Come on <k>, he was just saying even the crypto-colonies don't use the Clark portrait. Maybe they know your queen is sick and are plotting for independence
Besides, the UK has too much sovereinty as it is, you don't need you to add to it
Peter
He wasn't just saying that. He was suggesting it was unofficial. That is exactly the wrong word to use, because it will confuse the readers. In the coin world, if something is not official, then it is not legal. If it is not legal, then it is not legal tender. And if it is not legal tender, then it is not a coin: it is a fantasy. Apart from that, if people believe the portrait is "unofficial", it's a short leap from that to suggesting it will become rare and valuable.
So, I am arguing from the point of view of legality, as it affects sovereignty. Once upon a time, of course, Britain dictated what effigy the Dominions (overseas realms) and colonies (overseas territories) should have. I think it is a good thing that they can choose or reject the portrait that the UK uses. I would actually have made the same choice as many of them and continued with the IRB portrait. However, my opinion on all this doesn't matter. What matters is the situation on the ground. The Clark portrait is official in the UK, whatever the Commonwealth realms choose to use. By that logic, you would have to say that the stand-alone Canadian portraits have NEVER been official, and then it just gets silly because that is plain wrong.
If Britain had joined the euro under Blair, then we would have had different rules, and I would have accepted them. There is no chance I would have declared the Queen's euro unofficial and thrown it away in the street. So I think you and Alan71 should both be sent to bed without any supper for arguing such nonsense. Goodness knows where we'd be, if we had people like you as lawmakers.
