal proceedings (via the Attorney General);
  • The making of treaties;
  • The declaration of War and Peace;
  • The deployment and regulation of the armed forces;
  • The accreditation of foreign ambassadors and diplomats;
  • The governance of overseas territories;
  • The granting and revoking of passports.

GBozanko (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple jurisdictions[edit]

This edit was made with the explanation "neither [the reserve power or Royal Prerogative] include the Crown acting for itself in situations where matters pertain to multiple jurisdictions." I wonder if the editor who made the edit could explain in what situations the Commonwealth realms Crown ever acts for itself in multiple jurisdictions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Just bringing all the connected discussion to one place. I originally replied to the editor in question on his talk page, and it has spread to multiple locations.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 16:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording you put in does not make sense. No legislature may advise the crown on anything that is not part of it's jurisdiction. The legislature of Australia, can only advise on what falls within it's jurisdiction. IF multiple legislatures have jurisdiction over something, than each legislature advises it's "instance" of the crown. Ex. The Ontario legislature will advise the Ontario Crown, but cannot advise the Canadian Crown. (Different legal entities) Even if both legislatures have jurisdiction over something. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Barring your first sentence, your comments are right. That begs the question — why do you keep removing wording that agrees with your comments? It is not the royal prerogative to act without advice on matters that pertain to multiple jurisdictions. Imagine a matter that pertains to Canada and Papua New Guinea; despite the way you keep editing the article, your Premier has every right to advise your Governor-General on the Canadian portions of the issue, without regard to what the Crown will be doing in PNG. If no government "may advise the Crown on any matter pertinent to another of the Crown's jurisdictions", then the Crown will be left to decide for itself in situations pertinent to more than one of the Crown's jurisdictions. Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
How does me restoring your incorrect edit to a stable and accurate version became "you keep editing the article"? "No government may advise the Crown on any matter pertinent to another of the Crown's jurisdictions" is correct. The Crown is not left to decide for itself, as each jurisdiction is separate, and is a legal entity on it's own. The Crown for Canada does not have to make the same decision as the Crown for the UK. It does and has happened in situations like in Canada with Federal Crown/Provincial Crown, that have some overlapping jurisdiction, but the federal Prime Minister/Cabinet/Legislature CAN ONLY ADVISE the federal Crown, and the provincial Prime Ministers/Cabinets/Legislatures CAN ONLY ADVISE the provincial Crown. The federal Prime Minister CAN NOT ADVISE the provincial Crowns, and the provincial Prime Ministers CAN NOT ADVISE the federal Crown. And the 11 Crowns might make contradictory decisions. (That is one reason why there is a separate person "GG" or "LG" who represents each Crown, and also why the Queen will defer to the decisions and not involve herself in the process, as the advice of one PM might contradict the advice of another PM, who have overlapping jurisdictions.)--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 17:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Your edit made it read as though ministers, legislators, and judges could advise the Crown on matters pertinent to the Crown's other jurisdictions if those matters were pertinent to multiple other jurisdictions, but could not if they pertained to only one of the Crown's other jurisdiction. The summary for that edit echoed the same odd assertion. Hence, my initial question; which still hasn't been addressed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Crown (band)[edit]

Just wanted to inform editors here about adding an appropriate hatnote to direct people to the band that is disamb'ed from this article. It is listed under Crown (a disambiguation page) but is not found here. Maybe I can suggest The Crown (disambiguation) be created? FireCrystal (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Ireland[edit]

As the anon user who keeps inserting info on Hong Kong into this article is apparently a sockpuppetmaster, I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to start this discussion for them. However, I'll ask for an explanation as to why a territory of a communist republic belongs on a page about a term used in monarchies. The term may still exist on paper held over from before 1997, but, the concept of the state being embodied in a crown clearly no longer applies in Hong Kong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is relevant, precisely because pre-1997 judgements and laws in Hong Kong which contain references to the Crown have not been altered. They are simply reinterpreted. Between 1997 and the early 2000s, the undefined fate of murder convicts in Hong Kong who were sentenced "at Her Majesty's pleasure" before 1997 caused significant stir. My suggestion would be to add a section on "Former British territories" based on the anon's text, supplemented by information about similar situations in other territories. Deryck C. 21:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The disputed edit says, "the concept of the Crown, including Crown immunity, has been retained.... From 1 July 1997 onwards, any reference in any provision to the Crown [shall relate to the new government]." But any time a monarchy becomes independent or a republic or is annexed by another state the laws, including previous judgments, remain in force and the crown now refers to the new state. There is nothing whatsoever exceptional about Hong Kong. Judgments, btw, are never altered and in this case some of the judgments were made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and therefore cannot be altered. TFD (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: "But any time a monarchy becomes independent or a republic or is annexed by another state the laws, including previous judgments, remain in force and the crown now refers to the new state." - I think we should put this into the article text for the benefit of non-specialist readers like myself. Have we got a source for it? Deryck C. 10:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
See The Present Politics about the Past in a chapter about Australian law. (p.79) "[According to Blackstone, i]n the case of a conquered country, the general rule was that the laws of the country continued after the conquest until those laws were altered by the conqueror.... The same rule applied to ceded colonies, although the prerogative may have been limited by the treaty of cession."[1] The precedent was Blankard v. Galby (1693).[2]
The HK case is interesting because there is a conflict between how the state is seen in a monarchy and in a republic, and the decision ruled in favor of the first, even though HK is no longer a monarchy. That differed from an Irish case mentioned, Byrne v. Ireland (1972)[3] The Irish constitution says, "All powers, functions, rights and prerogatives whatsoever exercisable in or in respect of [Free State]...are hereby declared to belong to the people."
It would be interesting to include a section on what happens to the Crown when a territory becomes a republic, but I do not know of any sources for that, except for specific cases.
TFD (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you guys read the Hua Tian Long case that the anonymous IP cited from Hong Kong Lawyer? The concepts of the Crown and Crown immunity are still relevant in the proceedings of the court over there. (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Anonymous IP? You mean yourself, Instantnood? Did you realize that this edit is nearly identical to this one you made from 2404:c800:9002:8::12, the very IP that caused this page to be protected? -Zanhe (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I read it. The PRC government as successor to the Queen in right of Hong Kong retains the same immunity that the Queen did. I also mentioned the Irish precedent cited in the case, Byrne v. Ireland and explained why according to the case they are different. Is there anything about the case that you think makes it relevant to this article? TFD (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we're converging towards a conclusion that different ex-Crown jurisdictions (weird phrase) interpret "the Crown" differently and that we have the sources to support that. I think it's worth creating a section in the article about them. Deryck C. 08:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Shall we add something about the situation in cases like Ireland or the republics within the Commonwealth, as well as monarchies in the Commonwealth such as Brunei, Malaysia, Tonga, Lesotho, Swaziland? 2404:C800:9002:8:0:0:0:12 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
As Zanhe mentions above, this anon is a sock of the indef blocked user Instantnood. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Deryck C., unless you have a source that puts it all together, it is original research for us to do so. TFD (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories[edit]

The following assertion in this section is dubious: "The reserve powers of the Crown for each territory are no longer considered to be exercisable on the advice of the UK government. In order to comply with the court's decision, the territorial governors now act on the advice of each territory's executive and the UK government can no longer disallow legislation passed by territorial legislatures." This appears to be false, especially the italics, because the UK Government is responsible for the overall good governance of the 14 British Overseas Territories (BOTs). In 2000, the UK Government issued a Overseas Territories order that decriminalized homosexuality in all BOTs against the wishes of most of the territorial legislatures. On 14 August 2009, the Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands, on the instructions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos Islands by authority of an Order in Council issued by the Queen.[1] In this case, the Governor of this BOT acted on the instructions (NB not advice) of the FCO, which is an agent of the Crown in right of the UK.

The citation in this section used to support the idea that the UK can no longer disallow BOT legislation does not clearly support this idea. IACOBVS (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The reasoning is, "While instructions may be transmitted to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State he does so, in constitutional theory, as her mouthpiece or medium. He is passing on her instructions as Queen of SGSSI, not acting as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom." 2000 was before the new constitutional theory. TFD (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
But the question is can the UK overrule legislation passed by BOT legislatures, regardless of ex parte Quark, 2005. It most certainly can.IACOBVS (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
By UK, do you mean the Queen? Certainly she retains that power but must act under the advice of her advisers for the BOTs, rather than her advisers for the UK. And in case of dispute, one can always apply for a mandatory order. TFD (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose this is the issue. I mean the Crown in right of the UK. While it is normally true that the Queen in right of Anguilla (for example) normally acts on the advice of the ministers of that territory's executive, the UK can intervene in extraordinary cases. When it does, the UK Government via the FCO via the Queen in right of said territory may issue a mandatory order. What I do not know is whether the Queen in this instance would veto legislation or whether it would be later nullified by said mandatory order. IACOBVS (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
As the law lords clearly pointed out, when the Queen acts on the advice of the FCO, they are acting in their capacity as advisers to the Queen in right of the BOT not of the Queen in right of the UK and when they execute their actions they are acting as agents of the Queen in right of the BOT. Of course the same officials also act as advisers and agents of the Queen in right of the UK. To confuse matters, the Queen has the same title in the UK and all the BOTs. A mandatory order is the new name for an order of mandamus. In this case the premier of the Turks and Caicos could have challenged the order in council by applying for a mandatory order. In any case we need to follow what sources say. TFD (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that is where things become absurd. The FCO is an agent of the UK Government and takes its instructions from the Prime Minister of the UK and not any BOT government. The fact that the FCO advises the Queen in right of a BOT does not change the reality that their advice is mandated by the UK Government. However, as said before, the issue is: can the UK "disallow legislation passed by territorial legislatures"? It can via the FCO even if the FCO advises the Queen in right of the BOT and not in right of the UK. This is why I believe the sentence in question is dubious. IACOBVS (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Again the UK does not disallow legislation, that is done by the Queen acting on advice, but in fact has not been done for a long time. FCO advisers are supposed to act as advisors for the BOT not for the UK government. If for example, the advice were to transfer the treasuries of Bermuda, the Caymans etc. to the HM Treasury it could be disallowed by a Court under a mandatory order. It could be of course that the House of Lords got it wrong, but their interpretation is the one that is enforced. TFD (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that the royal veto (refusal of assent) has not been officially used since 1708 by Queen Anne (on advice) in the UK and somewhat rarely in the territorial legislatures of the UK colonies afterwards. So the remedy for potentially rogue BOT legislation would be the Courts and not the Crown in right of a BOT. I now understand this (I think). Thanks. IACOBVS (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Rogue legislation could be challenged in the UK courts under the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. But effectively the challenger would have to prove that the BOT law was in violation of a UK relating to the BOT. If a BOT were to re-introduce slavery for example, it could be challenged as contrary to the 1833 act that abolished slavery in the Empire. TFD (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Hellmore, Edward. "Britain seizes control of scandal-hit dependency". The Independent. Retrieved 14 June 2015.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Crown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Crown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Relevance in (mostly extinct) sovereign constitutional monarchies outside of the Commonwealth/Empire[edit]

Is it relevant to mention in the intro field that the concept of the Crown as known in Commonwealth/Empire realms may have had partially equivalent concepts in non-Commonwealth/Empire nations, such as Russia under their цари? I do not plan to make this edit. I am doing nothing more than idle conjecture that could turn out to be used as fodder to improve the article by someone with more understanding and appropriate sourcing of Imperial Russian politics. (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It should be clear that this article is about the British crown in each of HM territories. There should be some mention of the crown in other states. TFD (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Who or which?[edit]

In English grammar, is the Crown a person? Specifically, would one write that "the property belonged to the Crown, who sold it", or "the Crown, which sold it"? Obviously the monarch is a person, but if the Crown is a corporation, perhaps the Crown is not a person? A Google search suggests that both of these are used; is one more correct? pburka (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Corporations are legal persons. Corporations are usually referred to using impersonal pronouns, for example, which not who. TFD (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No mention of the Antarctic claims?[edit]

The infobox at the top of the main page lists all of the dependencies of the Commonwealth realms except for the Australian Antarctic Territory, the Ross dependency and the British Antarctic Territory. As the other dependencies are individually listed, shouldn't they be included? Is it Wikipedia policy to deny Antarctic claims in its infoboxes? 2A02:C7D:B747:2500:E4B6:D57F:996B:5EF6 (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand[edit]

I added a short section about the definition of 'The Crown' in New Zealand.

I am not sure the best place within this article to put this section and what level of heading it should have.

The term and concept of the Crown is used a lot and in different contexts in New Zealand, including in parliamentary acts ( and also in the context of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Pakoire (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any information about how accepted Ward's view is? The standard definition of the Crown is as a corporation sole. Does he mean de facto or de jure? In a republic, the state is defined as a corporation aggregate. Hence prosecutions in a monarchy are taken in the name of the king or queen, while in a republic they are taken in the name of the state or the people. Literally, the crown is worn by one person while the state is composed of all its citizens. TFD (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)