text:
LGBT rights in Ecuador

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Ecuador have evolved significantly in the past decades. Both male and female forms of same-sex sexual activity are legal in Ecuador and same-sex couples can enter into civil unions and same-sex marriages.

In 1998, Ecuador became one of the first countries in the world to constitutionally ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Since 2008, civil unions with all of the rights of marriage (except for adoption) have been available to same-sex couples. Additionally, transgender people under the 2016 Gender Identity Law may change their legal gender solely based on self-determination, without undergoing surgery. Ecuador is also one of the few countries in the world to have banned conversion therapy. In 2023, there are still hundreds of clinics that promote conversion therapy.

In 2013, gay activist Pamela Troya filed a lawsuit to strike down the country's same-sex marriage ban. The lawsuit focused mostly on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' ruling in Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile and its 2018 opinion on same-sex marriage. The Atala case has caused bans on same-sex marriage in Mexico to be struck down and Chile pledging to legalise same-sex marriage. Additionally, in January 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex marriage is a human right protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. As a result, on 12 June 2019, the Constitutional Court ruled in a 5–4 vote in favor of same-sex marriage, legalising it in Ecuador.

History
Conquest by the Spanish from the mid-16 century onwards introduced Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism, and religious mores condemning homosexuality as "sinful" and "immoral" to the region now known as Ecuador. As such, society has typically viewed homosexuality pejoratively. However, this is, or at least was, not the case for many of the indigenous peoples, including the Shuar. While the Europeans and the West have typically regarded anal intercourse as a sign of effeminacy, the Shuar perceived it as a sign of trickery. The "passive" partner (chiminiamnijikratin) and the "active" partner (chiminiamnijitiai) were not regarded as feminine. A Shuar myth, known as the story of the fox and the jaguar, involves the fox deceiving the jaguar into having anal sex, but after having discovered the trickery the jaguar chases the fox and bites him.

The Inca Empire's perception of homosexuality is unclear and is the subject of ongoing debate. Most modern-day documentation about the Incas stems from the Spanish Inquisition. These reports suggest that male homosexuality was punished in the south and centre of the Inca Empire, possibly by death, but was tolerated in the north. According to certain sources, homosexuality and cross-dressing were tolerated "acts of worship", commonly practised in religious rituals and temples. Quariwarmi were cross-dressing shamans, tasked with performing rituals in honour of Chuqui Hinchay, a jaguar dual-gender god. Effeminate men were called hualmishcu or warminchu by the Incas. Lesbian relationships seem to have been highly regarded by Inca society. Lesbians (known as holjoshta) enjoyed many privileges and could even participate in combats and were given the possibility of maintaining promiscuous relations between themselves.

Law regarding same-sex sexual activity
Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Ecuador since 1997 when the Constitutional Tribunal, in Case No. 111-97-TC, overturned the first paragraph of Article 516 of the Penal Code, which criminalized sexual activities between persons of the same sex. In 2014, a new Organic Integral Penal Code (2014) entered into force, which did not include the criminalising provisions previously struck down by the Constitutional Court.

The age of consent in Ecuador is 14, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Recognition of same-sex relationships
Article 67 of the Ecuadorian Constitution adopted in 2008 limited marriage to the union of a man and a woman. However, article 68 provides that same-sex couples in stable and monogamous unions shall enjoy the same rights and obligations as married couples, except for adoption. "The stable and monogamous union between two persons without any other marriage ties who have a common-law home, for the lapse of time and under the conditions and circumstances provided for by law, shall enjoy the same rights and obligations of those families bound by formal marriage ties."

Based on Article 68, civil unions for same-sex couples are legal in Ecuador. In August 2014, President Rafael Correa signed a resolution to allow same-sex couples to register their unions. It also allows civil unions to be registered as a complementary data to marital status and created a special registry for these unions. The order took effect on 15 September. In April 2015, the National Assembly approved an amendment to the Civil Code that codified civil unions into statutory law and deleted the requirement of evidence of cohabitation for at least two years.

2018 Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling
In January 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) ruled that the American Convention on Human Rights mandates and requires the recognition of same-sex marriage. The ruling was fully binding on Costa Rica and sets a binding precedent for other Latin American and Caribbean countries including Ecuador.

Following the IACHR ruling, which held that same-sex marriage is a human right, two same-sex couples went to the Civil Registry in Cuenca, applying for marriage licenses. After both were rejected for not being a different-sex couple, they filed suit in court arguing that the refusal to recognise their marriage was discriminatory, unconstitutional and a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights. Relying on the IACHR ruling, two family judges ruled in the couples' favour on 29 June 2018. The judges ordered the Civil Registry to immediately begin registering same-sex marriages. However, the Civil Registry appealed the decision to the Constitutional Court. On 12 June 2019, the court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, making it legal throughout the country.

Adoption and parenting
Article 68 of the Ecuador Constitution states: "La adopción corresponderá sólo a parejas de distinto sexo". An unofficial English language translation of this provision states: "Adoption shall only be permitted for different-sex couples." The Constitution is silent about adoptions by single individuals.

Under Ecuadorian statutory law, however, a single person is allowed to adopt a child, although a legally constituted heterosexual couple has priority over the single person.

In May 2018, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador ordered the Civil Registry to register a seven-year-old girl as the daughter of a lesbian couple. The case, filed in September 2012, sought to have the daughter registered with the surnames of both her mothers. The Court ruled that failing to register the daughter is a violation of children's rights. The vote was 5 to 3, with one abstention.

Discrimination protections
In 1998, Ecuador became the first country in the Americas (and only the third worldwide after South Africa and Fiji) to include sexual orientation as a protected category in its Constitution. An unofficial English language translation of Article 11(2) states: "All persons are equal and shall enjoy the same rights, duties and opportunities. No one shall be discriminated against for reasons of ethnic belonging, place of birth, age, sex, gender identity, cultural identity, civil status, language, religion, ideology, political affiliation, legal record, socio-economic condition, migratory status, sexual orientation, health status, HIV carrier, disability, physical difference or any other distinguishing feature, whether personal or collective, temporary or permanent, which might be aimed at or result in the diminishment or annulment of recognition, enjoyment or exercise of rights. All forms of discrimination are punishable by law. The State shall adopt affirmative action measures that promote real equality for the benefit of the rights-bearers who are in a situation of inequality."

In 2015, a labor law reform made it illegal for employers to discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation.

In June 2018, the Justice Ministry approved a new policy concerning the rights of LGBT people. The policy aims to guarantee and strengthen their rights in relation to health, education, work, security, social protection and justice.

Gender identity and expression
The Gender Identity Law (Ley Orgánica de Gestión de la Identidad y Datos Civiles), approved in 2016, allows Ecuadorians to state their gender identity instead of the sex assigned at birth. The law distributes new legal ID cards to those wishing to change their gender and birth name.

Conversion therapy
In November 2011, an Ecuadorean activist group, called Fundación Causana, began a petition on Change.org to entreat the Ecuadorean Minister of Health to close down more than 200 "ex-gay clinics". The group claimed that the clinics abuse and torture patients in an effort to "cure homosexuality".

The clinics primarily targeted lesbians and operated under the guise of being drug rehabilitation centers. At least one pair of parents discovered the abuse and asked for the clinic to release their daughter, Paola Ziritti, but were denied. Ziritti was eventually released after two years of confinement and was the first to press a formal complaint against the clinics.

Activists consequently called on the Government to close down the clinics, but by August 2011, only 27 had been closed, while a reported 207 clinics remained open. On 23 January 2012, the Change.org petition was closed and marked as a success with 113,761 international signatures. The petition also was updated with a statement from Fundacion Causana reading, "After ten years of outcry, the nation of Ecuador – through the Ministry of Public Health – has entered into a commitment with civic organizations and society in general to deconstruct the belief that homosexuality is an illness and root out the use of torture in these clinics. We extend our thanks to all the men and women who signed our petition. It has been invaluable to have this support in starting to change this reality."

Minister of Health Carina Vance Mafla ordered shortly thereafter three clinics to be raided in the vicinity of Quito and rescued dozens of women.

Consequently, Article 151 of the Penal Code was changed in 2014 to prohibit conversion therapy, equating it to torture. People who undertake the pseudoscientific practice are punished with seven to ten years imprisonment.

Living conditions
A fairly large gay scene has developed in Quito and Guayaquil. The first gay pride in Ecuador took place in Quito in 1998, following the Constitutional Court ruling that overturned the law which prohibited sexual acts between people of the same sex. Nevertheless, Ecuador has a conservative and macho culture, and homosexuality tends to be viewed negatively by society.

Since the last decade, many gay pride marches have been organized in all major cities, with the authorization of authorities and police protection, in addition to their participation. In Guayaquil's gay pride march of 2011, for instance, among those present were Guayas Province's Vice Prefect Luzmila Nicolaide, Guayaquil City Council member Gino Molinari, and member of the National Assembly Gina Godoy, while the police band played traditional songs.

There have also been LGBT film festivals organized in the major cities.

The U.S. Department of State's 2011 Human Rights Report found that, The constitution includes the principle of nondiscrimination and establishes choice of sexual orientation as a right. Although the law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay, lesbian, and transgender persons continued to suffer discrimination from both public and private bodies. LGBT organizations reported that transgender persons suffered more discrimination because they were more visible. LGBT groups claimed that police and prosecutors did not thoroughly investigate deaths of LGBT individuals, including when there was suspicion that the killing was because of sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBT organizations and credible media sources reported that LGBT persons were interned against their will in private treatment centers to "cure" or "dehomosexualize" them, although such treatment is illegal. The clinics reportedly used cruel treatments, including rape, in an attempt to change LGBT persons' sexual orientation. In August[,] the government reported that it closed 30 such centers, but LGBT organizations reported that other illegal clinics continued to operate. Members of the LGBT community continued to report that their right of equal access to formal education was frequently violated. The LGBT population involved in the commercial sex trade reported abusive situations, extortion, and mistreatment by security forces.

In 2012, President Rafael Correa appointed Carina Vance Mafla, a lesbian activist, as the country's Health Minister.

In 2017, approximately 20,000 people marched in the Guayaquil Gay Pride parade. For the first time, the municipality of Guayaquil agreed to light up the Bolivar and San Martin Monument with the colors of the rainbow in support of LGBT rights. In June 2017, the Presidential House was illuminated in rainbow colors. In 2018, more than 18,000 people participated in the Quito Pride march.

2013 election homophobic remarks
After the 2013 Ecuadorian general election, Nelson Zavala, an evangelical preacher and the presidential candidate who finished last out of the eight candidates, was sentenced by an election court to pay more than $3,000 in fines for his homophobic remarks. The court also prohibited him for a year from standing as a candidate or from affiliating himself or being involved with a political party or movement. During the campaign, he called gay people "sinners" and "immoral" and said they suffered from "severe deviation of conduct." LGBT activists applauded the ruling as "landmark". Zavala appealed the verdict, but the ruling was ratified in the last instance on 19 March 2013.

LGBTI candidacy
In the 2013 elections, LGBTI activist Diane Marie Rodríguez Zambrano of the Silueta X Association (Asociación Silueta X) became the first openly transgender candidate to run for public office. At the conclusion of her candidacy, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa Delgado declared his respect and admiration for Rodriquez on Twitter. Months later, Rodriguez was invited to change the Presidential Guard. In December 2013, she led the first LGBTI group meeting with President Rafael Correa. The meeting concluded with several agreements. In 2017, she was elected to the National Assembly, becoming the country's first transgender lawmaker.

title: LGBT rights in Ecuador


text:
Star gooseberry

The common name star gooseberry actually refers to two distinct species of plant:

 * Phyllanthus acidus, the Otaheite gooseberry
 * Sauropus androgynus, the katuk

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Star gooseberry


text:
Myra Landau

Myra Landau (December 5, 1926 – July 14, 2018) was an artist and abstract painter involved in art research. Born in Bucharest, Romania, she was known largely for the work she made in Brazil, then Mexico for many years and later in Italy, Israel and The Netherlands.

History
Landau was born on December 5, 1926, in Bucharest, Romania. At the age of 12, her Jewish family, fearing persecution by rising fascist forces, fled Romania just ahead of Ion Antonescu's coup d'état. After extensive travel throughout Europe, she finally arrived in Brazil. There, her great interest in artistic and intellectual life gave her the opportunity to meet painters like Di Cavalcanti, Antonio Dias, Wesley Duke Lee, Francisco Brennand, Antonio Dias and João Camara, the sculptor Sergio Camargo, the writer Jorge Amado and poet-musician-diplomat Vinicius de Morais, the musician-painter Dorival Caymmi.

Shy but determined, she started to paint. Her first works were figurative but gradually she began to realize that this was not her style and, influenced by Dufy, turned to Expressionism. She was greatly influenced by her uncle Marcel Janco (one of the founders of Dadaism) and the Brazilian engraver Oswaldo Goeldi. Critics, including Jorge A. Manrique who described her work as being "brutal and refined’ have recognized Landau's artistic contribution, describing it with high esteem.

Landau has lived in six countries. She married Miguel Salas Anzures, head of Fine Arts-INBA, Mexico. He broke with Socialist Realism, represented by painters like Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco, David Alfaro Siqueiros. This new expression of art was called Generación de la Ruptura. The members of this generation of artists include native-born Mexicans and immigrants, many of whom were refugees from World War II. Along with José Luis Cuevas, these include Fernando García Ponce, Roger Von Gunten, Edmundo Aquino, Francisco Toledo, Arturo Rivera, Leonora Carrington, Alberto Gironella, Ricardo Martínez, Arnaldo Coen, Lilia Carrillo, Vlady, Manuel Felguérez, Gilberto Aceves Navarro, Gustavo Arias Murueta, Luis López Loza, Luis Almeida, Peggy Espinosa, Adolfo Falcón, Efraín Herrero, Rafael López Castro, Bernardo Recamier, Pablo Rulfo and Vicente Rojo.

Landau introduced a new technique of engraving on metal, utilizing acids, but printed from the surface, called Metal Relief. She had her first exhibition in Mexico in 1963 and gradually became one of the leading Latin American women artists. Her Metal Relief works were well received by art critic Paul Westheim in the important magazine El Nuevo Arte de los Metales and by art connoisseur, reviewer and historian Jorge Olvera. She continued her in-depth research and found her definitive expression in painting with pastel on raw linen. In this technique she was a pioneer. Her thematic approach was also new: she was the first Latin American abstract painter to use movements of free geometrical lines. All her works since 1965 are called Rhythms.

In 1974, she began working as a teacher in the University of Veracruz in the Faculty of Fine Arts. In 1975 she became a full-time researcher for the Institute of Aesthetics and Artistic Creation at the University.

Landau had more than sixty individual exhibitions, the most important of which was held in 1987 in the Museum of Modern Art in Mexico City. She participated in 150 group exhibitions in Mexico, France, Italy, Brazil, Chile, the United States and Cuba.

In 1994, she moved from Mexico to Rome,Italy where she stayed until 2010 and later to Jerusalem, Israel where she lived for 6 years. Landau resided in The Netherlands for two years and died there on July 14, 2018.

Politically, she was a vocal critic of the Israeli government and described herself as stateless: "I don't believe in borders, I don't like flags, I have no boundaries. My only homeland: friendship, love and justice for all."

title: Myra Landau


text:
United Western Recorders

United Western Recorders was a two-building recording studio complex in Hollywood that was one of the most successful independent recording studios of the 1960s. The complex merged neighboring studios United Recording Corp. on 6050 Sunset Boulevard and Western Studio on 6000 Sunset Boulevard.

In 1984, United Western Recorders was renamed and succeeded by Ocean Way Recording. Starting in 1999, the complex was divided into two establishments: Ocean Way Recording (now United Recording Studios) at 6050 Sunset and Cello Studios (now EastWest Studios) at 6000 Sunset.

Some of the biggest hits of the 1960s were recorded at United Western. According to the book Temples of Sound, "No other studio has won more technical excellence awards, and no studio has garnered as many Best Engineered Grammys". Western's Studio 3 is considered iconic for its use by Brian Wilson for the Beach Boys' albums Pet Sounds (1966) and Smile (unreleased).

Structure
The complex's two buildings, United Recording and Western Studio, operated more or less independently despite being located only one block apart. United consisted of two large rooms; the larger United 'A' was approximately 45 × 65 × 22 feet, with United 'B' being slightly smaller. Western copied the layout of United, with the very large Western 1 and the somewhat smaller Western 2. Both buildings also had a third, smaller recording room, as well as several dubbing and mastering suites. The small rooms provided a sumptuous sound, with Western Studio 3, measuring just 34' × 15', being Brian Wilson's preference.

Active years (1961–84)
Prior to his move to California, Bill Putnam had founded the Universal Recording Corporation studio in Chicago. A pioneer of modern recording technique, Putnam became known for his UREI recording equipment and custom-made Universal Audio mixing consoles, which were bought by major recording studios. After relocating to Hollywood in 1957, and with the backing of Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra, Putnam first established the United Recording Corp. studio complex at 6050 Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. By 1958, Studio B was completed, including two reverb chambers. The facility grew to three recording studios, three mastering rooms, a mixdown room and a small-scale record manufacturing plant. The new studios were booked around the clock, busy with TV and movie voiceovers and soundtrack recordings as well as with popular artist's recordings. Hanna-Barbera used the studios to record voices for The Flintstones; Ricky Nelson recorded Poor Little Fool, the first-ever Billboard Hot 100 #1 song in 1958 along albums such a Rick Is 21 from 1961 which includes songs like Hello Mary Lou and Travelin' Man.

In 1961, Putnam purchased the neighboring Western Studio at 6000 Sunset, remodeling and incorporating the building into the complex. The buildings were then renamed United Western Recorders, and catered to some of the biggest artists of the era, including Frank Sinatra, the Beach Boys, and Elvis Presley.

Putnam assembled a talented staff, some of whom became major names in their own right, such as Bones Howe, John Haeny, Lee Hershberg, Chuck Britz, and Wally Heider, one of the pioneers of mobile recording and later of Wally Heider Studios. United was initially favored by older artists such as Crosby, Sinatra, Nat King Cole, and Ray Charles, as well as the young Fleetwoods, while Western soon became a favored recording venue for the new generation of pop-rock musicians and producers, such as Sam Cooke, the Beach Boys, Phil Spector and the Mamas & the Papas.

In the early sixties, Putnam scored a significant coup when major US record labels began to release stereophonic recordings in large numbers. According to Allen Sides, when stereo first appeared in the late 1950s, the cost-conscious major labels were initially uninterested, feeling that the market for the new format was limited, and that stereo mixdowns were a waste of time and money. Putnam however foresaw the coming importance of stereo and, at his own expense, he began making simultaneous mono and stereo mixdowns, storing away the stereo versions of these recordings, which at the time were released only in mono. When stereo took off in the early sixties, Putnam had amassed a stockpile of more than two-and-a-half years' worth of stereo recordings by scores of major acts. The value of this stockpile can be estimated from Sides' statement that United Western was at this time bringing in around US$200,000 per month in studio billings—equivalent to perhaps US$1 million per month today. The major labels approached Putnam hoping to buy the stereo tape stockpile, but he struck a far more lucrative deal, in which the labels repaid him for the (far more expensive) studio time he had used in making the stereo mixes.

In 1970, Jack Herschorn purchased the Universal Audio mixing console and other pro audio equipment from that studio, including Universal Audio LA-76A and LA-76B limiting amplifiers, Universal Audio vacuum tube power amplifiers (which were actually Dynakit Stereo 70 and 50-watt mono amplifier kits assembled into rack-mount chassis), Fairchild Conax sibilance controllers, Langevin graphic equalizers and Cinema Engineering filters, all originally installed in United Studio A in 1957. Herschorn had this equipment installed under the supervision of Charlie Richmond at Herschorn's Aragon Studios in Vancouver, Canada. The studio would later become Mushroom Studios.

In 1982, Eddie Van Halen purchased the UA console from Western Studio 2 and installed it in his personal 5150 Studio. The Van Halen albums 1984, 5150, and OU812 were recorded using the console.

Ocean Way Recording
In 1984, Putnam sold the studio complex to Allen Sides, who renamed the buildings Ocean Way Recording, as they would both be known until 1999.

Cello Studios
In 1999, Sides sold the Western half of the complex to computer magnate Rick Adams, who renamed it Cello Studios. Cello Studios operated at the 6000 Sunset complex from 1999 to 2005. During that period, the studios hosted high-profile rock artists such as Blink-182, Rage Against the Machine, Tool, System of a Down, Weezer, Muse, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Audioslave, and the Mars Volta. Cello Studios closed in 2005.

When Allen Sides sold Western to Rick Adams, the equipment inventory was also purchased from Ocean Way Recording, including a collection of rare vintage microphones, as well as vintage outboard gear including valuable studio effects units such as the Fairchild 670 limiters, no longer made, which were a crucial element of the sound of many classic pop recordings of the Fifties and Sixties. While the building was modified to accommodate the new facility's needs, the studios themselves have not been altered since Putnam's original design. During this period, the studio played host to artists such as Alanis Morissette, Natalie Merchant, Elton John, R.E.M., Bette Midler, Barenaked Ladies, Stone Temple Pilots, Matthew Sweet, Mötley Crüe, Green Day, Vonray and Blink-182.

EastWest Studios
At the beginning of 2006, Cello Studios (originally Western) was purchased by EastWest producer Doug Rogers and renamed EastWest Studios. Rogers extensively remodeled the non-technical areas of the studio complex with designer Philippe Starck, but the studios themselves, with their untouched acoustics, remain as originally built by Putnam in the 1960s and continue to operate to this day. Since 2012 EastWest Studios has racked up 130 Grammy nominations, more than any other recording studio in the world.

United Recording Studios
In 2013, Ocean Way Recording was sold to Hudson Pacific Properties, and in 2015 it was renamed back to United Recording Studios.

Legacy
Frank Sinatra made his Reprise recordings—including hits like "It Was a Very Good Year", "That's Life"—in United A, and "Strangers in the Night"—in Western 1, and his Reprise records offices were located upstairs. Ray Charles cut his country-soul crossover hit "I Can't Stop Loving You" and the LP Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music at United B. As well as the classic Pet Sounds, Western 3 was the venue for the recording of many other chart-topping pop hits, including the Mamas & the Papas' "California Dreamin'" and "Monday, Monday", the Grass Roots' "Let's Live for Today" and "Midnight Confessions" and "Hair" by the Cowsills. As well as those mentioned above, other artists who have recorded there include Blondie, Elvis Presley, Bobby Vee, the 5th Dimension, the Righteous Brothers, Barbra Streisand, Petula Clark, Ella Fitzgerald, Whitney Houston, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., the Rolling Stones, Elton John, Tom Petty, R.E.M., k.d. lang, Madonna, Rod Stewart, Glen Campbell, Eric Clapton, Bonnie Raitt and Walter Wanderley.

Many film and television theme songs have been recorded in the studios at 6000 Sunset. The theme songs for Hawaii Five-O, The Partridge Family, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Green Acres were all recorded at Western Recorders.

title: United Western Recorders


text:
File:Bustin' Dronin' cover.jpg

Summary
Cover of Blur's Remix album Bustin' + Dronin'.

title: File:Bustin' Dronin' cover.jpg


text:
Talk:The Crown

Crown dependency
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
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. 130.243.240.243 (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
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.  194.203.110.127 10:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"The"
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
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
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 --Jubilee♫ clipman  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... --Jubilee♫ clipman 13:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Request move back to old title

 * 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.-- Peter Symonds ( 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. Jubilee♫ clipman 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 --Jubilee♫ clipman  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". 76.66.192.73 (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). 76.66.192.73 (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. 109.255.180.212 (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?")    --Jubilee♫ clipman  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
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
Does it represent it or is it it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.226.103 (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
But which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.226.103 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Improvements
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;

 * 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.
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
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
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
The executive powers of the Government are bestowed under the Royal Prerogative, they include: GBozanko (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Multiple jurisdictions
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)
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
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)
 * "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."  The precedent was Blankard v. Galby (1693).
 * 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)  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. 203.145.93.199 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IP? You mean yourself, ? 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 . -- 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
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. 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Crown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121008170948/http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Lang=E&Sec=Ch01&Seq=3 to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch01&Seq=3&Lang=E
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828111747/http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca:80/dgcb-dgras/pd/fs-se/gm-mg/2009/414-011759Z-eng.asp to http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/fs-se/gm-mg/2009/414-011759Z-eng.asp

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Crown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130110062651/http://www.ottawacitizen.com:80/opinion/op-ed/Succeeding+Canadian+throne/7651371/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Succeeding+Canadian+throne/7651371/story.html

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

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

Relevance in (mostly extinct) sovereign constitutional monarchies outside of the Commonwealth/Empire
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. 50.69.229.17 (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?
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?
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
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 (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345937.html) 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)

Requested move 19 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved   -- Calidum  20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The Crown → British Crown – The term Crown is also used in other monarchies. This article is only about the Commonwealth realms. There are "The Crown"s of non-Commonwealth realm countries, "The Crown" is ambiguous. A more accurate title of the article would be something like The Crown (Commonwealth of Nations), but in the sources the name British Crown is more common, it is also simpler and clearer (without brackets). Somerby (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose This article is about the "Commonwealth Crowns" not just the "British Crown". The monarchies of the Commonwealth realms are separate despite being held by the same person. "British Crown" is therefore not accurate as it excludes entities such as the "Australian Crown" and "Canadian Crown". --Spekkios (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Comment Are there any articles about "the Crowns" of other countries? If so, then I'd support a move to "The Crown (Commonwealth of Nations)" or something similar. If there are none, then it's probably best to keep the title as-is. At least in the English-speaking world, "the Crown" primarily refers to the British one. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Invinciblewalnut, there are at least articles about Crown of Poland, Crown of Hungary and Crown of Czechia. Somerby (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Aye but those articles are about historical, defunct Crowns, not current ones. If there aren’t any articles about modern crowns other than the Commonwealth one, then I oppose this move. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Invinciblewalnut, you see, for current monarchies this is or a redirect to the article about monarchy like Dutch Crown, The Crown (Spain), or a DAB page like Danish Crown. But I see your point. Probably better to suggest to merge this article into section Commonwealth realm. --Somerby (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Move and disambiguate this title. BD2412  T 20:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In April 2010, an RM did not find consensus to move The Crown (Commonwealth realms) (its title at the time) → The Crown. But in May 2010, it was moved anyway.  do you want to chime in on this? 162 etc. (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move back to The Crown (Commonwealth realms) mostly because of wp:bias—blindlynx (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose nobody appears to be suggesting the TV show means a DAB is necessary. The current title is fine; this is the primary topic for the title, and this title doesn't have certain nationalist issues other titles would have.  The nom's concerns can be addressed by fixing the hatnote. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 18:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to British Crown or a merge; Support move to The Crown (Commonwealth realms) or retaining current title. I know that's a bit confusing in the context of a move request but given the various options floating around I thought I'd be absolutely clear with it. I'm fine with the current title, but if the consensus is that the article should be moved then it should be to the former title. British Crown is too specific and doesn't include the whole scope of the article, while the notion of the Crown is distinct enough to merit its own title. Turnagra (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the page is already at its common and most familiar name. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Is there a primary topic?, this article is more likely to be the one that readers are searching for, especially considering this is the English Wikipedia. It has historical significance in all former British colonies, which includes the bulk of the English speaking world. Also, while the article is largely about the concept of the crown in the Commonwealth realms, the crown predates both Great Britain and the Commonwealth. It divisibility to the crown became an issue when James VI, King of Scots, ascended to the English throne as James I, King of England. TFD (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral - On a monarchial basis, I'd go with British crown, as that's the realm that Elizabeth II is most recognised & associated with. But on a corporation basis, I'd leave it as The Crown. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose In English, The Crown = the British Crown, just like The Football Association = the English Football Association. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is equally the Canadian Crown, Australian Crown, New Zealand Crown, Jamaican Crown, Barbadian Crown, Bahamian Crown, Grenadian Crown, Belizean Crown, Tuvaluan Crown etc etc etc.  Peter Ormond 💬  08:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Crown


text:
Talk:Moosehead Lake

Different Sugar Island
Note that the link to Sugar Island at the end of the third paragraph is to a different Sugar Island in Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.133.140 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2005 (UTC)

 * Fixed - NightThree 13:49, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not second largest
How can this be the second largest lake in the US after Lake Okeechobee? Lake Michigan is east of the Mississippi, entirely within the US, and it's much bigger than both of these lakes. --Schzmo 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You're right-- that doesn't sound right. Maybe second largest freshwater lake entirely enclosed within the boundaries of one state, or something like that.  This requires some research! JamesofMaine 13:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Allrighty... The Moosehead Chamber of Commerce website claims that "Moosehead Lake... is the largest lake east of the Mississippi contained within one state." (emphasis mine) This article states that Moosehead is approx 120 sq miles in area, while the Lake Okeechobee article gives that lake's area as 730 sq miles.  However, Okeechobee is extremely shallow, whereas Moosehead is quite deep in some places.  So the claim of "largest" depends on whether you go by area alone, or by volume.  Expert help, anyone? JamesofMaine 14:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * This claim seems to be false as well, re: Lake Okeechobee (730 sq mi), Lake Pontchartrain (630 sq mi), Lake Winnebago (215 sq mi), and several larger lakes in Minnesota that may or may not count as "east of the Mississippi", depending on where you draw the northern line. "Largest lake" typically means "in area".  Then there are lots of large artifical lakes.  Moosehead Lake itself is dammed and partially artifical in being controlled reservoir-style.  So the claim may have to be something like "...in area, second largest freshwater lake completely contained within one state and not totally artifically created by a dam".  Personally, I find these kind of highly qualified claims of being the 2nd, 6th, or whatever largest lake to sound like local chamber of commerce boosterism or tourist brochure.  Chambers of Commerce are the 6th leading source of misinformation!  "Largest lake in Maine" seems good enough, no?  Pfly 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds alright to me... I don't think JamesofMaine would object (Even though he's no longer active here, let's just say I know the guy pretty well *cough* *cough*). Ripogenus77 14:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?
Is it OK that so much of the text seems to be copied verbatim from the reference's "Local history" page? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Heck no. Removed, thanks. -- Visviva 14:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moosehead Lake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130415114422/http://www.nrcm.org/plum_creek_update_dec2010.asp to http://www.nrcm.org/plum_creek_update_dec2010.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/144651.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723104521/http://maine.earth-first.net/2008/09/another-act-of-resistance-to-plum-creek-by-maine-earth-first/ to http://maine.earth-first.net/2008/09/another-act-of-resistance-to-plum-creek-by-maine-earth-first/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125043700/http://mooseheadhistory.org/localhistory.html to http://www.mooseheadhistory.org/localhistory.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Moosehead Lake


text:
Zárate

Zárate may refer to:

Places

 * Zárate, Buenos Aires, a port city in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina
 * Zárate Partido, a political administrative division in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina
 * Zárate–Brazo Largo Bridge, a set of road and railway bridges in Argentina
 * Zarate, Álava, a hamlet in Spain
 * Zarate, TX, a census-designated place (CDP) in Starr County, Texas, United States

People

 * Zárate (surname), list of people with this name

title: Zárate


text:
Raków, Kielce County

Raków is a village in Kielce County, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship, in south-central Poland. It is the seat of the gmina (administrative district) called Gmina Raków. It lies in historic Lesser Poland, approximately 39 km south-east of the regional capital Kielce.

History
Raków was founded in 1569 by, a Calvinist who was castellan of Żarnów, as the centre of the Polish Brethren and a place of religious tolerance. The town coat of arms includes a crayfish and is derived from the Warnia coat of arms of Sienieński's Arian wife, Jadwiga Gnoińska. It was a private town, administratively located in the Sandomierz County in the Sandomierz Voivodeship in the Lesser Poland Province of the Kingdom of Poland. The Socinian Racovian Academy was founded in 1602 by Jakub Sienieński, Jan Sienieński's son. By the 1630s, the town had grown to 15,000 inhabitants, with businesses centering on the academy.

As the Counter-Reformation in Poland gathered force, pressure began to be used against the Socinians. On April 19, 1638, an incident occurred in which some young students of the academy destroyed or removed a cross, giving the royal court the pretext needed to ban Arian activities, including printing and the schools, and sentenced teachers to exile, many heading south to the Principality of Transylvania. Jesuit scholar Szymon Starowolski justified the closing of Protestant schools (in 1638 and 1640), and Protestant centers and printing presses (in 1638, the press at Raków), as the "duty of good pastors" and as a legitimate act of the King and the Republic. The was demolished in 1640. In 1641 Jakub Zadzik, archbishop of Kraków, began construction of the magnificent on the same site and settled Franciscan friars in Raków to reconvert the Polish Brethren. The friars left the town around 1649. The main Arian buildings were destroyed, and more destruction was brought by Cossacks and Hungarians in 1657. By 1700 the town had only 700 inhabitants left.

After the Third Partition of Poland, Raków was in the Austrian Partition. Following the Austro-Polish War of 1809, it was regained by Poles and included within the short-lived Duchy of Warsaw, and after its dissolution it fell to the Russian Partition of Poland. In 1820, Raków had 926 inhabitants, in 1864 their number rose to 2,007, a significant part being Jewish. In 1869, like many other Polish towns, Raków has lost its town status and town privileges as punishment for the unsuccessful Polish January Uprising.

People

 * Fausto Paolo Sozzini, Italian Arian
 * Lelio Sozzini, uncle of the above
 * Stanisław Lubieniecki, Socinian
 * Piotr of Goniądz, Socinian
 * Gregory Paul of Brzeziny, Socinian
 * Marcin Czechowic, Socinian
 * Jan Niemojewski, Socinian
 * Mikołaj Sienicki, Socinian
 * Andrzej Wiszowaty, Socinian

title: Raków, Kielce County


text:
Erling Eidem

Erling Eidem (23 April 1880 – 14 April 1972) was a Swedish theologian who served as archbishop of Uppsala 1931–1950.

Eidem was son of Anders Magnus Andersson, a merchant in Gothenburg, and his spouse Pauline Eidem, whose maiden name he took. He received his filosofie kandidat degree from the University College of Gothenburg in 1903, his theology degree from Lund University in 1907, became licentiate there in 1912 and completed his doctorate of theology in 1918. He was docent of New Testament exegesis in Lund 1913-1924, and was assistant at Uppsala University 1918-1919. He was vicar of Gårdstånga parish 1924-1928 and professor of Biblical studies in Uppsala 1926-1928, and in Lund from 1928 until 1931, when he was elected archbishop of Uppsala. He married Elisabeth Eklund, a daughter of the theologian Pehr Eklund, dean of the cathedral of Lund and professor of church history at the university.

During the 1930s, Eidem expressed nationalist views, but kept a clear distance from the German Nazi regime and warned the Lutheran church in Germany for the prevalent antisemitism. After the war years, Eidem was one of the churchmen who donated money to the high church St. Ansgar Foundation in Uppsala.

Following the murder of Kaj Munk on 4 January 1944 the Danish resistance newspaper De frie Danske brought condemning reactions from influential Scandinavians, including Eidem.

Eidem was the last archbishop to be ex officio Pro-Chancellor of Uppsala University.

title: Erling Eidem