Alternative History
Register
Advertisement

Trade links[]

Is this idea an extension of the discussion that occurred on the OBN talk page?? Verence71 16:29, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

No, I think this page predates the OBN by several months - it's about the continuation of the OTL Commonwealth. I think we mentioned it a few months ago about joining it, considering that we would have to surrender our sovereignity somewhat to King Andrew, making people like Queen Anne and King William suzerain-monarchs. But yeah, I guess that this idea could be somehow incorporated into the trade discussion, though I think right now we should stick with what we have down already (a trade route solely from New Britain to Old Britain) rather than to anywhere else we'd find Commonwealth members. Fegaxeyl 16:38, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that could be a good idea. It wasn't why it was created. It was created to bring King Andrew into closer contact with his de facto dominions. But the Commonwealth could ideally be the perfect forum in which these conversations could be held. The base of operations should be moved if that is the case to some neutral area like Canada. Having it in New Britain or any of the British nations could be divisive and the West African Union is hardly a monarchist nation. Mumby 16:43, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

There might be a perception in the OBN states that joining any renewed Commonwealth would be putting themselves under the control of New Britain and that wouldn't go down too well Verence71 19:57, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could be seen by the oh-so-patriotic Essex-Woodbridge-East British triumvirate as the next step in showing their 'Britishness'. You're right in saying that they could be seeing themselves as surrendering authority to the New British. Then again, to your average live-to-eat Old British citizen, as long as it brings in food and the tools to help grow more food, I'm sure it won't be seen as too much of a problem. Really, post-Doomsday, everyone will be looking for as much food as possible. A community of nations as diverse as the Commonwealth - if it included the OBN states - would be able to share resources and bring mutual assistance, even if it is technically subservient to New Britain; surely a small price to pay in return for a more-or-less stable network that can provide you with everything you need? Indeed, we'd be forging a power block of our own - certainly not enough to raise two fingers at the ANZC (unless saying 'peace'), but enough to guarantee mutua; assistance in an economic or military crisis. Fegaxeyl 20:52, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well as long it was made clear that joining the Commonwealth would not mean a surrender of political independence and King Andy was treated as a mere figurehead Verence71 21:01, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

This resurgent Commonwealth could bring Africa and Britain onto the global scene in their own power bloc that could certainly challneg at least small regional powers. Mumby 18:02, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic islands[]

Tristan da Cunha and St. Helena are not "fully sovereign states," yet have been listed here for a long time. I tried to explain the discrepancy at Tristan Da Cunha & Gough Island (1983: Doomsday)#Foreign relations, but I'm curious if the other editors accept this explanation. Benkarnell 14:35, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'll note that it doesn't actually say anything about independence being a condition. As autonomous areas of the Kingdom, they are well able to hold some sort of membership. Parts of Britain otl, like Bermuda, have something similar to this. They aren't members, though should be, but participate independently in Commonwealth matters. Explanation works. Lordganon 21:38, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

No, it does say that members must be "fully sovereign states." IMO that could be changed in the post-DD world, where I would think they would have to be less picky. Benkarnell 05:42, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

And you should look into that a teensy bit more. "Fully Sovereign State" does not mean mean independence, necessarily. Lordganon 07:21, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake. Yes it does. Benkarnell 14:03, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

And, I'm telling you: look into it more. It does not mean that. Seriously, go an look at its definitions, and what the governments of these blasted islands are set up as. <hits head on wall> Lordganon 14:20, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Ganon, I'm not stupid. All of us who aren't you are not as stupid as you think we are. If there is something you feel I'm missing in the terms, try explaining your point of view, the way people do when they respect each other, instead of superciliously sending me off to do my homework. That's what the "for heaven's sake" was about. You just can't seem to disagree with someone without questioning their intelligence or worse.
Regarding the matter at hand, the New British dependencies, they are the same because these are dependent territories, not sovereign or independent. They follow the exact pattern of the old Crown Colonies/Overseas Territories, which also were not sovereign, or independent. I should know because I'm the one who wrote the page on the "blasted island". You can get your head out of the wall. Benkarnell 05:04, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Since when do I say that any of you are stupid? <beats head on wall>

I shouldn't have to "explain" anything when had you bothered to look at in on wikipedia you would have got the point. If you can't do something that simple, it is not my problem.

But, since you're going to act like that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

And, to compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_dependency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-governing_colony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories

They are "sovereign." Fully so. Independence is NOT the same thing as being sovereign.

Lordganon 07:07, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'll say this again, Ganon. The way to discuss something is not to, once again, insult me for being (yes) ignorant, unintelligent, and (now) lazy. Saying "Look it up on Wikipedia" is not collaborating, and it is not persuading. It's a way to tell me I'm ignorant and need to get an education before I can hope to discuss things with you. It's poor collaboration and poor leadership.
I know what sovereignty means. I wanted you to explain the definition you are using, since there are many. In other words, I had wanted to have a discussion, but your only interest was in having a fight. Those links hardly give an umambiguous definition (they give several overlapping and competing ones), and in fact the first one (for "comparison") neither states nor implies that dependencies constitute sovereign states.
But more importantly, Ganon, please look at what happened here. This discussion is about, essentially, the meaning of one word that Mumby wrote. There is no dispute over content. It is the epitome of a mundane discussion of semantics. Here's how you handled it:
  1. You took a word whose meaning continues to be debated, discussed, and disagreed-upon by professional academics, and chose to take the position that your own definition was the only correct one.
  2. At the first sign of disagreement, you questioned my intelligence for disagreeing. ("And you should look into that a teensy bit more." Yes, it's a dig.)
  3. One post later, you lost your temper.
And this is exactly your M.O. You enter discussions, fuel them into arguments, blow them out of all proportion, and play the victim when called out ("Since when do I say that any of you are stupid? <beats head on wall>"). If you weren't a top admin, this would be called trolling. It's simply exhausting. It's the reason for all my recent spells of inactivity: dealing with these constant fights you instigate just drains all the fun out of participating in this wiki. Benkarnell 01:26, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I'll settle this, by saying when I wrote that, I meant 'fully sovereign' to mean independent nations with complete control over their affairs. The New British dependencies should not be there, as they rely on New Britain and have no control over their foreign affairs. Mumby 17:33, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Bob.

Ben, I never said any such thing. Rather, knowing that you are in fact, intelligent I assumed I wouldn't have to lead you around like a child to easily found information. You'll have to beg my pardon on that, then, if your reaction is going to be that I called you "stupid."

Lordganon 08:50, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

application to join[]

As long as this is a similar set up the OTL commonwealth the Cleveland and Northumbria would like to join the Commonwealth, as long as they don't have to accept King Andrew as their supreme leader--Smoggy80 18:59, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Adoption request[]

I should like to request adoption of this page for expanding it - message also left on VENEZUELA's page (I assume theyr'e the official parent user. Bryce3 (talk) 17:36, March 6, 2016 (UTC)

Well if no further objections, im going to expandBryce3 (talk) 17:37, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

Also posted on FB group:

Do you think anyone would be opposed if i went ahead and said New Britain and King Andrew have formally proposed the creation of a New Commonwealth, and invite the former members to join. A large number of former commonwealth members would join, including all non-CA British nations, but with the notable and somewhat embarrassing absence of CANZ. If nations do affirm they would like to rejoin, where would be a good location for the HQ? Maybe somewhere in Old Britain, New Britain, or even Canada, as there is a large number of survivor states there

 Bryce3 (talk) 15:08, April 27, 2016 (UTC)

"British"[]

As a revival of the old Commonwealth, it's odd to see the word "British" added to the name when it has, if anything, even less direct connection with Britain and British identity than before. On a practical level the name would seem to be a distraction, it would serve to discourage some nations from joining. To me this is a relic of some of the British Empire nostalgia that attended earlier versions of New Britain and I'd advocate just going back to the old name Commonwealth of Nations. False Dmitri (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking further, I found that the page was moved for very questionable out-of-universe reasons, explained at User talk:Mumby#Commonwealth of Nations. I've simply undone that move. False Dmitri (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

New Members[]

Three main items I wanted to bring up:

The Guyana Cooperative page has for a long time now listed the GC as being an observer member of the Commonwealth. To fit it into compliance with the Commonwealth's canonical rules, I'm going to make a revision on the Guyana page to say that it happened after the 2020 retirement of strongman Desi Bouterse (due to the Commonwealth demanding a certain amount of liberalization), as well as this fitting it into the GC's general survival strategy of trying to build stronger international ties.

Secondly, does anyone think that Australia-New Zealand should be a member? They were a key member of the pre-Doomsday Commonwealth, and although they're their own superpower at this point in the timeline, I think a strong case could be made that the deep cultural and political ties between the ANZC and the rest of the old Commonwealth merit the possibility of their joining the renewed version.

Third: are there any other nations that theoretically could or should join up with the CON by the early 2020's?

GryffindorKrypton (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)GryffindorKrypton

Advertisement