Talk:Real union

Term usage in English

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have never heard these terms in conjuction with each other in the English language in an Encyclopedia article before. It sounds awkward and "foreign" to my ear. Is this an enclyclopedic article (haven't seen this in any other English encyclopedia), or a simple violation of WP:OR? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Time to do some reading. May I suggest one of several hundred books using this term? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. If I had my druthers, I'd become a "perpetual" student and have more time for reading. Unfortunately the realities of my work limit my ability to do so. Glad I can count on your kind efforts to set me straight. Do try to be a little more polite though. It might be hard for you to do so, but you may have have noticed my recent attempts to be more polite too. Can you give me an example where the Kalmar Union and the Lublin Union are called by this term (Real union). Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Try [1] and [2].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Although your Kalmar Union links are weak and interelated to the Lithuanian-Polish "real union", they are nonetheless appreciated. I was a little dismayed over the first link, where the Slavic Review, pg. 443, claimed that Poland "forced the so-called real union" upon Lithuania, and that this is well known. Seems improbable that Poland could behave in such a manner regarding Lithuania. Did that strike you as a little odd too? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Modern Times

• Does the fact that Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom have the same monarch count as a real union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.184.167 (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NO. They don't share politcal institutions.94.145.236.194 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I forgot to add the following: Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis . 139.168.184.167 (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

vague influence

Unlike the personal union, the real one almost exclusively brought about a downfall of sovereignty of the politically weaker constituent. That was the case with Lithuania and Scotland which came under the influence of much bigger and stronger neighbors, Poland and England respectively, with whom each of them had shared a personal union previously.

The personal union of England and Scotland began in 1603, with formal political union in 1707. The above passage seems to say that a distinct period of "real union" began sometime between those dates. Can someone clarify? —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no clarification and this hasn’t been cited adequately. The situation 1603-1707 is usually cited as a classic case of a personal union, and Scotland had its own parliament and other institutions throughout. The situation changed in 1707 but this was certainly a political union, even more so than today (since there is now devolution). With nearly a decade of no response on this point, I am editing it accordingly. Harsimaja (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Prussia & the German Empire

Wouldn't the union between the Kingdom of Prussia and the German Empire count as a real union? When Wilhelm II was debating to abdicate the throne, he asked if it be possible to abdicate the imperial German crown and retain his royal Prussian one, but was told it was not possible as the crowns are linked. In addition, the Minister-President of Prussia was ex officio the Imperial Chancellor for the Empire's whole duration. Please correct me if I have made a wrongful assumption. Conner Neu (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)