Talk:Commonwealth of Nations

From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Individual countries are independent, but usually acknowledge one of the British monarchs (Queen Diana of Scotland and England or else King Peter of Kemr) as the head of state - are there any republics in the Commonwealth, or are they all some kind of monarchy, either a British monarch or a native one?

I don't believe so. I think such countries become either associate members or observers. Ireland is such an example, being an associate member. --Kgaughan 23:08, 24 October 2005 (PDT)
Most countries of the Commonwealth are Constitutional Monarchies, either with native monarchies or acknowledging one of the British monarchs as head of state. Cases in point are Aotearoa, Belice and Mosquito Coast which have native monarchies, the last one being elected from among the early colonial leadership. There is also the possibility of inviting a junior member of one of the royal houses to ascend a native throne. (I'd thought it might be interesting for Australasia to be kicking this idea around, in apposition to the republicanism of *here*.) Anyhoo.
Republicanism is not a cause to prevent full membership. The NAL is as close as one can get to being a republic -- in fact, I've always thought of it as a republic (a la the US) that simply acknowledges some kind of limited relationship to the homeland (the monarchs have no actual power over the NAL). Hong Kong might be another possibility.
I had always thought that Ireland was an associate member due the bad blood between Kemr and Ireland early on, and the fact that Ireland sought absolute independence and a complete severance of all ties with Kemr. I had also thought that it took considerable sweet-talk on the part of Kemr to get Ireland into the C at all. Or am I labouring under a misapprehension here? [PB]
Nope, you're right on the ball. But the associate membership isn't just because Kemr sweet-talked them into it, but also because it would have it wouldn't have sat well at all with unionist types in Laighean. There was a period between the declaration of the republic and federation where membership was uncertain. Associate membership, like federation, was a compromise. I myself was under the impression that there was a tendency for countries that were full members to become associate members if they become republics. My bad. --Kgaughan 22:46, 25 October 2005 (PDT)


Shouldn't someone update the mad to incorporate the changes to the African map? --Sikulu 16 December 2005, 10:14 (GMT)

By and by, it shall be done. Elemtilas 08:56, 16 December 2005 (PST)
Addendum: Now that I think on it and review the Commonwealth Page, what's wrong with the map? It's the most up-to-date (I've even got East and West Florida in there). I know the information on the page needs some tweakage, but the map itself is fine. Elemtilas 09:26, 16 December 2005 (PST)
In a word - Rhodesia. It's mentioned as a separate member of the CoN in the main site --Sikulu 19 December 2005, 14:02 (GMT)
Well, I really don't know what to say! Rhodesia is very clearly marked on the map. It's that bit that sticks all the way up to Lake *Tanganyika. Unless you're looking at a vèry old version of the Commonwealth Page, it should show up just fine. Elemtilas 11:15, 20 December 2005 (PST)
No, it dosen't. I've been looking at the map on the article, and not all of the area in Africa marked in red (i.e. CoN) is marked in red on the article's map. --Sikulu 23 December 2005, 10:09 (GMT)
Well, I don't know what to say, really! Well, let's see what's wrong here. I very much hope we're not looking at different versions of the Page! I'm looking here, the Page of the Commonwealth of Nations. It could be there's another copy out there somewhere or an incorrect map. This Page is maintained by me, and as I said earlier, the map is the most up to date.
Even if we're not looking at the same version of the Commonwealth Page, we can always look in the Maps Page! The new map of the CoN is also there. Elemtilas 06:01, 23 December 2005 (PST)
OK, I see what's going on now! I see there's a tiny little map in the IB-Wiki article. I'll have to fix that one... Elemtilas 08:28, 23 December 2005 (PST)
That's the map I was talking about. There must have been some confusion. When I refer to the articles, I'm talking about the IB-wiki site; when I talk about the main site, I'm talking about the Geosites IB site. Sorry if I caused any trouble. --Sikulu 3 January 2006, 14:54 (GMT)
Yes, there was confusion! Note that I wasn't refering to an article, but to the Web Page that contains primary source information about the CoN! Hence my not understanding as to what possible map you could be looking at. The wiki article is a condensation of the main Page.
Don't worry! You weren't the cause of any trouble; as a matter of fact, you led me to see that there is another CoN map. Elemtilas 12:47, 3 January 2006 (PST)
The new map is great. One question though. Why is (presumably) Batavian Guiana shown as a member on the new CoN map? I thought that both Kemrese and English Guiana are listed under the FK map.
See here:

--Sikulu 5 January 2006, 14:09 (GMT)

It should be just Kemrese and English Guianas -- will look into it... There is a fault with the file Conmap.jpg -- it doesn't yet show English Guiana at all. I'll have to sort that out later in comparison with the South America map... Elemtilas 09:31, 5 January 2006 (PST)
Allrighty, I just had to differentiate the British Guyanas. The wiki map should be (reasonably) OK now. Elemtilas 09:51, 5 January 2006 (PST)

Commonwealth Map

The CoN map on the IB-geocities site shows Batavian Guinea as a part of the CoN. As an asside, how come the associate members (coloured in green) aren't on the IB-wiki map of the CoN anyway? (And is Mazapahit a member?) -- Sikulu 11:53, 12 January 2006 (GMT)

Curious. Actually, thát used to be English and Kemrese Guyanas. Before there even was a Batavian Guyana! The four Guyanas is fairly recent. We used to have only three. Well, one more revision won't hurt any!
Whoever made the Wiki CoN map didn't choose to display all the associate members. Probably was produced by some jealous, second rate supranational organisation like the CDS or the Francophone States -- ;)))))))) -- and they thought all the green would aggrandise the CoN too much! As for Majapit, if it's red, then it was a member when we were first looking into the matter several years ago. Unfortunately, I haven't kept up with that region much. It's probably all gone to the dogs by now... ;)) Elemtilas 11:30, 12 January 2006 (PST)

Grand Fenwick

Grand Fenwick isn't part of the Commonwealth (never had a FK Monarch, was never a colony, and does not recognize Diana I or Pedr V as monarch of Grand Fenwick). It might have close ties with the FK and the Commonwealth, but is not a member. Seth 07:40 19 October, 2007

Maybe move it from Full to Associate member? Benkarnell
GF has always been on the list of Members. Presumably because of its traditional, cultural and linguistic ties with England. A country doesn't have to have a British monarch or be a former colony to be a Member. Of course, it may very be that the Dukes of GF are themselves considered British monarchs. They're not subject to any other head of state, and like the former Princes of Kemr, only retain a lower title out of some kind of historical deference. Elemtilas 06:23, 24 February 2008 (PST)
Personal tools