What is the difference between a state and a commonwealth?

This has been bothering me for at least 20 years. Every time I meet someone from the four commonwealth states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) I pester him/her about what the difference is between a state and commonwealth. The most common answer is "I don't know." After that, and perhaps the right answer, is "There is no difference." If there is a difference, the writer of the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to know. That begs the follow-up question, if there isn't a difference, why do these four states still use the term? It is even on Kentucky's flag.

My best explanation is that after the Revolutionary War, the terms "state" and "commonwealth" were pretty much interchangeable. The writers of some state documents went with "state" and others "commonwealth." However, I'm of the opinion that if two words mean the exact same thing, then stop using one of them, preferably the less-used one. If I lived in one in one of the "commonwealth" states, I would refuse to call it by that term. Furthermore, the way politicians from those four states pronounce the word is always very snooty, as if a commonwealth is higher class than a state. Ted Kennedy, in particular, comes to mind.

So, somebody prove me wrong that there is ZERO difference between the two terms.

Commonwealth and State have about the same difference as the probabilities of Baccarat differ if you are playing under a chandelier versus in the general casino.

Historically there was a brief period of time where the English made a great pretense about the word having some special significance. In all practicality there is no difference between Commonwealth and State for those four states.

The courts in Massachusetts still use the term Commonwealth ... but then the courts are still to this day cried into session with the phrase Oyez, Oyez, Oyez.... Which is old French for Hear and comes from the fact that in England after the Norman conquest of 1066 the official language in the courts was French. So if American courts still use Oyez simply because English courts used it for over a hundred years, you can see that official terminology involves about as much common sense as Harrah's Comp system.

Having lived in both a state and a commonwealth, I can say there was no discernible difference in my life. It's like in New Jersey, the "County Commissioners" are known as "Freeholders", because you used to have to be a free holder of land to be on that governing body. I never thought there was anything weird about it growing up, but now apparently there is a drive to change the name to County Commissioner. yawn.

In Virginia, a commonwealth, the state game laws are incredibly complex, each county has it's own set of regulations. Just a hunch says being a commonwealth has something to do with that, some kind of autonomy by county? [I don't know]

I tried to go simple with this, so went for definitions, so Dictionary.com says

State:(sometimes initial capital letter) any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America.

Commonwealth: (initial capital letter) the official designation (rather than “State”) of four states of the U.S.: Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

This didnt help me, so I went for a general google search.

I did find the following on this site

Quote:

The fact that the four commonwealth states are indeed a state and not a souvereign unit of some kind is established by their ratification of the Constitution respective the admittance into the Union. By keeping the expression 'commonwealth' in their name the four states make a symbolic reference to commonwealth units in general, the Commonwealth of England in particular, and demonstrate their belief in that kind of political unit: the English Commonwealth was the beginning of the new era after the period of Kings, Queens and kingdoms ruling the country.

Which leads me to believe the original hypothesis of no difference but tradition is the reason.

Hope it helped.

Wiz

There is an Online etymological dictionary where you can decipher many of your linguistic puzzles. Particularly important ones like the difference between queen and quean which today are spelled the same, but have two different origins [which leads to the double meaning of the word today].

wizard: is from roughly the year 1440, "philosopher, sage," from Middle English wys "wise"
(see wise (adj.)) + -ard.
Lithuanian zynyste "magic," zynys "sorcerer," zyne "witch," all from zinoti "to know."
The ground sense is perhaps "to know the future." The meaning "one with magical power" did not emerge distinctly until circa 1550, the distinction between philosophy and magic being blurred in the Middle Ages. As a slang word meaning "excellent" it is recorded from 1922.

odds: in wagering sense, found first in Shakespeare ("2nd part of Henry IV," 1597), probably from earlier sense of amount by which one thing exceeds or falls short of another (1548), from odd , though the sense evolution is uncertain. Always treated as a singular, though obviously a plural.

commonwealth 1470: public welfare, general good" (from common + wealth); meaning "the state" is attested from 1513; applied specifically to the government of England in the period 1649-1660.

state: political organization of a country, supreme civil power, government 1530s, from other meaning of state circumstances, temporary attributes of a person or thing, conditions ; this sense grew out of the meaning condition of a country with regard to government, prosperity, etc. (late 13th century), from Latin phrases such as status rei publicæ "condition of the republic." The British North American colonies occasionally were called states as far back as 1630s. The states has been short for "the United States of America" since 1777.

Looking at one of the oldest documents in America, the Fundamental Orders of 1639 (written in Connecticut) they say
For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise ... do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth

It would seem that the words were interchangeable as far back as 1639. Neither word (in this sense) goes back before the 15th century.

Now a linguistic puzzle for you: (this is very difficult to find). Why is a clerk in the Navy called a yeoman?

A commonwealth refers to the governing of the citizens by the citizens. Alot of the commonwealth belief held up right into and thru the civil war from about the begining of the state's founding.

Technically its the state saying that it is a state of its citizens. Before the civil war the nation was a very fragmented idea.. this was the united states and it was a nation- but it took the civil war for it to become a nation and feel like one nation. Up till this time very few citizens of one state had ever been to another state. And some states that were not solid on the idea of the US Federation comming first would call themselves a commonwealth for distinguishing the idea that the state brought its citizens first. I suppose the irony in this is that half the states are considered 'northern' states- but this monocor does not apply to the modern belief of north vs south and states rights being held by southern states- back when the country was first born it was a very debated subject and the majority of the states were werry of the nation comming before its own state- this was an issue come over slowly at first before the culminations in the 1850's/1860's.

The states hold onto the name of a commonwealth as a reflection of being a state of and by its own citizens. Today the referance is a mute point as all states are just a part of the union as any other state is.

Commonwealth I believe started as an English saying and not specificly by the American founders.


No I dont have a referance to back my point- Ive just studied the civil war era and everything related to it for the past 17 years of my life and this is how Ive come across bits and pieces of information to understand the terminology of a commonwealth.

According to this about.com article, there is no difference.

But then there's Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands: they are both commonwealths, but not states.

I ALMOST Mentioned those- I actually typed it in and deleated it thinking I wwas rabit trailing by including them.

A commonwealth is a diffrence, its just a very very close synonym (sp). You can be a commonwealth and not a state as I sai da commonwealth destinguished it is a state/province/country of its citizens- a state as we know it is a state defined governing body/boundry and one of the 50 that make up the US.

A commonwealth is announcing a/the form of governance being used.

It's just history. There is no difference. They're states just like everybody else even though they try to sound better.

Now, there IS a distinction with the commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. Obviously, those are not states. So they are using the older definition of commonwealth as a common political grouping.

Quote: odiousgambit

In Virginia, a commonwealth, the state game laws are incredibly complex, each county has it's own set of regulations. Just a hunch says being a commonwealth has something to do with that, some kind of autonomy by county? [I don't know]

I recently had to do research on marriage laws in Pennsylvania. My conclusion was that each county runs their own rules, or at least their own interpretation of the state law.

At the time, I looked into the difference. I forget where I saw it, but much of the laws and services that are the responsibility of the state in 'states', are the responsibility of the counties in 'commonwealths'. And that plays into the origin of the term 'common wealth'.

Quote: teddys

They're states just like everybody else even though they try to sound better.

Hell yeah. During my research, I asked one county official if the rule she had cited is just for her county or the entire state. She was VERY put-off, to the point of being rude, that I said 'state' rather than 'commonwealth'.

Quote: FleaStiff

The courts in Massachusetts still use the term Commonwealth ... but then the courts are still to this day cried into session with the phrase Oyez, Oyez, Oyez.... Which is old French for Hear.

I thought that was Pig Latin for "Yo, Yo, Yo!"

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

Regarding the point that the counties have more power in a commonwealth than a state, I'd be interested to see some more evidence on that. Not saying it isn't true, just the skeptic in me talking.

Regarding the point that commonwealths tend to lead more towards a democracy than a republic, again, I'd all ears to more evidence. If that were the case, California should be a commonwealth, with around 100 initiatives to decide on every election, and limited power for the governor. Then again, it became at state in 1850. By that time, the term "commonwealth" had probably started to sound elitist and dated.

Regarding Puerto Rico and the Marianna Islands being commonwealths, why aren't Guam, Samoa, Palau, the Virgin Islands, etc. known as commonwealths?

Quote: Wizard

Regarding Puerto Rico and the Marianna Islands being commonwealths, why aren't Guam, Samoa, Palau, the Virgin Islands, etc. known as commonwealths?

Guam, et al are "territories." Peurto Rico was granted commonwealth status in 1952. I assume Guam et al never pushed the issue. Per wikapedia:

The Commonwealth

In 1938, Luis Muñoz Marín founded the Popular Democratic Party (PPD), which eventually proved to be the most significant political development for Puerto Rico in the twentieth century. The son of Luis Muñoz Rivera, a prestigious journalist, politician, and advocate for autonomy under both Spain and the United States, Muñoz Marín initially espoused independence and a socialist agenda of reform. He was incredibly successful in achieving control over the island's government by the mid-1940s and initiating local socioeconomic reforms. But he met congressional resistance when he attempted to gain any kind of resolution of Puerto Rico's colonial status.

Muñoz Marín devised the third "status formula"—the commonwealth—after World War II. Known in Spanish as Estado Libre Asociado (Free Associated State), it entailed the grant of greater control over local matters to Puerto Ricans. Its most evident change was to allow Puerto Ricans to elect their governor and to appoint local officials. It also provided for the enactment of a local constitution, but one subject to congressional approval. The colonial residues of commonwealth status were dramatically obvious when Congress rejected several dispositions of the Puerto Rican Bill of Rights that mandated universal education and health services because these rights were deemed too radical, even "communist," for the conservative postwar period. Finally, commonwealth status meant that island-based Puerto Ricans still could not vote in U.S. federal elections; they were and continue to be represented in Congress by a resident commissioner who can speak on their behalf but cannot vote. The situation has often been justified by appealing to the circumstance that island Puerto Ricans are not subject to federal taxes.

In 1952, Puerto Ricans went to the polls to approve their new constitution and commonwealth status. The change was consonant with both local claims for autonomy and the postwar situation, as the United States had become the leading world power and the Cold War had begun. The concession of commonwealth status persuaded the United Nations to drop Puerto Rico from its list of colonies, precluding both official UN support for its decolonization and the United States's status as a colonial power with regard to Puerto Rico. The short-lived Nationalist insurrection of 1950 was only the most dramatic resurgence of resistance at the time. Led by an aging Albizu Campos, Nationalists managed to take over some of the island's towns and attack both the governor's palace in San Juan and Blair House in Washington, D.C., in a failed attempt to assassinate President Harry S. Truman. The uprising had been anticipated by local legislation that curtailed freedom of speech in proscribing the use of media for advocating for independence; when it floundered, Nationalist and other pro-independence leaders were rounded up and incarcerated.

The commonwealth complemented limited local autonomy with industrialization programs to boost the island's economy, as embodied in Operation Bootstrap, the government's master developmental plan. Tax incentives and cheap but skilled labor brought many U.S. industries to the island, fostering a shift from an agriculture-based economy to one dependent on outside industrial investments. Consonant infrastructural changes included urbanization and suburbanization; improved public education, vocational training, and higher education to create a middle class and an educated and skilled labor force; the establishment of public medical services that reduced mortality and raised life expectancy; and the development of an island-wide network of modern highways and expressways.

By the late 1960s, Puerto Rico had achieved the highest standard of living in Latin America and had become a model for developing and newly decolonized nations. But it had also experienced steep social costs such as environmental pollution, social dislocation, wealth inequalities, consumerism, and more subtle forms of economic and political dependence. The end of tax incentives began to erode the economy, and U.S. economic cycles became even more intensely felt. As their ten-year tax exemption ended, U.S. industrialists fled to cheaper labor markets; ironically, labor legislation and educational campaigns had produced a protected, well-trained, educated, and thus expensive Puerto Rican labor force that was not competitive with unskilled labor in other nations. The rise of transnational business reduced the thrust of industrialization, since restrictive U.S. laws and policies concerning shipping, manufacturing, and tariffs, as well as U.S. dominated banking and finance, limited Puerto Rico's ability to develop its own markets and attract more advantageous international business.

Puerto Rico remains economically dependent and reliant on manufacturing and services. The Puerto Rican government, a major employer, has fostered petrochemical and high-technology industries that capitalize on Puerto Rico's educated labor force. Pharmaceuticals, chemicals, electronics, medical equipment, and machinery are leading products. Tourism is the most important service industry.

Politically, the advent of the commonwealth has failed to end ongoing debates over Puerto Rico and its neocolonial condition. Muñoz Marín became Puerto Rico's first elected governor in 1948 and was reelected for four consecutive terms until he retired from the governorship in 1964. The PPD lost the 1968 elections, when a prostatehood party, the New Progressive Party (PNP) won government control. The PNP had emerged in 1967, succeeding the old pro-statehood party, the Republican Party of Puerto Rico; along with the PPD, it remains one of the two strongest of the island's political parties. The leading independence party, the Puerto Rican Pro-Independence Party (PIP), was founded in 1948, when a PPD faction split off, disappointed at Muñoz Marín's failure to support independence and his "treason" in proposing, developing, and advocating for commonwealth status. Other short-lived political parties have waxed and waned under the commonwealth.

Since 1968, government control has alternated between the PPD and the PNP, indexing the ongoing struggle over the island's situation. Puerto Ricans are steadfast participants in the election process, practically the island's total adult population. The commonwealth's limitations and the lack of resolution in the island's relationship with the United States have increasingly led voters to overlook status preferences to support politicians on the strength of their immediate agendas rather than on the basis of status positions. The PIP's election returns peaked in 1952 when it was second only to the PPD, but it has since decreased to less than 5 percent of the vote. Nevertheless, the party and other independence advocates play important opposition roles in local politics. Concerns over the economy and quality-of-life issues have predominated over colonialism in elections, yet cultural nationalism, the fact of congressional control, and the ambiguities of the U.S.–Puerto Rico relationship have kept the colonialism issue from being fully disregarded.

On the occasions when Puerto Ricans have been consulted in plebiscite and referenda, they have to varying degrees supported commonwealth status. Yet incidents such as the widespread resistance, particularly in the 1990s, to the U.S. Navy's use of Vieques, one of Puerto Rico's outlying island extensions, for military maneuvers that include the use of live munitions, have brought to the fore the residual tensions between the two nations.



Once I went into Burger King and was asked "Sir, is Puerto Rico the 51st or 52nd state?" I had to shoerten the lesson to the time it took to special order a Whopper. Scary education system in AZ.

Thanks, I did not know a lot of that about Puerto Rico. So you're saying that Puerto Rico has more autonomy than say the Virgin Islands or Guam. Just to make it less theoretical, can you specify a particular right they have in PR, and don't in Guam/VI?

Another question that has gone unanswered with me for years is whether or not you can shop in a duty free shop if flying from Puerto Rico to the mainland U.S.? I once made a connection in Puerto Rico, and still couldn't get a straight answer to the question, mostly due to the language barrier.

I would imagine you coulds shop duty free anywhere in or over international waters. I dont know if this applies to Puerto Rico as my geography is terrible.

I also dont know if this is the actual ruling,just what I think.

Quote: Croupier

I would imagine you coulds shop duty free anywhere in or over international waters. I dont know if this applies to Puerto Rico as my geography is terrible.

I disagree. If you flew from California to Hawaii you could not shop in a duty free shop at the airport, despite flying over international water. You have go from one country to another, and going over international water isn't required. For example, there are duty free shops along the U.S./Canada border (in Sault Saint Marie, Michigan, at least).

As usual, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote: Wizard

Thanks, I did not know a lot of that about Puerto Rico. So you're saying that Puerto Rico has more autonomy than say the Virgin Islands or Guam. Just to make it less theoretical, can you specify a particular right they have in PR, and don't in Guam/VI?

Another question that has gone unanswered with me for years is whether or not you can shop in a duty free shop if flying from Puerto Rico to the mainland U.S.? I once made a connection in Puerto Rico, and still couldn't get a straight answer to the question, mostly due to the language barrier.

Puerto Rico has their own Olympic Team for one. Effectively I doubt it matters much. As a strtictly intelligent guess I would say it limits how much they have to ask Congress for permission on local matters like Guam and even DC.

Every few years they vote for statehood application; total autonomy; or keep it as it is. The pragmatic among the population say, "If we have total freedom we lose lots of benefits and if we take statehood we have to pay income and other taxe...are you people nuts?"

Quote: Wizard

I disagree. If you flew from California to Hawaii you could not shop in a duty free shop at the airport, despite flying over international water. You have go from one country to another, and going over international water isn't required. For example, there are duty free shops along the U.S./Canada border (in Sault Saint Marie, Michigan, at least).

As usual, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

I have to agree with Wiz on this, based on an exmple at the USA/Canada Border. My pest control company had the duty free shop as a customer. Even though the truck actually had to go back thru customs (a wave-thru procedure) the driver was not allowed to buy his cigarettes cheaper there. He tried several times, but nogo. They said you had to be out of the USA. Between US prots or airports only USA-flagged carriers may provide service, thus you never left the USA.

Quote: pacomartin

Now a linguistic puzzle for you: (this is very difficult to find). Why is a clerk in the Navy called a yeoman?

I'm sure someone will perform yeomanly and dutifully look it up for you.

Quote: AZDuffman

I have to agree with Wiz on this, based on an exmple at the USA/Canada Border. My pest control company had the duty free shop as a customer. Even though the truck actually had to go back thru customs (a wave-thru procedure) the driver was not allowed to buy his cigarettes cheaper there. He tried several times, but nogo. They said you had to be out of the USA. Between US prots or airports only USA-flagged carriers may provide service, thus you never left the USA.

True.

On the US side at the Rainbow bridge in Niagara Falls, NY you can shop at the Duty Free but the only direction you should be able to go is into Canada out of the parking lot. But the spikes that prevent you from going back into the United States are so heavily worn that you can simply drive over them without any issue. The Duty Free cashier will ask your name at the time of purchase so that the border agent in Canada can match your name to the receipt.

Quote: Wizard

I disagree. If you flew from California to Hawaii you could not shop in a duty free shop at the airport, despite flying over international water. You have go from one country to another, and going over international water isn't required. For example, there are duty free shops along the U.S./Canada border (in Sault Saint Marie, Michigan, at least).

As usual, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Ah - crossed wires. I was thinking of duty free shopping on board planes and ships, not in land based stores. I could still be wrong with my thinking.

I would think that duty free would only apply when "landing" in another country. If you travel over international waters or even over another country's airspace you are not "landing" in that country. For a ship that goes to the Bahamas and back duty free would apply. For a booze cruise that went to international waters only international law would apply (you could gamble) but duty free laws do not. The same would apply to an airplane. For example, I travel from Toronto to Vancouver all of the time. Some of that air travel is usually over Michigan but I can't buy duty free or be even subject to the laws of the United States while over that air space (though my name is certainly on some passenger list that the US government has access to).

Quote:

I'm sure someone will perform yeomanly and dutifully look it up for you.

Wikipedia has a good page on the term, but doesn't specifically say why the Navy picked up the term. Other pages I checked didn't either. You should have asked a week ago, before I did the tour of the Midway aircraft carrier in San Diego (a tour I highly recommend).

Another military mystery (to me at least) is why they spell (or pronounce) colonel the way they do.

Quote: boymimbo

True.

On the US side at the Rainbow bridge in Niagara Falls, NY you can shop at the Duty Free but the only direction you should be able to go is into Canada out of the parking lot. But the spikes that prevent you from going back into the United States are so heavily worn that you can simply drive over them without any issue. The Duty Free cashier will ask your name at the time of purchase so that the border agent in Canada can match your name to the receipt.

I wouldn't advise that as if the border patrol sees youy doing it you are in for some major fines. At the least they could rip your car apart "looking" for anything else and tell you to have fun putting it back together.

One thing that amazes me about DFS is how big it grew since the 1980s. When I crossed a border as a child "Duty Free Shopping" was almost an afterthought with a few trinkets and some booze for sale. Now some are virtually a mall of sorts.


"I always-like-to-stop-at-the-duty-free-shop."

Duty Free applies only to international travel. The idea is you're sold items that paid no import duties (that's why it's called "duty free"), and in some cases you're not charged local sales taxes either. But you must take those goods to another country. There they may be subject to import duties.

When you buy certain items at the airport's duty free stores, your goods will be delivered to you as you board the plane. I've seen this when buying liquor, perfume and other expensive items.

Of course lots of times you return from your trip with the things you bought at the duty free.

At the US-Mexico border, there are lots of duty free stores, too, but they're set up so you pick up the merchandise when you enter the border crossing area.

Guam, Samoa, the USVI, etc. are unincorporated territories of the U.S. They are directly administered by the U.S. Government and have very little political autonomy. (Similar to what western states like Nevada and Arizona were like before they became states). Some of them prefer it that way. I believe Guam was offered the chance to become a Commonwealth and they declined.* They like having a lot of things done for them, and they also enjoy living off the extensive benefits the U.S. Government provides for them.

Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas are commonwealths because they seek an ultimate political union with the U.S,. They have there own governors, administrative apparatus, tax system, etc. They also have expanded representation in the U.S. Congress (there but limited voted rights). The general desire in those two areas is to eventually become a state, but obviously that is very hard to do.

The unincorporated territories really have no desire to become states are content to suckle off the government teat, for lack of a better term.

Interesting, USVI, Guam etc. each have their own court system and common law. Puerto Rico is incorporated into the Court of Appeals for the Sixth District and their cases on appeal go to the Eastern District of Louisiana, which is in New Orleans.

*not sure if it was Guam specifically.

I have a few friends from Guam and one thing really pissed me off. The territory itself collects the income taxes paid by its inhabitants. In other words, if you live on Guam and are paying income taxes, you end out paying it directly to the territory. This leads to very low taxes (if any at all) in the traditional essence of a state.

Quote: Wizard

Wikipedia has a good page on the term yeoman, but doesn't specifically say why the Navy picked up the term. Other pages I checked didn't either. You should have asked a week ago, before I did the tour of the Midway aircraft carrier in San Diego (a tour I highly recommend).

Another military mystery (to me at least) is why they spell (or pronounce) colonel the way they do.

The word yeoman is of unknown origin but was first recorded around the year 1300 in the sense of "attendant in a noble household,". It is most commonly believed to be a contraction of Old English iunge man or young man.

Sense of commoner who cultivates his land is recorded from early 15th century; also the third order of fighting men (late 14th century, below knights and squires, above knaves), hence yeomen's service meant good, efficient if not particularly imaginative service.

In the fifth act of Hamlet, he tells Horatio that when he was in school he learned good penmanship (what would have been almost calligraphy four hundred years ago). He hated learning this skill thinking it was beneath his station as a prince. However, when Hamlet was sent to England by his uncle, the king (who had murder his brother, Hamlet's father and married Hamlet's mother), he stole the letter of introduction to the English king. The letter requested that the King of England put the Danish prince to death. Hamlet drew on his skill at writing to make a forgery requesting that his companions, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern be put to death. He fortunately had a signet ring so he could seal the letter. He tells Horatio that this skill that he consider so base did him yeomen's service, and saved his life.

Within a half century of Shakespeare's death and the continued reading of his plays, the term yeoman came to be associated with young naval officer whose primary duties it was to write letters for his superior officers. Today, it is a low level but highly specialized position, as the Navy has many types of standard letters, and in addition it requires a good command of grammar and sentence structure (which not every high school graduate possesses).

Actually almost no one in the Navy can tell you where the phrase comes from. Many people know that it is a very old word, but Shakespeare is the one who linked the earlier meaning to clerical work. Shakespeare probably didn't invent the phrase It's Greek to Me either, but by using it in one of his plays he is probably responsible for making it a standard phrase in the English language.

====
Colonel came from Middle French coronel, which modified by dissimilation from Italian colonnella "commander of a column of soldiers at the head of a regiment". The English spelling was modified in 1583 to conform with Italian, but the earlier pronunciation was retained.

Bear in mind R and G were duplicit, were they not? I need to dig out my copy of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead to be sure maybe.

Quote: odiousgambit

Bear in mind R and G were duplicit, were they not? I need to dig out my copy of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead to be sure maybe.

I don't think of them as duplicitous even though they were working for the king. In the Shakespearean play they are interchangeable, and their motto is to respect authority. They work for the king, because he is the king. In their mind, the king is a massive wheel on the top of the highest mountain whose spokes touch ten thousand smaller things. If the wheel falls down the mountain, everything falls with it. They are not really clever enough for subterfuge. When Hamlet confronts them and ask if they work for the king, they readily confess. They simply say they are looking for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. They are completely at a loss as to why Hamlet is behaving so strangely. In exchange for their abject loyalty to power, the powerful players simply use them until they are dead.

In Tom Stoppard's play which goes on behind the scenes of Hamlet, the two characters are as different as night and day. I have seen them played by a white actor and black actor. They are aware that they are caught in someone else's vision, and they spend a lot of time pondering free will and playing complex word games (which defies their characters in Hamlet as dullards). They are still not devious, but they are hopelessly desperate on how to alter the part that has been written for them.

In the real play Hamlet, Horatio briefly protests Hamlet's sending his school companions to death, but Hamlet immediately dismisses them as choosing their own path. It's not really fair to R&G were honest about their intentions, and are completely unaware of what was written in the letter. In Stoppard's play they read the letter that Hamlet has forged and try to save their own life. Once again, their efforts are useless, since their role in life has been proscribed for them.

Tom Stoppard was a co-writer of Shakespeare in Love over 30 years after he wrote R&G are dead. He shared the Academy award for best screenplay. The screenplay is brilliant, but it lacks the obscure references in his theater work.

Good stuff! You should paste some of this into the Wikipedia page on Yeoman, although someone has put something similar that [evidently] bothered someone else who started demanding sources.

Since he said wikipedia didnt have the right answer, it makes me want to ask if the Wizard will confirm you got what he was looking for on Yeoman ???

I can print the scene for you to read yourself. Shakespeare uses the term yeoman ten times in eight different plays, but this is the only scene where he connects the phrase yeoman's service with writing.

Probably the best known line from this section is There's a divinity that shapes our ends.

Act V, Scene 2
Elsinore. A hall in the Castle.
---
Enter Hamlet and Horatio.

* Hamlet. So much for this, sir; now shall you see the other.
You do remember all the circumstance?

* Horatio. Remember it, my lord!

* Hamlet. Sir, in my heart there was a kind of fighting
That would not let me sleep. Methought I lay
Worse than the mutinies in the bilboes. Rashly-
And prais'd be rashness for it; let us know,
Our indiscretion sometime serves us well
When our deep plots do pall; and that should learn us
There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will-

* Horatio. That is most certain.

* Hamlet. Up from my cabin,
My sea-gown scarf'd about me, in the dark
Grop'd I to find out them; had my desire,
Finger'd their packet, and in fine withdrew
To mine own room again; making so bold
(My fears forgetting manners) to unseal
Their grand commission; where I found, Horatio
(O royal knavery!), an exact command,
Larded with many several sorts of reasons,
Importing Denmark's health, and England's too,
With, hoo! such bugs and goblins in my life-
That, on the supervise, no leisure bated,
No, not to stay the finding of the axe,
My head should be struck off.

* Horatio. Is't possible?

* Hamlet. Here's the commission; read it at more leisure.
But wilt thou bear me how I did proceed?

* Horatio. I beseech you.

* Hamlet. Being thus benetted round with villanies,
Or I could make a prologue to my brains,
They had begun the play. I sat me down;
Devis'd a new commission; wrote it fair.
I once did hold it, as our statists do,
A baseness to write fair, and labour'd much
How to forget that learning; but, sir, now
It did me yeoman's service. Wilt thou know
Th' effect of what I wrote?

* Horatio. Ay, good my lord.

* Hamlet. An earnest conjuration from the King,
As England was his faithful tributary,
As love between them like the palm might flourish,
As peace should still her wheaten garland wear
And stand a comma 'tween their amities,
And many such-like as's of great charge,
That, on the view and knowing of these contents,
Without debatement further, more or less,
He should the bearers put to sudden death,
Not shriving time allow'd.

* Horatio. How was this seal'd?

* Hamlet. Why, even in that was heaven ordinant.
I had my father's signet in my purse,
Which was the model of that Danish seal;
Folded the writ up in the form of th' other,
Subscrib'd it, gave't th' impression, plac'd it safely,
The changeling never known. Now, the next day
Was our sea-fight; and what to this was sequent
Thou know'st already.

* Horatio. So Guildenstern and Rosencrantz go to't.

* Hamlet. Why, man, they did make love to this employment!
They are not near my conscience; their defeat
Does by their own insinuation grow.
'Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes
Between the pass and fell incensed points
Of mighty opposites.

* Horatio. Why, what a king is this!

* Hamlet. Does it not, thinks't thee, stand me now upon-
He that hath kill'd my king, and whor'd my mother;
Popp'd in between th' election and my hopes;
Thrown out his angle for my proper life,
And with such coz'nage- is't not perfect conscience
To quit him with this arm? And is't not to be damn'd
To let this canker of our nature come
In further evil?

* Horatio. It must be shortly known to him from England
What is the issue of the business there.

* Hamlet. It will be short; the interim is mine,
And a man's life is no more than to say 'one.'
But I am very sorry, good Horatio,
That to Laertes I forgot myself,
For by the image of my cause I see
The portraiture of his. I'll court his favours.
But sure the bravery of his grief did put me
Into a tow'ring passion.

Quote: ahiromu

I have a few friends from Guam and one thing really pissed me off. The territory itself collects the income taxes paid by its inhabitants. In other words, if you live on Guam and are paying income taxes, you end out paying it directly to the territory. This leads to very low taxes (if any at all) in the traditional essence of a state.

This sounds the same as any state I lived in. Am I missing something?

Quote: AZDuffman

This sounds the same as any state I lived in. Am I missing something?

I was confused by that too, but thought maybe it was just me, so didn't say anything. My understanding is that Guam residents pay a territory tax that is equivalent to what residents of the 50 states pay as federal income tax. If there is no territory add-on, that would be like living in Nevada with no state income tax. It doesn't get any better than that, as far as I know. If I lived in Guam it wouldn't make any difference to me who was collecting the money. As always, correct me if I'm wrong, and on this topic, I easily could be.

Quote: Wizard

I was confused by that too, but thought maybe it was just me, so didn't say anything. My understanding is that Guam residents pay a territory tax that is equivalent to what residents of the 50 states pay as federal income tax. If there is no territory add-on, that would be like living in Nevada with no state income tax. It doesn't get any better than that, as far as I know. If I lived in Guam it wouldn't make any difference to me who was collecting the money. As always, correct me if I'm wrong, and on this topic, I easily could be.

My understanding was you pay a Territory or Local tax of some sort, but it is far less than the Federal Income Tax Rate. It would be something like a state tax rate of say 3-8%. I know that is one of the reasons many in Puerto Rico do not want statehood as lack of the Federal Income Tax drive some USA Businesses to locate there. Not sure but I think they have/had a lot of drug companies producing there. Statehood would remove this advantage and Puerto Rico would be admitted to the Union as the poorest state by a wide margin.

Like you, I could also be wrong.

Getting back the original question, I'm fairly certain the use of the word "Commonwealth" in the name of the state is simply semantic, and is not tied to any current difference in laws. I say this as a non-practicing lawyer that has done legislative advocacy on the state and federal level.

I believe that the term is derived from the nature of the land grants originally issued by the Crown; note that all of the Commonwealth states are in the territory originally occupied by the colonies. Kentucky, although not a colony itself, was carved out of land that was a part of the Virginia charter, much as Tennessee was carved out of North Carolina. Ironically, Maine was part of the Massachusetts land grant, but apparently decided to go with "State" when it achieved statehood.

THe difference in power of local governments is traced to whether or not they are subject to Dillon's Rule, a doctrine that holds that all units of local government below the state level are limited in power to what the state allows them. Some states have given "home rule" very broadly, while others restrict it severely.

Quote: Wizard

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

Regarding the point that the counties have more power in a commonwealth than a state, I'd be interested to see some more evidence on that. Not saying it isn't true, just the skeptic in me talking.

I live in MA and can say unequivocally that the Counties have almost no power. The only thing I'm aware our counties do is run prisons and courthouses. Everything else is handled at either the state or town/ city level. We have very few sheriffs (which are typically associated with counties)

Quote: odiousgambit

Good stuff! You should paste some of this into the Wikipedia page on Yeoman, although someone has put something similar that [evidently] bothered someone else who started demanding sources.

Since he said wikipedia didnt have the right answer, it makes me want to ask if the Wizard will confirm you got what he was looking for on Yeoman ???

Actually, I didn't read that etymology about the word yeoman. It was my own explanation. But as the word was never associated the word with writing before Hamlet was widely performed, I think it makes sense. I tried to put it into Wikipedia, but they have a prohibition on original research.

No one in the Navy ever heard of it either, but that is not surprising. Many yeoman know that the word is very old, and some know that it was a carryover from the British Navy.

So many of the Shakespearean phrases were picked up into every life that it is almost impossible to count them all. Many of the phrases were from Hamlet. Certainly not a mouse stirring was picked up in the Night Before Christmas poem. In my mind's eye also comes from Hamlet. She doth protest too much, methinks is one. Hoist on his own petard is a phrase that people use, usually without knowing what it means. Sweets to the sweet is a grisly phrase. Words, words, words is fairly common. The play's the thing, to thine own self be true are very common. I think it is probably the single most influential work on the English language.

I could be bounded by a nutshell, and count myself king of the world, were it not that I have bad dreams

Actually I did not realize it but there is one state that is different. Nebraska only has a single house in it's legislature with just 49 people (next smallest is Alaska with 60). In addition it is completely non-partisan (no Democrats or Republicans).

It's been that way since the depression.