Talk:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927

Constitutional significance of the Act

"Its second, and more important function, was ... to replace the concept of a single crown ruling the British Empire with multiple crowns."

This notion is also mentioned at Monarchy in Canada, and elaborated later in the present article, but the original documents don't seem to bear it out.

The 1927 Act and Royal Proclamation both refer to the Crown in singular. The change in title is due primarily to the changed status of Ireland; the "of" in "... and of the British Dominions" makes clear in the original title that the British Dominions were not part of the UK. This "of" is not necessary in the new title, which grants Ireland the same semantic status as the British Dominions, but it doesn't appear to me to change the status of the latter.

The 1931 Statute of Westminster also refers in singular: "the members of the British Commonwealth ... are united by a common allegiance to the Crown." Also, in stating that "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom" it does not manifestly allow for those Styles and Titles to be different in different realms, only that every Parliament must approve any changes.

The 1953 Act (UK) and corresponding Royal Proclamation again refer in singular to "the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth". The equivalent statute in Canada establishes the following Royal Styles and Titles: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

Of course, parts of the former Empire have become increasingly independent of the UK: the process started well before 1927 and continued well afterwards. The most significant political change was probably in 1931. The most significant impact on royal titles appears to me to have been in 1953, not 1927: the 1953 Acts depart from the 1931 procedure, because each Act was approved only in its own Parliament, and the Acts are not the same. But note that the UK wording includes Canada under "other Realms" and the Canadian wording includes the UK explicitly. Even in 1953 it does not seem to me true to say that there were multiple crowns. In Justice Rouleau's judgement at the Ontario Superior Court in the recent O'Donohue case (challenging the applicability of the Act of Settlement in Canada), he cites Canadian Prime Minister St. Laurent from Hansard in the 1953 debate: "Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. ... It is not a separate office, it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign". Rouleau also argues from the above preamble to the Statute of Westminster that the rules for succession must be unanimous: these arguments applied to the Royal Styles and Titles suggest that the Statute of Westminster, far from dividing the crown, in fact strengthened its symbolic unity (until 1953), whilst also downgrading the pre-eminence of the UK.

It remains to be seen, of course, what changes may occur around the time of the next coronation.

Perhaps a constitutional historian could comment further on the origins of the "multiple crowns" idea. Should we separate the ideas of the crown as a unifying role in the Commonwealth and as a constitutional player in each separate realm? But the division of the latter was effected by the Statute of Westminster (amongst much other legislation, such as the British North America Acts), not the Titles Act.

G Colyer 02:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another subtlety is that HM the Queen in Right of Canada and HM the Queen in Right of Ontario (for instance) can act to some extent independently; yet Ontario is not (I think) a separate "realm".

G Colyer 02:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been involved in drafting the current article but the "multiple crowns" claim comes from another editor. I'm far from an expert but I've been a little worried about this for some time because there seems to be contradictory information in different articles, some claiming 1927 as the significant date and others 1953. The theory about multiple crowns is actually pretty radical because it seems to amount to a claim that before 1927 the Commonwealth was one kingdom but afterwards it was a collection of separate kingdoms in personal union (of the kind found in England & Scotland from 1603-1707). It seems a bit hard to believe that such an obscure act would have such radical implications and, If I understand you right, you seem to be saying that the Commonwealth is still one kingdom (or under one crown at least) even today.

There does seem to have been some important constitutional change in 1927 vis-a-vis the monarch and its relation to the Irish Free State. Various articles claim that it was by virtue of the 1927 Act that the Free State assumed the right to choose the governor-general, exclusively advise the King and receive ambassadors. It also seems that, in all of the realms, around 1927 the office of High Commissioner was established as a separate position from Governor-General. So my questions would be:

1. By virtue of what did these changes occur in the Free State? Was it because, as you say, the Act "grants Ireland the same semantic status as the British Dominions"?
2. Did the appointment of High Commissioners have anything to do with the Act or did it just, perhaps, come out of a separate agreement reached in the Imperial conference?

I think we need to appeal to proper authorities on this. So far as I'm aware none of the articles that currently make the "multiple crowns" claim cite any sources to back it up. But can you cite any academic texts in support of your own interpretation of the 1927 Act? Iota 15:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The actual (not merely semantic) status of Ireland had already changed in 1922. Perhaps envoys are appointed by Prerogative outside the ambit of Parliament. Note that according to King-Byng Affair the Governor General refused (in 1925 or 1926) to refer the crisis to the British government, which he represented as well as the King. So there was already some notion of the separation of the Crown's constitutional roles in Britain and Canada. This is likely to have been true in any case since 1867 or even earlier.

I'm not claiming that there was only one kingdom, at any time in the 20th century. It seems clear that sharing the same monarch does not imply a single kingdom: consider England and Scotland before the Act of Union. In the present context, the last "of" in the old title indicates that the British Dominions were not, even previously, part of the "United Kingdom". In the new title, the omission of this "of" if anything emphasizes the unity of the Crown. There is certainly no duplication of "King", and no change from "King of" to "King in" (a distinction I've seen made somewhere).

I agree that we need to appeal to the proper authorities. Who are they? I can't cite any further references myself. For information, here is a link to the O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003 CanLII 41404 (ON S.C.) judgement. G Colyer 20:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's my proposed course of action. I've put pointers to this discussion at Talk:King-Byng Affair, Talk:Nickle Resolution and Talk:Monarchy in Canada. Iota, your comment above suggests that you know about other pages, which refer to 1953; perhaps you could put similar pointers on any relevant ones of those. Then, if no further contributions happen here within the next couple of weeks, I suggest some bold editing to reword some of these references in a slightly more conservative fashion. G Colyer 13:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a definitive answer, it's a matter of interpretation and shifting interpretation at that. I believe Canadian PM St. Laurent said in a House of Commons debate in the 1950s that Canada is headed by the British crown (and this was echoed a year or so ago by a divisional court judge in Ontario ruling on a suit by Tony O'Donohue which claimed the Act of Settlement was in violation of Canada's Charter of Rights). Current constitutional theory seems to prefer the "multiple crown" interpretation. Without any rulings by higher courts, however, it's all just talk. AndyL 14:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References (preferably authoritative) for that "current constitutional theory" are what we're looking for, if you can provide any. It doesn't have to be definitive, just documented. G Colyer 23:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm really going to help the situation here, but, as far as I understand it, the 1931 Statute of Westminster granted complete political autonomy to the governments of the Commonwealth Realms, but their Constitutions remained Acts of the Westminster Parliament. Thus Canada, for example, now had complete control over its own domestic and international affairs, but could not ratify any constitutional changes without the permission of the British parliament.

This would mean that while the Canadian federal and provincial parliaments now operated with more sovereignty under the Crown in Right of Canada, and the Crown in Right of (insert province), constitutionally (and thus ultimately) the Crown remained British. So, PM St. Laurent was correct in stating, at that time, that Elizabeth II was Queen of Canada because she was Queen of the UK.

But that was in 1953. Since then every Commonwealth Realm has patriated its constitution from the UK-- Canada did so in 1982. This meant that all the rules and laws regarding the Crown and monarchy were inherited from Britain and became Canadian constitutional law, making Canada a completely seperate and independent kingdom, even though it shares it's Crown. As it was explained to me, the Crown has now transcended all Realms, even the UK, and operates seperately and equally within each country. So while there is indeed one Crown, it is fragmented in its operation, and because it is shared in the manner that it is, it is not British unless one speaks of its operation in Britain, it is not Canadian unless one speaks of its operation in Canada, and so on.

While it is now completely within each Realm's power to alter their line of succession, or change the monarchy or Crown in any way in regards to their constitutions, the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which is also, I think, constitutional law, creates the convention that no Realm should do so without the agreement of the other 15.

Justice Rouleau comments about the British Crown simply reflect the fact that no proper name has been created for this pan-national institution, and that the preamble to the 1867 Constitution Act mentions the Crown of the United Kingdom.

Most of this was explained to me by Mr. Richard Toporoski, a veritable constitutional and monarchical expert-- he's also a member of the Monarchist League of Canada. I'm sure he can be contacted through the League at [1]. gbambino

Title, capitalisation, etc

I've done a few tidies (feel free to flame me on my talk page if I was Doing It Wrong(tm) ;-)), but shouldn't this be under Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 rather than Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, as per our (and the UK Parliament's, at least) standard for naming Acts? Any complaints? James F. (talk) 14:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should move the article. I think there's only one "Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act" so I'd see adding the date as unnecessary disambiguation. The full correct short title should of course be given in the first line of the text.

On a separate stylistic point, you've removed all of the commas from the short title of the act in the article. The law itself reads "This Act may be cited as the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927" (with the comma included) so surely we should go with the name the act uses to refer to itself? Iota 01:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should always include the year. We do not know if in one year or ten a new Act by this name might be passed. By then wikipedia may have 1 million or 2 million articles. It makes sense to be specific now rather than have to disambigulate a far bigger wikipedia in the future should a new Act use this name (and they might use this name to cover things like Camilla's title when her husband becomes king alongside ongoing changes in the structure of parliament. Better to be safe than curse ourselves in years to come for having to disambigulate a far bigger number of articles in a far bigger encyclopaedia. FearÉIREANN 01:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We do, in fact, always include the year, and similarly always refer to Acts as "Foo Act 1234", the modern citation form, even though the Acts themselves often.

See Talk:List of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Summary of naming conventions where I laid our conventions out after a bit of discussion a year ago or so.

It's now been 6 weeks since I suggested the move with one comment either way... I think I will probably just go ahead, then.

James F. (talk) 18:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think some writers may be reading too much significance into this act. After all, all that changed in regards to the "British Dominions Beyond the Seas" is the removal of the word "of". It wasn't until 1953 that the different commonwealth realms actually adopted different titles for the monarch and I don't see how the 1927 act can be credited with that. The changes referred to in the relationship between the King (and the UK) and the dominions seems to flow from the Imperial Conference of 1926 and the subsequent Statute of Westminster, 1931 rather than this particular act. AndyL 02:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Theorists"

This article has been quite absolute that "Constitutional theorists" unanimously credit this Act with changing the relationship between Crown and Dominions. All the British and Canadian constitutional theory I've read refer to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 or the Balfour Declaration, 1926... I've never seen this Act referred to at all. Can someone name the constitutional theorists who refer to it as crucial? It's a bit shocking to imply constitutional theorists are unanimous on this point (it would be one of the few they are unanimous on) without anyone actually being referenced. AndyL 11:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that AndyL raises this point, he may well be right. I seem to recall the Act being mentioned as influential in conjunction with the Statute of Westminster, but not as the sole cause of the modern "many crowns in one crown" status. It is certainly the Statute of Westminster which is usually more focused on. --gbambino 13:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's more logical to conclude that this act, and later the Statute of Westminster, were influenced by the Balfour Declaration rather than say the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act led to what followed. I suspect we've stated this act to be the cause when really it's part of the effect of Balfour. AndyL 13:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

original research

I've removed the following given the lack of a citation (which constitutional scholars?)

According to some constitutional theorists, a second, and more important function, was to modify the King's title, proclaiming that George V was not king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions but rather of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions. The change in the wording of the King's title is subtle, but has the effect of creating a list of nations of which he is king rather than grouping those nations all together as if under one government. In so doing, this replaced the concept of a single Imperial British Crown over the Empire with one Crown operating seperately but equally in each Realm. In this way, by means of the act, each of the Empire's Dominions became a separate kingdom. The Act was thus an important step in the evolution of the Dominions towards full independence. The full title of the Act was An Act to provide for the alteration of the Royal Style and Titles and of the Style of Parliament and for purposes incidental thereto. This change was likely a product of an agreement at the Imperial Conference of 1926 changing the relationship between Britain and the dominions as outlined in the Balfour Declaration of 1926. It was the Balfour Declaration in which it was agreed that the United Kingdom and the dominions were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations".

AndyL02:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Funny how others are criticized for removing "facts" they don't like, but you are free to do the same. But let's make one thing clear, the factual information you removed and cited as 'original research' is supported by many secondary sources as provided at Talk:Commonwealth Realm/Mediation on Crown section. Your "facts" still remain without grounds. --gbambino 16:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As discussed above, much of this information may be more appropriate at Statute of Westminster 1931, but that does not warrant its complete deletion. --gbambino 16:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the points being made, I just am unaware of anything backing them up and making them anything other than conjecture. Cite a source and it can go back in. AndyL16:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rather than trying to connect these trends (themselves certainly noteworth) with specific legislation, perhaps a whole new article "Evolution of the Commonwealth" or something, would work better. Peter Grey 16:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The removed section refers to "some constitutional theorists". I'm not aware of any constitutional theorists who actually refer to this Act or its alleged importance so if the article is going to make a point and attribute it to an authority then that authority needs to be named. So, gbambino, your task should you wish to reinstate the removed section is to identify the constiutional theorists in question so we can name them and get rid of the anonymous attribution. Not too much to ask. I'm sure you're up to the task. Andy 16:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

gbambino, given that earlier on this talk page you said

Now that AndyL raises this point, he may well be right. I seem to recall the Act being mentioned as influential in conjunction with the Statute of Westminster, but not as the sole cause of the modern "many crowns in one crown" status. It is certainly the Statute of Westminster which is usually more focused on. --gbambino 13:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a bit odd now for you to be defending a passage you had doubts about earlier. Have those doubts been resolved or did you just forget you had them?Andy 16:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And what did I say today? "As discussed above, much of this information may be more appropriate at Statute of Westminster 1931, but that does not warrant its complete deletion." Do you know how to read, or did you simply ignore it? --gbambino 17:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Complete deletion is warranted until someone can name one of the constitutional theorists who supposedly holds this view. Until then the material doesn't belong in any article, be it this one or Statute of Westminster. So go off and find a theorist who agrees with the passage. Andy 17:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Back in 1927

A lot of this material seems, well, exaggerated, and maybe a little confused. (Kind of like AndyL's "theory" about Canada accidentally turning itself into a colony.)

• One direct consequence of the change in the royal title was that the British government lost... It made an important political statement, but the only consequence in law was a change in the King's formal title.
• shattered the previous concept of the shared monarch, replacing it with... one monarch Huh?
• The government of the Irish Free State put the changes introduced by the Act into immediate effect This is unconvincing; I'm pretty sure the actions of the Irish Free State were based on the Irish Free State Act and the Statute of Westminster.
• Most Dominions were slower than the Irish Free State to respond to the constitutional changes of 1927 and 1931... Highly biased - it implies a response was needed, which mostly the dominions did not consider to be the case before India in 1947.
• An interesting consequence of the 1927 Act was that Edward VIII's abdication That can't be right - this was based on the Statute of Westminster, presumably unrelated to the royal title.
• In that year the practice was begun... In 1953 the Dominion governments agreed that the practice ... should continue Did the practice begin, or did it continue?

The act made a statement about how the British Empire was evolving, and that is noteworthy. But the other consequences seem questionable. Peter Grey 02:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. The British government was not involved in any way in the selection of the second Governor-General of the Irish Free State, James McNeill due entirely to the Act. From the Act on, the relationship between the dominion government and the monarch was direct and excluded Britain, not indirect and through the British government. So whereas legally it HMG who advised the King to appoint the first governor-general in 1922, it His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State who directly advised the King to appoint McNeill only a short time after the Act received the Royal Assent.

Secondly, the Act constitutionally replaced the concept of 'one crown, one king' with 'multiple crowns, one king' and so was used by dominions, starting with the Irish Free State, to have the King sign treaties as their own monarch. This was implemented in Ireland in 1931 when a treaty was signed personally by His Majesty as King of Ireland whereas before the Act he had been King in Ireland. In doing this he was attended by the Irish Minister for External Affairs, not a British minister (who staged a tantrum and boomed 'how dare they?' until it was pointed out by the Irish Department of External Affairs that it was as a result of the 1926 conference, implemented in the 1927 Act). The fact that each state got its own state seal was again a direct result of the Act. Prior to the Act, all states used the UK's Great Seal of the Realm, and in theory were in effect subsets of the UK with their citizens referred to as "British subjects". After 1927, each state in constitutional theory became a constitutional monarchy on its own, subject to the supremacy of UK law (in turn abolished by the Statutes of Westminster). Concepts of separate citizenship, and not just Empire-wide British citizenship, flowed directly from the 1927 Act.

Thirdly, the Irish state did put the policy into immediate effect by

• excluding the UK from any role in selecting its governor-general (1928)
• instituting a methodology by which its governor-general could accept Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall,
• having its Minister for External Affairs, Patrick McGilligan, to the fury of the British government, meet the King without any British minister present. The Irish minister met King George as King of Ireland, and as King of Ireland, based on the 1927 Act, he broke new Commonwealth ground by signing a treaty between a dominion and another state, the Portuguese Republic.

Fourthly, by creating separate crowns and separate constitutional monarchies, the issue of sucession to the multiple thrones became an issue for all the parliaments in all the dominions. How this was to be done was clarified, not initiated, in the Statutes of Westminster.

Fourthly, it is a matter of record that the Irish were far quicker than other states to use the Act. They were the first to insist on the exclusion of Britain from the selection of its governor-general before the ink was even dry on the Act. They were the first to have a one-to-one meeting between its ministers and the King, again with British ministers excluded. They were the first to insist on replacing the Great Seal of the Realm with their own state seal, the Great Seal of the Irish Free State, the first to have the king as their king sign an international treaty on their behalf, the first to have a governor-general accept Letters of Credence - Lord Stamfordham, the King's Private Secretary, was furious over that one, especially as the Irish governor-general, on his government's advice, opened the letters rather than sending them unopened to the King, as Stamfordham wanted, the first to develop the concept that its residents were its citizens and not simply citizens of the Commonwealth, etc etc etc. Other states did these years later (some waited for many years), though they were legally empowered to do so from 1927 on by this Act.

I don't think, Peter, that you grasp the significance of the Act or how it revolutionalised the position of the King with his dominions. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\^(caint) 17:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

All interesting but we really should have a source eg a constitutional theorist or historian, that can be cited. Andy 18:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Even before 1927, the Irish Free State was a special case, so it's not obvious how much can be generalized to the other Dominions. (In Canada independance was opposed so politicians hid the fact as long as possible.) Peter Grey 18:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that, at least, FearÉIREANN understands the concept of many Crowns within one, as AndyL cannot. --gbambino 18:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the only purpose of your post above was to make an ad hominem attack. I suggest you familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies on that issue. Andy 19:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone. This all makes interesting reading and I think there quite a few good points being made. If I may be so arrogant as to summarise:

• The Act is significant because it changed the status of Ireland within the Empire.
• Shortly after the Act, Ireland led the charge of dominions exerting their independence.
• The fact Ireland successfully exerted their independence can be interpretted as meaning that the Act itself divided the crown. This is supported by the apparent novelty of Ireland's actions as cited by FearÉIREANN.
• Alternatively, it can be argued that the crown had already been divided, but the other dominions had not yet chosen to exert their independence. This is supported by the fact that the Act says nothing explicitly about the crown, and the wording of the new title makes the other dominions seem more connected to the crown of Great Britain, not less.

It's kind of like having a herd of elephants who've grown up with their legs chained to pegs in the ground. When they were young they couldn't break loose, so they assume they still can't. When Ireland, a newly pegged but fully-grown elephant, is let lose, it just rips the peg out of the ground and the other elephants slowly follow realising they can do the same thing.

It becomes a philosophical question as to what point were the elephants empowered to go free. When the cage was replaced with a peg while they were still small? When they grew large enough to rip the peg out and walk off? When the Irish elephant was pegged and showed them how to do it?

Anyway for all I know I'm inventing a historical fiction here. But fundamentally I agree with those who say we should cite a credible academic source if we're going to draw a connection between this piece of legislation and the division of the crown. We also need to explain how removing the of makes any legal difference.

Ben Arnold 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Division of the crown: c.f. the Cook Islands

I find the Cook Islands an interesting case study when it comes to the question of when the dominions became independent. The Cook Islands are considered to be part of the Realm of New Zealand. The Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state of the Cook Islands. However, the Cook Islands have as much (if not more) legal independence than was granted to the New Zealand by the Statute of Westminster.

The Cooks have their own Parliament, their own Prime Minister, even their own Governor-General (called the Queen's Representative). New Zealand cannot pass laws for the Cook Islands without their permission. The Cooks are empowered to pass "external" laws. The Cooks have diplomatic relations with 18 other countries. There is a Cook Islands High Commissioner in Wellington, and a New Zealand High Commissioner resident in Rarotonga.

The only legal difference between the Cook Islands today and New Zealand in the 1970s is the division of the crown. Yet New Zealand was regarded as a sovereign nation in the 1970s and the Cook Islands is regarded as a dependent territory today. This indicates that division of the throne is a neccessary condition for independence. That begs the question, when did division of the throne occur?

Which is why this article is so interesting to me.

(The reason I say 1970s is that in 1983? a Letters Patent was issued that explicitly established the Realm of New Zealand. In 1987 the Statute of Westminster and New Zealand Constitution Act were repealed, removing the ability for the UK to legislate for New Zealand.)

Ben Arnold 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Repealed where, the UK or New Zealand? The former seems improbable in the case of the Statute of Westminster; the latter calls into question your claimed consequence. (It was a UK Act that had this effect for Canada in 1982.) G Colyer 22:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Repealed in New Zealand. In 1947 New Zealand gained the right to modify its own constitution without limitation, but the U.K. still retained the power, under the Statute of Westminster, to legislate for New Zealand with the latter's request and consent. The Constitution Act 1987 (NZ) repealed the Statute of Westminster, removing that power. 217.33.200.148 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal title

I have removed this entire section. My reason is that this has been disputed and we have no source for this assertion. Once we have an official source I am happy for it to be restored. Ben Arnold 12:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Act did not modify the King's title directly. Rather it permitted the King to do so by Royal proclamation, provided the proclamation was issued within six months. Before 1927, King George V reigned as king in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Irish Free State, South Africa, etc. Each of these states, in effect, amounted as Dominions to a subdivision of the United Kingdom. After 1927, however, he reigned as King of Australia, King of New Zealand, King of Ireland, King of South Africa, etc. The form of use in the royal title as issued by George V did not mention the Dominions by name, but referred to them as the "British Dominions beyond the Seas". Nonetheless the Act shattered the previous concept of the shared monarch, replacing it with one of multiple crowns, all worn by one monarch.

One direct consequence of the change in the royal title was that the British government lost the right to formally advise the monarch on the exercise of his or her powers in the Dominions. Rather, the government of each Dominion acquired the exclusive right to do so. This difference was significant because, by constitutional convention, the monarch must, in almost all circumstance, act in accordance with the 'advice' of his or her ministers.

; Title before : George V, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

; Title afterwards : George V, By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.

Did the Act change the name of the United Kingdom?

I think it did, by stating "(2) In every Act passed and public document issued after the passing of this Act the expression "United Kingdom" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland." [2] Pondle (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't prove it wasn't called that before. There often seems to be a time lag in changing official titles. When Ireland became a republic in 1949, nobody seems to have bothered changing the royal title officially to reflect this. That is, there doesn't seem to have been any Act of Parliament or royal proclamation to change it, though most subsequent documents did have the new form. Similarly, in 1952 the Queen was proclaimed with different titles in the various dominions, but this was only officially legalized by the Royal Titles Act 1953. And of course British monarchs usually called themselves King/Queen of Great Britain from 1604 on, though their separate kingdoms continued to give them separate titles until the union of 1707. Peter jackson (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Text rewritten

I have completely rewritten this article, mostly to remove quite a hefty chunk of text that made some rather extraordinary assertions regarding the consequences of this very simple Act.

It would appear that the effects of this Act have been confused by one or more past Wikipedia editors with the decisions of the 1926 and 1930 Imperial Conferences, the effects of the Statute of Westminster 1931, and changes made to the royal style and titles in 1953. The relatively trivial impact of the Act is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that, out of some 1200 pages, the 2nd edition (published in 1928) of Keith's standard work Responsible Government in the Dominions mentions the Act only in one paragraph buried within the preface!

The 1927 Act was passed in consequence of the 1926 Imperial Conference, which had concluded that the royal titles did not correctly reflect the altered constitutional circumstances in Ireland. Even the removed text shows that this is the only part of the royal titles that was actually changed. The Conference's conclusions were also explicitly referred to by the Home Secretary when moving the House of Commons' second reading of what would become the Act [HC Deb 09 March 1927 vol 203 cc1251-66]; this was reiterated by the India Secretary when moving the Lords' second reading [HL Deb 23 March 1927 vol 66 cc721-32].

The Act did not affect the unity of the Crown (how could it?) and is not treated by the literature as having done so; that change is dated as a principle to the 1926 Imperial Conference, and as a legal fact to the Statute of Westminster 1931.

The Act also did not affect the basis of appointment of the various Governors-General (how could it?), nor with the relations between a Governor-General, his Government, and with the United Kingdom's Government (how could it?). Those changes did not in fact require any legislative sanction, and thus never received any. Unsurprisingly, none of the British parliamentary debates relating to the Act's passage make any reference to these matters.

The removed text also makes various other unsupported assertions that are completely at variance with any of the literature. The biggest howler is probably: "Many Dominions waited until the accession of Elizabeth II in 1952 to codify their new autonomy into domestic law"!

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC).