Editing Commonwealth realm (section)

==History==
===Dominions emerge===
{{Main|Dominion}}

The possibility that a colony within the [[British Empire]] might become a new kingdom was first mooted in the 1860s, when it was proposed that the [[British North America]]n territories of [[Nova Scotia]], New Brunswick and the [[Province of Canada]] unite as a [[confederation]] that might be known as the ''Kingdom of Canada''.<ref>{{cite book| last=Farthing| first=John| title=Freedom Wears a Crown| publisher=Veritas Paperback| year=1985| location=Toronto| isbn=978-0-949667-03-8}}</ref><ref>{{cite book| last=Pope| first=Joseph| title=Confederation: Being a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Documents Bearing on the British North America Act| publisher=Kessinger Publishing| year=2009| location=Whitefish| page=177| isbn=978-1-104-08654-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite book| last=Hubbard| first=R.H.| title=Rideau Hall| publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press| year=1977| location=Montreal and London| page=[https://archive.org/details/rideauhallillust00hubb/page/9 9]| isbn=978-0-7735-0310-6| url-access=registration |url = https://archive.org/details/rideauhallillust00hubb/page/9 }}</ref>
[[File:William Orpen - The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors.jpg|thumb|[[William Orpen]]'s ''[[The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors]]'': a compiled portrait of the main delegates to the signing of the [[Treaty of Versailles]], including some of the dominion delegates{{NoteTag|The Australian and South African prime ministers, [[Billy Hughes]] and [[Louis Botha]], stand first and second from the right; the Canadian delegate, [[George Eulas Foster|Sir George Foster]], stands fourth from left. The representatives of New Zealand and Newfoundland are not shown.|name=Image2a}}]]

Although the dominions were capable of governing themselves internally, they remained formally—and substantively in regard to foreign policy and defence—subject to British authority, wherein the governor-general of each dominion represented the [[British monarch]]-[[Queen-in-Council|in-Council]] reigning over these territories as a single [[Empire|imperial]] domain. It was held in some circles that the Crown was a monolithic element throughout all the monarch's territories; A.H. Lefroy wrote in 1918 that "the Crown is to be considered as one and indivisible throughout the Empire; and cannot be severed into as many kingships as there are dominions, and self-governing colonies".<ref>{{cite book| last=Lefroy| first=A. H. | title=A Short Treatise on Canadian Constitutional Law| url = https://archive.org/details/shorttreatiseonc00lefrrich | publisher=Carswell| year=1918 | location=Toronto| page=[https://archive.org/details/shorttreatiseonc00lefrrich/page/59 59]| isbn=978-0-665-85163-6}}</ref> 

This unitary model began to erode when the dominions gained more international prominence as a result of their participation and sacrifice in the [[First World War]]. In 1919, Canadian prime minister Sir [[Robert Borden]] and South African minister of defence [[Jan Smuts]] demanded that, at the [[Versailles Conference]], the dominions be given full recognition as "autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth". As a result, although the King signed as High Contracting Party for the Empire as a whole,<ref name="Heard">{{Citation| first=Andrew| last=Heard| title=Canadian Independence| year=1990| place=Vancouver| publisher=Simon Fraser University| url=https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html| access-date=6 May 2009}}</ref> the dominions were also separate signatories to the [[Treaty of Versailles]]. They also became, together with India, founding members of the [[League of Nations]]. In 1921 the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, [[David Lloyd George]], stated that the "British dominions have now been accepted fully into the community of nations".<ref>{{cite book| last=Dale| first=W.| title=The Modern Commonwealth| publisher=Butterworths| year=1983| location=London| page=24| isbn=978-0-406-17404-8 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Twomey|first=Anne|title=Responsible Government and the Divisibility of the Crown|journal=Public Law|year=2008|page=742}}</ref>

===Balfour Declaration of 1926===
{{Main|Balfour Declaration of 1926}}
The pace of independence increased in the 1920s, led by Canada, which exchanged envoys with the United States in 1920 and concluded the [[Halibut Treaty]] in its own right in 1923.<ref name=Heard/> In the [[Chanak crisis]] of 1922, the Canadian government insisted that its course of action would be determined by the Canadian parliament,<ref name="Buckner2008">{{cite book|last=Buckner|first=Phillip Alfred|title=Canada and the British Empire|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KmXnLGX7FvEC&pg=PA98|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-927164-1|page=98}}</ref> not the British government, and, by 1925, the dominions felt confident enough to refuse to be bound by Britain's adherence to the [[Treaty of Locarno]].<ref name=Hilliker1990>{{cite book |last=Hilliker|first=John F.|title=Canada's Department of External Affairs: The Early Years, 1909–1946 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=MZD0inJnMJQC&pg=PA131|year=1990|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press&nbsp;– MQUP|isbn=978-0-7735-6233-2|page=131}}</ref> [[Richard Haldane, 1st Viscount Haldane|The Viscount Haldane]] said in 1919 that in Australia the Crown "acts in self-governing States on the initiative and advice of its own ministers in these States".<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Theodore v. Duncan| vol=696| pinpoint=p. 706 | court=Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | year=1919}}</ref><ref name=Heard/><ref>{{cite book| last=Clement| first=W.H.P. | title = The Law of the Canadian Constitution | url = https://archive.org/details/lawcanadiancons01clemgoog | publisher=Carswell| year=1916| edition=3rd | location=Toronto| pages=[https://archive.org/details/lawcanadiancons01clemgoog/page/n41 14]–15| isbn=978-0-665-00684-5 }}</ref>
[[File:ImperialConference.jpg|thumb|left|King [[George V]] at the [[Imperial Conference of 1926]]{{NoteTag|The figures in the photo are, back row, left to right: [[Walter Stanley Monroe]], [[Prime Minister of Newfoundland]]; [[Gordon Coates]], [[Prime Minister of New Zealand]]; [[Stanley Bruce]], [[Prime Minister of Australia]]; [[James Hertzog]], [[Prime Minister of South Africa]], and [[W. T. Cosgrave]], [[President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State]]; front row, left to right: [[Stanley Baldwin]], [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]]; the King; and [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]], [[Prime Minister of Canada]].|name=Image3}}]]

Another catalyst for change came in 1926, when Field Marshal the [[Lord Byng of Vimy]], then [[Governor General of Canada]], refused the advice of his prime minister (William Lyon Mackenzie King) in what came to be known colloquially as the [[King–Byng Affair]].<ref>{{cite book| title=Byng of Vimy: General and Governor General| url=https://archive.org/details/byngofvimygenera0000will| url-access=registration| last=Williams| first=Jeffery| year=1983| publisher=Leo Cooper in association with Secker & Warburg| location=Barnsley, S. Yorkshire| pages=[https://archive.org/details/byngofvimygenera0000will/page/314 314–317]| isbn=978-0-8020-6935-1}}</ref> Mackenzie King, after resigning and then being reappointed as prime minister some months later, pushed at the [[Imperial Conference of 1926]] for a reorganisation of the way the dominions related to the British government, resulting in the Balfour Declaration, which declared formally that the dominions were fully autonomous and equal in status to the United Kingdom.<ref>{{cite journal| last=Marshall| first=Peter| date=September 2001| title=The Balfour Formula and the Evolution of the Commonwealth| journal=[[The Round Table Journal|The Round Table]]| volume=90| issue=361| pages=541–553| doi=10.1080/00358530120082823| s2cid=143421201}}</ref> What this meant in practice was not at the time worked out; conflicting views existed, some in the United Kingdom not wishing to see a fracturing of the sacred unity of the Crown throughout the empire, and some in the dominions not wishing to see their jurisdiction have to take on the full brunt of diplomatic and military responsibilities.<ref name=Mallory/>
[[File:British Empire flag RMG L0088.tiff|thumb|An unofficial [[British Empire flag]] from the 1930s including the arms of the dominions]]
What did follow was that the dominion governments gained an equal status with the United Kingdom, a separate and direct relationship with the monarch, without the British Cabinet acting as an intermediary, and the governors-general now acted solely as a personal representative of the sovereign in right of that dominion.{{NoteTag|The ministers in attendance at the Imperial Conference agreed that: "In our opinion it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that the governor-general of a dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that government".<ref>{{harvnb| Balfour| 1926| p=4}}</ref>|name=Balf}}<ref>{{harvnb| Twomey| 2006| p=111}}</ref> Though no formal mechanism for tendering advice to the monarch had yet been established—former Prime Minister of Australia [[Billy Hughes]] theorised that the dominion cabinets would provide informal direction and the British Cabinet would offer formal advice<ref>{{cite journal| last=Jenks| first=Edward| title=Imperial Conference and the Constitution| journal=Cambridge Law Journal| volume=3| issue=13| page=21| year=1927| issn=0008-1973| doi=10.1017/s0008197300103915| s2cid=145241070}}</ref>—the concepts were first put into legal practice with the passage in 1927 of the ''[[Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act]]'', which implicitly recognised the Irish Free State as separate from the UK, and the King as king ''of'' each dominion uniquely, rather than as the British king ''in'' each dominion. At the same time, terminology in foreign relations was altered to demonstrate the independent status of the dominions, such as the dropping of the term "Britannic" from the King's style outside of the United Kingdom.<ref>{{Cite book| last=Walshe| first=Joseph P.| authorlink=Joe Walshe| title=Documents on Irish Foreign Policy > Despatch from Joseph P. Walshe (for Patrick McGilligan) to L.S. Amery (London) (D.5507) (Confidential) (Copy)| publisher=Royal Irish Academy| date=29 August 1927| url=http://www.difp.ie/docs/Volume3/1927/831.htm| access-date=24 October 2009}}</ref> Then, in 1930 George V's [[Cabinet of Australia|Australian ministers]] employed a practice adopted by resolution at that year's Imperial Conference,<ref name="Heard" /> directly advising the King to appoint Sir [[Isaac Isaacs]] as the [[Australian governor-general]]. Calls were also made for the empire to adopt new symbols less centred on the United Kingdom specifically, such as a new [[British Empire flag]] that would recognize the elevated status of the dominions. Many unofficial designs were often displayed for patriotic celebrations such as coronations and [[Commonwealth Day|Empire Day]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Kelly |first=Ralph |date=8 August 2017 |title=A flag for the Empire |url=https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ICV27-B8-Kelly.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230813214957/https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ICV27-B8-Kelly.pdf |archive-date=13 August 2023 |access-date=13 August 2023 |website=The Flag Institute |page=}}</ref>

===Statute of Westminster 1931===
{{main|Statute of Westminster 1931}}

These new developments were explicitly codified in 1931 with the passage of the ''Statute of Westminster'', through which Canada, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State all immediately obtained formal legislative independence from the UK, while in the other dominions adoption of the statute was subject to ratification by the dominion's parliament. Australia and New Zealand did so in 1942 and 1947, respectively, with the former's ratification back-dated to 1939, while Newfoundland never ratified the bill and reverted to direct British rule in 1934. As a result, the [[parliament at Westminster]] was unable to legislate for any dominion unless requested to do so,<ref name=Heard/> although the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] was left available as the last court of appeal for some dominions.<ref>{{cite book| last=Baker| first=Philip Noel| title=The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law| publisher=Longmans| year=1929| location=London| page=231}}</ref> Specific attention was given in the statute's preamble to royal succession, outlining that no changes to that line could be made by the parliament of the United Kingdom or that of any dominion without the assent of all the other parliaments of the UK and dominions, an arrangement a justice of the Ontario Superior Court in 2003 likened to "a treaty among the Commonwealth countries to share the monarchy under the existing rules and not to change the rules without the agreement of all signatories".<ref>{{cite court| litigants =O'Donohue v. Canada| opinion=J. Rouleau| pinpoint=33| court=Ontario Superior Court of Justice| date=17 April 2013| url=http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii41404/2003canlii41404.html}}</ref>
[[File:King Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson on holiday in Yugoslavia, 1936.jpg|thumb|[[Edward VIII]] and [[Wallis Simpson]] in 1936. His proposal to marry her led to [[Edward VIII abdication crisis|his abdication]], an act that required the consent of the dominions.]]

This was all met with only minor trepidation, either before or at the time,{{NoteTag|P.E. Corbett in 1940 questioned whether there were any existing terms that could be used to describe any or all of the "possessions of the British Crown,"<ref name=corbett1/> while Scottish constitutional lawyer [[Arthur Berriedale Keith]] warned before 1930 that "the suggestion that the King can act directly on the advice of dominion ministers is a constitutional monstrosity, which would be fatal to the security of the position of the Crown".<ref>{{cite book| last=Keith| first=Arthur Berriedale| title=Responsible Government in the Dominions| publisher=Clarendon Press| year=1928| location=Oxford| page=xviii| volume=1| edition=2| isbn=978-0-665-82054-0}}</ref>|name=Anti}} and the government of the [[Irish Free State]] was confident that the relationship of these independent countries under the Crown would function as a [[personal union]],<ref name=murdoch1>{{cite journal| url = http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/cox93.html | journal=Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law | date=September 2002|title= Black v Chrétien: Suing a Minister of the Crown for Abuse of Power, Misfeasance in Public Office and Negligence| volume=9| issue=3| access-date=2 October 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030428063329/http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/cox93.html|archive-date=28 April 2003|last1=Cox|first1=Noel}}</ref> akin to that which had earlier existed between the United Kingdom and [[Hanover]] (1801 to 1837), or between England and Scotland (1603 to 1707). Its first test came, though, with the [[abdication of King Edward VIII]] in 1936,<ref name=Heard/> for which it was necessary to gain the consent of the governments of all the dominions and the request and consent of the Canadian government, as well as separate legislation in South Africa and the Irish Free State, before the resignation could take place across the Commonwealth.<ref>{{cite book| last=Williams| first=Susan| year=2003| title=The People's King: The True Story of the Abdication| page=130| publisher=Penguin Books Ltd.| location=London| isbn=978-0-7139-9573-2}}</ref> At the height of the crisis, press in South Africa fretted about the Crown being the only thing holding the empire together and the bond would be weakened if Edward VIII continued "weakening kingship". Afterward, [[Francis Floud]], Britain's high commissioner to Canada, opined that the whole affair had strengthened the connections between the various nations; though, he felt the Crown could not suffer another shock.<ref name=Murphy29>{{citation| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OkYXAgAAQBAJ&dq=%22commonwealth+realm%22&pg=PA29| last=Murphy| first=Philip| title=Monarchy and the End of Empire| pages=29–30| publisher=Oxford University Press| location=Oxford| year=2013| isbn=978-0-19-921423-5| accessdate=28 April 2023}}</ref> As the various legislative steps taken by the dominions resulted in Edward abdicating on different dates in different countries, this demonstrated the division of the Crown post-Statute of Westminster.<ref name=Murphy29/>

The civil division of the [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales]] later found in 1982 that the British parliament could have legislated for a dominion simply by including in any new law a clause claiming the dominion cabinet had requested and approved of the act, whether that was true or not.<ref>{{Cite court| litigants=Manuel et al. v. Attorney General| vol=822| pinpoint=p. 830| court=Court of Appeal of England and Wales| year=1982}}</ref> Further, the British parliament was not obliged to fulfil a dominion's request for legislative change. Regardless, in 1935 the British parliament refused to consider the result of the [[1933 Western Australian secession referendum]] without the approval of the Australian federal government or parliament. In 1937, the Appeal Division of the [[Supreme Court of South Africa]] ruled unanimously that a repeal of the ''Statute of Westminster'' in the United Kingdom would have no effect in South Africa, stating: "We cannot take this argument seriously. Freedom once conferred cannot be revoked."<ref>{{Cite court| litigants=Ndlwana v. Hofmeyer| vol=229| pinpoint=p. 237| court=Supreme Court of South Africa| year=1937}}</ref> Others in Canada upheld the same position.<ref name=Heard/>

===Dominions gain sovereignty===
[[File:1937 Imperial Conference.jpg|thumb|King [[George VI]] (third from right) with his prime ministers (left to right), [[Michael Joseph Savage|Michael Savage]], [[Joseph Lyons]], [[Stanley Baldwin]], [[William Lyon Mackenzie King|William L.M. King]], and [[J. B. M. Hertzog|James B.M. Hertzog]], during the [[1937 Imperial Conference|Imperial Conference]], April 1937]]

At the 1932 [[British Empire Economic Conference]], delegates from the United Kingdom, led by [[Stanley Baldwin]] (then [[Lord President of the Council]]),<ref name=Kaufman976>{{citation| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HbBbn3x7PZsC| last1=Kaufman| first1=Will| last2=Macpherson| first2=Heidi Slettedahl| title=Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History| page=976| publisher=ABC-CLIO| year=2005| isbn=9781851094318| access-date=5 November 2015}}</ref> hoped to establish a system of [[free trade]] within the British Commonwealth, to promote unity within the British Empire and to assure Britain's position as a world power. The idea was controversial, as it pitted proponents of imperial trade with those who sought a general policy of trade liberalisation with all nations. The dominions, particularly Canada, were also adamantly against dispensing with their import tariffs,<ref name=NA>{{citation| url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/policy-protectionism-imperial-preference.htm| publisher=National Archives| title=The Cabinet Papers 1915–1986 > Policy, protectionism and imperial preference| access-date=4 November 2015| ref={{harvid|National Archives|2015}} }}</ref> which "dispelled any romantic notions of a 'United Empire'."<ref name=Kaufman976/> The meeting did produce a five-year [[trade agreement]] based upon a policy, first conceived in the 1900s,<ref>{{harvnb| National Archives| 2015| loc=[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/help/glossary-i.htm#imperial_preference Glossary]}}</ref> of [[Imperial Preference]]: the countries retained their import tariffs, but lowered these for other Commonwealth countries.<ref name=NA/><ref>{{citation| url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperial-preference| title=Imperial Preference| encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica| access-date=4 November 2015}}</ref>

During his tenure as Governor General of Canada, [[Lord Tweedsmuir]] urged the organisation of [[1939 royal tour of Canada|a royal tour]] of the country by King George VI, so that he might not only appear in person before his people, but also personally perform constitutional duties and pay a [[state visit]] to the United States as [[king of Canada]].<ref name=LAC>{{cite web| url=http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/king/023011-1070.06-e.html| last=Library and Archives Canada| authorlink=Library and Archives Canada| title=The Royal Tour of 1939| publisher=Queen's Printer for Canada| access-date=6 May 2009| url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091030064730/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/king/023011-1070.06-e.html| archive-date=30 October 2009}}</ref> While the idea was embraced in Canada as a way to "translate the Statute of Westminster into the actualities of a tour", throughout the planning of the trip that took place in 1939, the British authorities resisted at numerous points the idea that the King be attended by his Canadian ministers instead of his British ones.<ref name=Parl>{{cite journal| last=Galbraith| first=William| title=Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1939 Royal Visit| journal=Canadian Parliamentary Review| volume=12| issue=3| year=1989| url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=130&art=820| access-date=6 May 2009| archive-url=https://archive.today/20121205052132/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=130&art=820| archive-date=5 December 2012| url-status=dead}}</ref> The Canadian prime minister (still Mackenzie King) was ultimately the minister in attendance, and the King did in public throughout the trip ultimately act solely in his capacity as the Canadian monarch. The status of the Crown was bolstered by Canada's reception of George VI.<ref name=LAC/>
[[File:CommonwealthPrimeMinisters1944.jpg|thumb|left|The prime ministers of five Commonwealth countries at the 1944 [[Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting|Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference]]; from left to right: [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]] (Canada), [[Jan Smuts]] (South Africa), [[Winston Churchill]] (United Kingdom), [[Peter Fraser]] (New Zealand) and [[John Curtin]] (Australia)]]

When the [[Second World War]] began, there was some uncertainty in the dominions about the ramifications of Britain's declaration of war against [[Nazi Germany]]. Australia and New Zealand had not yet adopted the Statute of Westminster; the Australian prime minister, [[Robert Menzies]], considered the government bound by the British declaration of war,<ref>{{cite book| last=Hasluck| first=Paul| title=The Government and the People, 1939–1941| url=https://archive.org/details/governmentpeople0000hasl| url-access=registration| publisher=Australian War Memorial| year=1952| location=Canberra| pages=[https://archive.org/details/governmentpeople0000hasl/page/149 149–151]| isbn=9780642993670}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/wardeclared/| title=Menzies' announcement of the declaration of war| publisher=Department of Veterans Affairs| access-date=26 June 2013| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080403003441/http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/wardeclared/| archive-date=3 April 2008| url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=Boyce27>{{Harvnb| Boyce| 2008| p=27}}</ref> while New Zealand coordinated a declaration of war to be made simultaneously with Britain's.<ref>{{Cite book| last=Monckton-Arundell| first=George| authorlink=George Monckton-Arundell, 8th Viscount Galway| year=1949| publication-date=4 September 1939| contribution=Documents Relating to New Zealand's Participation in the Second World War 1939–45 > 9&nbsp;– The Governor-General of New Zealand to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs| contribution-url=https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-1Doc-c1-9.html| editor-last=Historical Publications Branch| title=The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–1945| volume=1| location=Wellington| publisher=Victoria University of Wellington| url=https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-1Doc-c1-9.html| access-date=6 May 2009}}</ref> As late as 1937, some scholars were still of the mind that, when it came to declarations of war, if the King signed, he did so as king of the empire as a whole; at that time, [[William Paul McClure Kennedy]] wrote: "in the final test of sovereignty—that of war—Canada is not a sovereign state... and it remains as true in 1937 as it was in 1914 that when the Crown is at war, Canada is legally at war,"<ref name="Kennedy1938">{{cite book|author=William Paul McClure Kennedy|authorlink=William Paul McClure Kennedy|title=The Constitution of Canada, 1534–1937: An Introduction to Its Development, Law and Custom|url=https://archive.org/details/constitutionofca0000kenn|url-access=registration|year=1938|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=[https://archive.org/details/constitutionofca0000kenn/page/540 540–541]}}</ref> and, one year later, [[Arthur Berriedale Keith]] argued that "issues of war or neutrality still are decided on the final authority of the British Cabinet."<ref>{{Cite book| last=Keith| first=A. Berriedale| title=The Dominions as Sovereign States| url=https://archive.org/details/dominionsassover0000keit| url-access=limited| publisher=Macmillan| year=1938| location=London| page=[https://archive.org/details/dominionsassover0000keit/page/203 203]}}</ref> In 1939, Canada and South Africa made separate proclamations of war against Germany a few days after the UK's. Their example was followed more consistently by the other realms as further war was declared against Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland and Japan.<ref name=Heard/> Ireland remained neutral,<ref name=Boyce27/> "shattering the illusion of imperial unity."<ref name=Murphy31>{{harvnb| Murphy| 2013| p=31}}</ref> At the war's end, it was said by F.R. Scott that "it is firmly established as a basic constitutional principle that, so far as relates to Canada, the King is regulated by Canadian law and must act only on the advice and responsibility of Canadian ministers."<ref>{{Harvnb| Scott| 1944| p=152}}</ref>
[[File:King George VI watching an Australian soldier assemble a machine gun.JPG|thumb|King [[George VI]] (standing centre) observes an Australian soldier assembling a machine gun while blindfolded, July 1940.]]

The war had strained the alliance among the Commonwealth countries, which had been noted by the King. The Prime Minister of Australia, [[John Curtin]], had stated in December 1941 "that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs about our traditional links of kinship with Britain." The Parliament of South Africa voted on 14 January 1942 on a motion proposing the country become a republic and leave the Commonwealth. British Prime Minister [[Winston Churchill]] was told "His Majesty is genuinely alarmed at the feeling, which appears to be growing in Australia and may well be aggravated by further reverses in the Far East. He very much hopes, therefore, that it may be possible to adopt as soon as possible some procedure which will succeed in arresting these dangerous developments without impairing the efficiency of the existing machinery."<ref name=Murphy31/>

===Post-war evolution===
[[File:Westminster - The Mall - geograph.org.uk - 7485419.jpg|thumb|The flags of some of the Commonwealth '''realms''' (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK) line the Mall shortly before Coronation Day, 2023]]
Within three years following the end of the Second World War, [[Dominion of India|India]], [[Dominion of Pakistan|Pakistan]] and [[Dominion of Ceylon|Ceylon]] became independent dominions within the Commonwealth. India would soon move to a republican form of government. Unlike in Ireland and Burma, there was no desire on the part of India to leave the Commonwealth, prompting a [[Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting|Commonwealth Conference]] and the [[London Declaration]] in April 1949, which entrenched the idea that republics be allowed in the Commonwealth so long as they recognised King George VI as [[Head of the Commonwealth]] and the "symbol of the free association of its independent member nations".<ref name=Smith>{{cite journal| last=de Smith| first=S. A.| authorlink=Stanley Alexander de Smith|date=July 1949| title=The London Declaration of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, April 28, 1949| journal=The Modern Law Review| volume=12| issue=3| pages=351–354| jstor=1090506| doi=10.1111/j.1468-2230.1949.tb00131.x| doi-access=free}}</ref> [[Pakistan]] became a republic in 1956.

As these constitutional developments were taking place, the dominion and British governments became increasingly concerned with how to represent the more commonly accepted notion that there was no distinction between the sovereign's role in the United Kingdom and his or her position in any of the dominions. Thus, at the 1948 Prime Ministers' Conference the term ''dominion'' was avoided in favour of ''Commonwealth country'', to avoid the subordination implied by the older designation.<ref>{{cite book| last=Statistics New Zealand| title=New Zealand Official Yearbook 2000| publisher=David Bateman| location=Auckland| page=55}}</ref>

===Second Elizabethan era===
{{anchor|From Queen Elizabeth II's accession}}
[[File:British Empire in February 1952.svg|thumb|Commonwealth realms at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth II's reign<br />{{legend|#ff0000|United Kingdom}}
{{legend|#800000|Colonies, protectorates and mandates}}
{{legend|#ff80c0|Dominions/realms}}]]

[[File:2023-05-06 Coronation JPP-2058 (52876939324).jpg|thumb|The [[Gold State Coach]] flanked by representatives of the armed forces of the realms during the Coronation Procession of [[King Charles III]], 2023<ref>{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230506151626/https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/05/the-army-ready-for-its-role-in-the-coronation-procession/|archive-date=6 May 2023|url=https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/05/the-army-ready-for-its-role-in-the-coronation-procession/|title=The Army ready for its role in the Coronation Procession|date=6 May 2023|work=The British Army}}</ref>]]

The Commonwealth's prime ministers discussed the matter of the new monarch's title, with St. Laurent stating at the [[1953 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference]] that it was important to agree on a format that would "emphasise the fact that the Queen is Queen of Canada, regardless of her sovereignty over other Commonwealth countries."<ref name=HCUK/> The result was a new ''[[Royal Style and Titles Act]]'' being passed in each of the seven realms then existing (excluding [[Dominion of Pakistan|Pakistan]]), which all identically gave formal recognition to the separateness and equality of the countries involved, and replaced the phrase "British Dominions Beyond the Seas" with "Her Other Realms and Territories", the latter using the word ''realm'' in place of ''dominion''. Further, at her coronation, Elizabeth II's oath contained a provision requiring her to promise to govern according to the rules and customs of the realms, naming each one separately.

The change in perspective was summed up by [[Patrick Gordon Walker]]'s statement in the [[British House of Commons]]: "We in this country have to abandon... any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms and to the Commonwealth as a whole."<ref name="Bogdanor"/> In the same period, Walker also suggested to the British parliament that the Queen should annually spend an equal amount of time in each of her realms. [[John Grigg|Lord Altrincham]], who in 1957 criticised Queen Elizabeth II for having a [[Court (royal)|court]] that encompassed mostly Britain and not the Commonwealth as a whole,<ref>{{cite book |last=Pimlott |first=Ben |authorlink=Ben Pimlott |url=https://archive.org/details/queenelizabethii0000piml_c9b6/page/280/mode/2up |title=The Queen |publisher=HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-00-711436-8 |location=New York |page=280 |url-access=registration}}</ref> was in favour of the idea, but it did not attract wide support.<ref>{{Harvnb|Boyce|2008|pp=9–10}}</ref> Another thought raised was that viceregal appointments should become trans-Commonwealth; the governor-general of Australia would be someone from South Africa, the governor-general of Ceylon would come from New Zealand, and so on. The prime ministers of Canada and Australia, [[John Diefenbaker]] and [[Robert Menzies]], respectively, were sympathetic to the concept, but, again, it was never put into practice.<ref>{{Harvnb| Boyce| 2008| p=11}}</ref>

On 6 July 2010, Elizabeth II addressed the United Nations in New York City as queen of 16 Commonwealth realms.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Speechesandarticles/2010/AddresstotheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly6July2010.aspx |publisher=Royal Household |title=Address to the United Nations General Assembly |date=6 July 2010 |access-date=6 July 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100711003016/http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Speechesandarticles/2010/AddresstotheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly6July2010.aspx |archive-date=11 July 2010 }}</ref> The following year, [[Portia Simpson-Miller]], the [[Prime Minister of Jamaica]], spoke of a desire to make that country a republic,<ref>{{cite news|title=Jamaica plans to become a republic|url=http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=702384&vId=|access-date=31 December 2011|newspaper=Sky News Australia|date=31 December 2011|archive-date=12 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112093955/http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=702384&vId=|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Jamaica to break links with Queen, says Prime Minister Simpson Miller|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16449969|access-date=8 January 2012|newspaper=BBC News|date=6 January 2012}}</ref> while [[Alex Salmond]], the [[First Minister of Scotland]] and leader of the [[Scottish National Party]] (which favours [[Scottish independence]]), stated an independent Scotland "would still share a monarchy with&nbsp;... the UK, just as&nbsp;... 16 other{{sic}} Commonwealth countries do now."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2012/feb/scottish-independence-good-england |last=Salmond |first=Alex |authorlink=Alex Salmond |title=Scottish independence "good" for England |publisher=Scottish National Party |access-date=16 February 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216021559/http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2012/feb/scottish-independence-good-england |archive-date=16 February 2012 }}</ref> [[Dennis Canavan]], leader of [[Yes Scotland]], disagreed and said a separate, post-independence referendum should be held on the matter.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-call-for-vote-on-monarchy-1-3018623| last=Barnes| first=Eddie| title=Scottish independence: Call for vote on monarchy| date=29 July 2013| newspaper=The Scotsman| access-date=16 August 2013}}</ref>

Following the [[Perth Agreement]] of 2011, the Commonwealth realms, in accordance with convention, together engaged in a process of amending the common line of succession according to each country's constitution, to ensure the order would continue to be identical in every realm. In legislative debates in the United Kingdom, the term ''Commonwealth realm'' was employed, but, it remained unused in any law.<ref>{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=United Kingdom |chapter-url = https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130122/debtext/130122-0001.htm |title=House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Jan 2013 (pt 0001)| house=House of Commons| date=22 January 2013| column-188| speaker=Chloe Smith| position=Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office}}</ref><ref>{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=United Kingdom |chapter-url = https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130122/debtext/130122-0002.htm#column_211|title=House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Jan 2013 (pt 0001)| house=House of Commons|date=22 January 2013| column=211| speaker=[[Nick Clegg]]|position=Deputy Prime Minister}}</ref>