From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Commonwealth and Empire
Re this, where do you get the 1901 date from? The death of Queen Victoria? I was going by the Commonwealth of Nations article, which mentions 1926 and 1931 as the formal dates. I agree though, that this was a gradual change. Earlier in this article, the British Empire is mentioned ("The grounds were assigned to the United Kingdom in perpetuity by King Albert I of Belgium in recognition of the sacrifices made by the British Empire in the defence and liberation of Belgium during the war."). The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was not renamed from Imperial War Graves Commission until 1960! World War I texts often refer to both Commonwealth and Empire soldiers, though I suspect (with no sources to back me up) that Empire is more common. Many memorials probably focus more on Empire than Commonwealth. For example, La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial is described on its CWGC website page as being "carved with the coats of arms of the Empire." So what should be done? Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Carcharoth! 1901 comes from the establishment of Australia as an independent entity - it's at that time that publications start stopping (if you see what I mean) using "Greater Britain" as a term for the (white) Dominions and start referring to them as "The British Commonwealth". The name was established by the first war, although I think you're probably right and 1926 could be the first legal use of the term.
- I've tried - probably without much luck! - to be consistent in all these articles memorials and cemeteries articles, referring to Empire when talking about what's carved on stones or written in registers at the time, but using Commonwealth when referring to the troops and the dead themselves. This is what the CWGC itself does, using Empire in its historical place but Commonwealth to refer to what is being commemorated now.
- This is probably the CWGC using weasel-words to avoid using Empire, with its pejorative overtones, and keeping all the Commonwealth on side! Whether it's right to support that, I don't know. But since the CWGC is the major source for all these articles, with other sources feeding from it, following their practice seemed the best thing to do. If nothing else I can hide behind it being what the source says and therefore what policy says! :o)
- It's up to you: if you think Commonwealth is wrong in this context, or that I'm wrong, or that the source is (as I say) using weasel-words, then you can change the article(s) accordingly and I won't complain. I don't agree, obviously, but I'm open to being persuaded. Cheers! ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest that what you've said above should be added, with sources, to both Commonwealth of Nations and British Empire. That should help to make things clearer for anyone who follows the links. Possibly a discreet notice explaining the dual use of the terms could be added to memorial and CWGC articles, in much the same way as the later Ptolemies have this: "Numbering the Ptolemies is a modern invention; the Greeks distinguished them by nickname. The number given here is the present consensus; but there has been some disagreement about which Ptolemies should be counted as reigning. Older sources may give a number one higher or lower, but the same epithet.". Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hokay! I'll need to source my 1901 thing - I've got the 1901 Whitaker's Almanack here somewhere (possibly propping up a table leg... don't ask) which is where the British Commonwealth thing comes from IIRC. I'm away this weekend, but I'll see what I can dig up next week and we'll find a working, short explanation if one exists. Otherwise, we'll find a compromise. Or one of us will give up :o) ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
