Talk:List of Canadian monarchs/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of Canadian monarchs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Canadian monarchs
Actually this list should be of non-British Empire monarchs. George III to Edward VII are British monarchs from Canada's historical PoV. George V to Elizabeth II are the true list of Canadian monarchs. GoodDay 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, that's better 'Victoria to Elizabeth II (1867-present). GoodDay 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Prince Albert's inclusion?
Albert was Prince Consort of the United Kingdom (as Victoria husband); However, he was 'never' Prince Consort of Canada (having died about six years before Canadian Confederation). Therefore, I've removed him from the article (-Albert was in no condition, to be 'Canadian Prince-Consort'-). GoodDay 00:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars (again)
Perhaps a gentlemen agreement is called for? G2bambino stays away from 'British' monarchy related pages & TharkunColl stays away from 'Canadian' monarchy related pages. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The first monarch of Canada
Who was Canada's first monarch? Should the list begin at 'Confederation' or Elizabeth II's accession. Basically, is the title Monarch of Canada needed, for one to be 'Monarch of Canada'? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here's my idea - Leave all those monarchs in place, but have Victoria to George VI labeled as British monarchs & Elizabeth II as Canadian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- That proposal is interesting, but it contradicts the solution you argued for at List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs. There, you made it clear that we must always stick to the precise letter of the legal title. This entailed placing the British monarchs on a completely separate page. Using the same principal, we must divide this list into two pages. One could be entitled List of British monarchs of Canada, for example. Furthermore, the lists should be divided at 1982, when Canada became a sovereign state. The analogy here is your argument that we divide the English and British lists at 1707, rather than 1603. TharkunColl (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this article should be divided. Who'd a thought?, from a 'merge proposal' to a 'division proposal'. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- This actually raises some interesting points. A date for Canada's sovereignty isn't particularly set; as it shows in the infobox on the Canada article, there are a few dates considered the dates of the country's independence. 1931 and 1982 ar the most often used, I think. However, that doesn't necessarily affect this list. 1867 is regarded as the date that the country was founded, and so Victoria can be seen as the first monarch of Canada, though not a separate position from that of being monarch of the UK, as it is today. The Canadian Encyclopedia calles Victoria the "British monarch," though Canadian Politics.com states that the "Canadianization of the Crown" began in 1867. I don't think there's any need to make two articles (seems ridiculous that the person who wanted the one deleted now wants two), but the list could be divided into sections. I'll have to think about this over dinner. --G2bambino (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- With a full stomach, I wonder if all that need be done is rename this article "List of monarchs of Canada" and avoid all the are they Canadian or British gobblygook. --G2bambino (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- This actually raises some interesting points. A date for Canada's sovereignty isn't particularly set; as it shows in the infobox on the Canada article, there are a few dates considered the dates of the country's independence. 1931 and 1982 ar the most often used, I think. However, that doesn't necessarily affect this list. 1867 is regarded as the date that the country was founded, and so Victoria can be seen as the first monarch of Canada, though not a separate position from that of being monarch of the UK, as it is today. The Canadian Encyclopedia calles Victoria the "British monarch," though Canadian Politics.com states that the "Canadianization of the Crown" began in 1867. I don't think there's any need to make two articles (seems ridiculous that the person who wanted the one deleted now wants two), but the list could be divided into sections. I'll have to think about this over dinner. --G2bambino (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this article should be divided. Who'd a thought?, from a 'merge proposal' to a 'division proposal'. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- That proposal is interesting, but it contradicts the solution you argued for at List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs. There, you made it clear that we must always stick to the precise letter of the legal title. This entailed placing the British monarchs on a completely separate page. Using the same principal, we must divide this list into two pages. One could be entitled List of British monarchs of Canada, for example. Furthermore, the lists should be divided at 1982, when Canada became a sovereign state. The analogy here is your argument that we divide the English and British lists at 1707, rather than 1603. TharkunColl (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- When the proposal to split the list of English and British monarchs into two was made, I made an equivalent suggestion, which was rejected. For consistency, therefore, we need two articles here - and since GoodDay was instrumental in bringing about that split, I now expect him to support the splitting of this list. One list should have the monarchs from Victoria to Elizabeth II on it, and one should have just Elizabeth II. As I understand it, her separate title to Canada was created at her coronation in 1953 - by which time she had already been Queen for a year. TharkunColl (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm not too concerned with the lists of English and British monarchs. The situation is not the same. --G2bambino (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- When the proposal to split the list of English and British monarchs into two was made, I made an equivalent suggestion, which was rejected. For consistency, therefore, we need two articles here - and since GoodDay was instrumental in bringing about that split, I now expect him to support the splitting of this list. One list should have the monarchs from Victoria to Elizabeth II on it, and one should have just Elizabeth II. As I understand it, her separate title to Canada was created at her coronation in 1953 - by which time she had already been Queen for a year. TharkunColl (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The lists should be treated in exactly the same way. TharkunColl (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not exactly -- England was never a British colony, but Canada was. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The lists should be treated in exactly the same way. TharkunColl (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The situation is perfectly analogous. Are you intending to apply one rule to Britain, and a different one to Canada? It was you, after all, who argued so strongly for splitting the English and British list, which would never have happened had you not pushed it so much. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually my mistake - Canada was certainly not a British colony after 1867. Intriguing, you say the Canada and Britain situations are the same - explain please. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The situation is perfectly analogous. Are you intending to apply one rule to Britain, and a different one to Canada? It was you, after all, who argued so strongly for splitting the English and British list, which would never have happened had you not pushed it so much. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- They are not "the same", but their situations are analogous. There was a change in title and jurisdiction of the monarch (which, I believe, happened at Elizabeth's coronation in 1953). The situation is exactly analogous to your arguments about splitting the English and British lists. Please do not tell me that you intend to apply a different rule here? TharkunColl (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I want to split this article into '2' articles, but I can't without causing a 'major edit war'. Therefore a secondary option would be to rename the article (move page) to List of monarchs of Canada, then divide the article into 2 sections called British monarchs (Victoria to George VI) or (Victoria to Elizabeth II pre-1953) & Canadian monarchs (Elizabeth II). GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- They are not "the same", but their situations are analogous. There was a change in title and jurisdiction of the monarch (which, I believe, happened at Elizabeth's coronation in 1953). The situation is exactly analogous to your arguments about splitting the English and British lists. Please do not tell me that you intend to apply a different rule here? TharkunColl (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you remember, that's exactly what we did with the English list, having a separate section for monarchs since 1707 entitled British monarchs. But you made it clear that this was just a temporary measure, and eventually pushed for complete separation. You were not afraid of an edit war on that occasion. TharkunColl (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're more brave in these matters then I. If you want to split the article go ahead (see what happens), I wont protest it. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Will you support it though? And with all the gusto you did for the splitting of the English list? TharkunColl (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll support it (on the talk pages), but not with my revert finger (remember my views on 'edit wars'). GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Will you support it though? And with all the gusto you did for the splitting of the English list? TharkunColl (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can you think of a good name for the earlier list? I was thinking of List of British monarchs of Canada, but I'm willing to consider other suggestions as I'm not especially happy with that (because it implies that Elizabeth II isn't British). TharkunColl (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- List of British monarchs of Canada will do. PS- Again, I wish you'd wait for opinons from more editors; Anyways, happy page moving/splitting etc, I'll continue to plead the case here (on talk pages). GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Though commonon usage views Elizabeth II as a British monarch in Canada - She is a Canadian monarch (as much as British). GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Splitting the article is completely unnecessary; your problems with other lists do not necessarily spill over here to affect the form of this article. The points to consider are these:
- Prior to 1867 Canada was a collection of separate colonies.
- In 1867 the country of Canada was formed; though it was not independent and still under strong control by Westminster.
- In 1931 the country became essentially sovereign; only the constitution remained under technical control of Westminster, though could only make changes at the request of the Canadian parliament; this is regarded as the date the country became a separate kingdom in personal union with the UK.
- In 1982 the constitution was patriated.
- Titles have nothing to do with this debate in the least. The most logical thing to do is rename the article, and perhaps, though it really isn't necessary, as the lead explains the contexts already, split the list on this page. --G2bambino (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's my personal plan, re-name the article and make two sections. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Splitting the article is completely unnecessary; your problems with other lists do not necessarily spill over here to affect the form of this article. The points to consider are these:
- Though commonon usage views Elizabeth II as a British monarch in Canada - She is a Canadian monarch (as much as British). GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- List of British monarchs of Canada will do. PS- Again, I wish you'd wait for opinons from more editors; Anyways, happy page moving/splitting etc, I'll continue to plead the case here (on talk pages). GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can you think of a good name for the earlier list? I was thinking of List of British monarchs of Canada, but I'm willing to consider other suggestions as I'm not especially happy with that (because it implies that Elizabeth II isn't British). TharkunColl (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Would you consider a similar solution for the English and British lists, re-merged and re-named, for example, List of English and British monarchs? I still feel unhappy at the present situation because it gives a wholly false impression that the state that existed after 1707 was not a continuation of the one prior to that date. TharkunColl (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to get involved in this other dispute, but, I will repeat myself: this is not the same situation. As I wasn't party to the debate about the lists of British and English monarchs, I don't know the full details, but I suspect that it was more about what constitutes "Britain" as opposed to England, Scotland and later the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In this case there's no ambiguity about when the country of Canada came to be: 1867; which is when this list starts. Thus, there was no change in the monarch's Canadian jurisdiction in the scope of time this list covers. Of course, between 1867 and 1931 the Canadian jurisdiction fell within the British, and thus between those years the British monarch reigned over Canada. After 1931 the Canadian jurisdiction was separated from the British, and the personal union was established wherein the British monarch became the monarch of a separate Canada, and thus the Canadian monarch as well. Again, I don't know that we need work out a way to divide the list to reflect this, as the lead already spells this evolution out. --G2bambino (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Would you consider a similar solution for the English and British lists, re-merged and re-named, for example, List of English and British monarchs? I still feel unhappy at the present situation because it gives a wholly false impression that the state that existed after 1707 was not a continuation of the one prior to that date. TharkunColl (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The situation is even closer than you think. Canada in 1867 only consisted of Ontario and Quebec I believe (or were some others involved at the beginning?) - at any rate, much smaller than it is now. It later absorbed a sovereign state, namely Newfoundland. And it even had a name change - it dropped the word "Dominion". The situation precisely parallels the evolution of England/Great Britain/UK. TharkunColl (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. In 1867 Canada consisted of four provinces; some other British colonies eventually joined and fell under Canadian jurisdiction, and other provinces were created out of Canadian territories, save, yes, for Newfoundland. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada in 1949, but it was a protectorate of the British Crown when it did so; Newfoundland lost Dominion status in 1934. So, Canada expanded, meaning Canadian jurisdiction expanded, but so what? What are you proposing, then? A separate list of monarchs of Newfoundland? --G2bambino (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- A separate list of monarchs of Newfoundland is the logical thing to have, since there's a Canadian list. TharkunColl (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Um, okay. --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Tharky, if you want to argue British PoV -vs- Canadian PoV in these articles? fine. But, leave the English PoV -vs- British PoV out of it. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am drawing an analogy, and saying that both lists should be given equal treatment. You say I'm pro-English, but all I see - both there and here - is anti-English POV. TharkunColl (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Tharky, you're beginning to bore me again. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Decided to stay in discussion, afterall. Are you guys suggesting (above) the creation of List of Newfoundlander monarchs (1867-1949), List of British Columbian monarchs (1867-71), List of Albertan monarchs (1867-1905) etc? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not. --G2bambino (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Decided to stay in discussion, afterall. Are you guys suggesting (above) the creation of List of Newfoundlander monarchs (1867-1949), List of British Columbian monarchs (1867-71), List of Albertan monarchs (1867-1905) etc? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Tharky, you're beginning to bore me again. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am drawing an analogy, and saying that both lists should be given equal treatment. You say I'm pro-English, but all I see - both there and here - is anti-English POV. TharkunColl (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::What exactly are you both considering. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Howabout my idea? GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Are we gonna divide this article into seperate sections? A British & Canadian section? GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse my sleepiness, I missed the recent changes. Yep, those new section headings do the job. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Are we gonna divide this article into seperate sections? A British & Canadian section? GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Kingdom vs. Dominion
On the verge of Canadian Confederation, many Canadian politicians wanted the new country to be known as the "Kingdom of Canada." However, the British government realized that the U.S. would never consent to the presence of a "kingdom" in North America. As a result the term "Dominion of Canada" was decided upon as a way to assert monarchical dominion without offending the Americans. (The term "Dominion" had never before been used to describe a country and was entirely novel in 1867.) Canada was thus never officially a "kingdom."
See "The Kingdom of Canada" by W.L. Morton.
Adam_sk (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- You mean Canada was never officially a "Kingdom," and that's not under dispute. --G2bambino (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest we therefore remove the word "kingdom" in all articles that describe Canada thus, and replace it with "constitutional monarchy". TharkunColl (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why? There's a valid cite that says the country became a kingdom in 1867. This need not be spread far and wide across all articles, but on one that lists monarchs of the country it's apt that when the country became a kingdom be noted. --G2bambino (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest we therefore remove the word "kingdom" in all articles that describe Canada thus, and replace it with "constitutional monarchy". TharkunColl (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Canada isn't a kingdom. TharkunColl (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The cite here, prepared as an educational resource by the Government of Canada, says otherwise. Perhaps you should contact the Ministry of Canadian Heritage to rectify their error. --G2bambino (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Canada isn't a kingdom. TharkunColl (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is no constitutional or other law that states that it's a kingdom. You, of all people, should respect this, since you place so much weight on such law to prop up your other arguments. TharkunColl (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Contact Canadian Heritage: [1] It's them you have the beef with, not Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is no constitutional or other law that states that it's a kingdom. You, of all people, should respect this, since you place so much weight on such law to prop up your other arguments. TharkunColl (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please cite a statute or law that calls Canada a kingdom. If not, we'll remove the term. TharkunColl (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- "We"? lol. You're too much, Thark. Really. --G2bambino (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please cite a statute or law that calls Canada a kingdom. If not, we'll remove the term. TharkunColl (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- You choose your sources at will, don't you? Some obscure pamphlet is okay, but a speech made by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth isn't? TharkunColl (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Personal discussion taken to User talk:TharkunColl. --G2bambino (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- You choose your sources at will, don't you? Some obscure pamphlet is okay, but a speech made by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth isn't? TharkunColl (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a personal discussion. Please provide a statute or law that describes Canada as a kingdom. If not, we need to replace the term with something neutral, such as constitutional monarchy. TharkunColl (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- A better place would be Wikipedia: WikiProject Canada, don't ya'll think so? GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. The question revolves around Thark refusing to recognize the applicability of a source to this particular scope of information; it's unique to this article. --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I still recommend the Project. Remember aswell, Kingdom and kingdom were rejected at Canada - having it here, causes an inconsistancy. Just a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it was, but for different reasons. It was accepted at Canadian monarchy, again, for different reasons. Both discussions are archived in the related talk pages. --G2bambino (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've contacted the WikiProject for their opinons on this dispute. Since we're not going there, I've invited them here. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it was, but for different reasons. It was accepted at Canadian monarchy, again, for different reasons. Both discussions are archived in the related talk pages. --G2bambino (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I still recommend the Project. Remember aswell, Kingdom and kingdom were rejected at Canada - having it here, causes an inconsistancy. Just a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a personal discussion. Please provide a statute or law that describes Canada as a kingdom. If not, we need to replace the term with something neutral, such as constitutional monarchy. TharkunColl (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Valid cite?
All the present source for footnote 1 says about 1867 is:
- The relationship between the Sovereign and theLieutenant Governors was not envisaged in the same way as it was with the Governor General at the time of Confederation in 1867. Rather than being considered as the Sovereign’s direct representatives in the provinces, Lieutenant Governors were seen as the GovernorGeneral’s representatives and agents of the federal government, which continues to be responsible for their appointment and the payment of their salary.
This asserts that Queen Victoria was Sovereign over Canada (does anyone challenge this?). It does not say, and I see no other words that assert, that Canada became a Kingdom then.
I may well be missing something; and there is doubtless some other source. But if there is not some other assertion here, this source fails verification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are indeed missing something. Read the first paragraph of the first section on page 2. --G2bambino (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. A longer discussion than Canada has been...a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward. would probably be useful. For example, a standard history of the process of Confederation would cast more light on whether the men of 1867 "deemed" themselves to be erecting a new kingdom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Consorts of Canada
Is it possible, Canada may bestowe the title of 'Queen consort of Canada' on Camillia? I'm curious as it's been pointed out, she'll use 'princess consort of Canada'. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Anything may happen. But if nothing changes, Camilla will have no title in Canada. As the article here says, the only person titled in this country is the Queen; everyone else just has a courtesy title, which is that they're given in the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Appearance & info
I restored the previous version of the list as I see a couple of problems with Camaeron's alterations. 1) I don't see why the list has to start with the creation of a "new royal house." The list relates to the country called Canada, not royal houses, and the cited lists start with Victoria, not her son. 2) The marriage column repeats information that's covered in the list of consorts, and the time and place of birth, marriage, and death seems excessive; it doesn't seem pertinent to a list that's meant to simply spell out who Canada's monarchs were, from when to when. I understand List of British monarchs is being used as a guide for the format of this list, but I think there's problems with the former's construction as well and don't want to see them spread here. --G2bambino (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
French kings
Why doesn't this list go back pre-Confederation? Canadian history did not start at 01 July 1867? Even the Canadian gov website goes deeper in history: see The Royal Presence in Canada - A Historical Overview. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Before July 1, 1867? Why would we do that? Those were the French (and later) British colonial days. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've thought about that, looked at other lists, and it seems that colonies don't have lists of their heads. Furthermore, the Department of Canadian Heritage list starts at Confederation, as do most sources start the "beginning" of Canada, as a country, at the same date. So, this list, I imagine, should start where it does, while the list of monarchs of Canadian territories goes back to the colonial era as that article, more like the link you point to, Wassup, deals with a broader history of monarchy - of all types - in Canada's past. --G2bambino (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's an obvious reason to begin a list at 1867 - that was when the Dominion of Canada was formed, before that people may have reigned over places in Canada, but not over the entity formed in 1867. Colonial status is irrelevant (even leaving aside the argument that Canada was still a colony until 1931) - most colonies don't have lists because their heads are by definition the head of the colonial power. Where an area has been ruled by more than one power over time, an argument could be made for a separate list, and as G2bambino says, in this case that is already done in an article with a broader scope. That does, however, raise a question I was going to ask even before seeing this discussion: What is the purpose of keeping this list separate to History of monarchy in Canada? JPD (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you answered your own question: one deals with "places in Canada, but not... the entity formed in 1867," whereas the other deals with the entity formed in 1867. A question I asked myself was: why doesn't the list at History of monarchy in Canada end at 1867? But, then, List of monarchs in the British Isles doesn't end at 1707 and then transfer to List of British monarchs. --G2bambino (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I described how it is currently organised, and of course the broader topic doesn't exclude the history since 1867. But that definitely doesn't answer the question "Why organise it that way"? Wouldn't it be better to have a single article, rather than simply repeat part of the list here? JPD (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't think a single article is better. One has a different scope than the other, though they can overlap, just the same as List of British monarchs, List of Irish monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs and List of monarchs in the British Isles. --G2bambino (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Though, I now see List of monarchs in the British Isles is up for deletion. --G2bambino (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- (before edit conflict)But they don't just, overlap - in terms of scope, this one is completely contained in the other. You could say something similar about List of monarchs in the British Isles, but I see more of a reason there, as the situation there is more complicated, compared with History of monarchy in Canada, which could easily and sensibly include everything contained here. It would also provide a better context for this list, which is currently simply information that equally belongs in a British list, with minimal introduction. JPD (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Information in Wikipedia is duplicated all the time; that's simply an understandable result of having so many topics covered; they will, from time to time, converge. That's not to say we should make repetition just for the sake of it. But, on the other hand, nor should we remove something just because it's repeated elsewhere.
- In this specific case, the list at History of monarchy in Canada traces a lineage from the first monarch who colonised Canada to the present day sovereign, covering a wide scope of various territories and regimes. The list here outlines the lineage of heads of state from the formation of the country, focusing on the legal entity of the Canadian state. As I said, one list can stop at 1867 and then move over here, though that seems jarring and would imply that the lineage ceased at 1867, which it did not, though the political bodies of the colonies did. Conversely, the list at History of monarchy in Canada could be completely moved over here with a break at 1867, but the colonial monarchs could not be considered Canadian monarchs - as Canada didn't exist then - and I feel that would just confuse the point of this list. --G2bambino (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- What I am suggesting is more along the lines of the last option you mention, but moving this list there rather than vice versa. Done well, I think it would add context to the list, rather than confuse the point of this list. Of course, in my opinion, the point of this list is not much of a point at all, but we have discussed that elsewhere. JPD (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- (before edit conflict)But they don't just, overlap - in terms of scope, this one is completely contained in the other. You could say something similar about List of monarchs in the British Isles, but I see more of a reason there, as the situation there is more complicated, compared with History of monarchy in Canada, which could easily and sensibly include everything contained here. It would also provide a better context for this list, which is currently simply information that equally belongs in a British list, with minimal introduction. JPD (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I described how it is currently organised, and of course the broader topic doesn't exclude the history since 1867. But that definitely doesn't answer the question "Why organise it that way"? Wouldn't it be better to have a single article, rather than simply repeat part of the list here? JPD (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you answered your own question: one deals with "places in Canada, but not... the entity formed in 1867," whereas the other deals with the entity formed in 1867. A question I asked myself was: why doesn't the list at History of monarchy in Canada end at 1867? But, then, List of monarchs in the British Isles doesn't end at 1707 and then transfer to List of British monarchs. --G2bambino (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's an obvious reason to begin a list at 1867 - that was when the Dominion of Canada was formed, before that people may have reigned over places in Canada, but not over the entity formed in 1867. Colonial status is irrelevant (even leaving aside the argument that Canada was still a colony until 1931) - most colonies don't have lists because their heads are by definition the head of the colonial power. Where an area has been ruled by more than one power over time, an argument could be made for a separate list, and as G2bambino says, in this case that is already done in an article with a broader scope. That does, however, raise a question I was going to ask even before seeing this discussion: What is the purpose of keeping this list separate to History of monarchy in Canada? JPD (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've thought about that, looked at other lists, and it seems that colonies don't have lists of their heads. Furthermore, the Department of Canadian Heritage list starts at Confederation, as do most sources start the "beginning" of Canada, as a country, at the same date. So, this list, I imagine, should start where it does, while the list of monarchs of Canadian territories goes back to the colonial era as that article, more like the link you point to, Wassup, deals with a broader history of monarchy - of all types - in Canada's past. --G2bambino (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Canada is
ACCORDING to the Canada article,
Canada is
a country
a federal dominion
A federation
a parliamentary democracy
a constitutional monarchy
Note that none of these terms are capitalized.
1) Asserting that Canada is a Kingdom, or is a Dominion gives a different connotation and requires proper documentation. It is not a matter of personal taste or of political motive.
2) This discussion/argument should be carried on in the Canada article discussion, not in the List of Canadian Monarchs talk.
For these reasons, I have removed the contentious wording. It is not essential to the article, which is, after all only supposed to be a list. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- In agreement with Wanderer; we don't need another article locked. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The point about being a kingdom was verifiable as it was an almost direct quotation from a cited source. TharkunColl did not even bother to read the referenced material, and admitted he didn't care to at his own talk page. This behaviour is disgusting and it's time something was done about this disruptive editor. --G2bambino (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you both. G2bambino, without disagreeing with what you say, I think the switch from "kingdom" (which was in the citation) to "Kingdom" is a significant difference. Also, I've been in Canada a long time and I know it is not normally referred to as a kingdom, and especially not as a Kingdom. Canada is more of an independent country which, for historical reasons, keeps an allegiance to the Queen of the United Kingdom.
- Also, the link to the citation did not work for me. When I managed to follow it by cutting and pasting, I found it was a pretty informal source. To state categorically that Canada became a Kingdom in 1867 would need more official sources, IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you'll have to read what was in the article before more clearly; the sentence in particular read: "...at which time the country was deemed to have become a kingdom in its own right." Lower case "k". The source reads: "...as a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward." This is quite pertinent to a list of monarchs of Canada, and in no way brings up any issue about independence or puts the Canadian monarchy into question. Your words cause me to fear that you don't fully understand what you're talking about.
- As for the source, it's an educational booklet distributed by the Government of Canada. That makes it a reliable cite per WP:V. --G2bambino (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- If G2bambino could refrain from casting negative opinions about other editors. The other editors make some useful points, which will improve the article. --Lawe (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Why does this list exist?
Isn't this just duplication of data. As I understand it all British monarchs from 1867 would be in effect, monarchs of Canada. Why have we repeated this information--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. But, equally, all Canadian monarchs from 1867 would be in effect, monarchs of Britain. This list exists in order to be NPOV; all other monarchies have their own lists of monarchs on Wikipedia, including those that overlap. --G2bambino (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that this is duplication of data. One can say this and be neutral. --Lawe (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with G2bambino. The same goes for list of Australian & New Zealand monarchs, which survived afd. ;) --Cameron* 14:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've heard this duplication argument before, but I can't remember when & who brought it up. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- At Talk:list of Australian monarchs most recently. I can't see the point either.--Gazzster (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, that's the place. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- In the Monarchies in Europe page two editors User:Miesianiacal and User:Cameron argue for a removal of duplicate lists. Certainly the List of royal consorts of Canada does not have status here and is a mere duplication of information. That the Consort has influence over Canadian affairs is unsupportable speculation. --Lawe (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've heard this duplication argument before, but I can't remember when & who brought it up. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with G2bambino. The same goes for list of Australian & New Zealand monarchs, which survived afd. ;) --Cameron* 14:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that this is duplication of data. One can say this and be neutral. --Lawe (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Title of Prince Phillip in the Commonwealth
Perhaps wikipedia will eventually be so extensive that it will explain why a nearby local street had its named changed back in 1980. Anyway, lets assume the relevance of this new section just written by Cameron. It has zero to do with Canada and belongs in the article on Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh. --Lawe (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to be a word-for-word copy of what is at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Royal and noble titles and styles. I'm not exactly sure why Cam it's worth repeating here. --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Urgh, please don't call me Cam. Feel free to remove it if you both believe it irrelevant. I thought it more relevant here that it's old location. I was going to remove the version at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Royal and noble titles and styles but if you'd rather I didn't...--Cameron* 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, first off, my apologies about your name; I wasn't aware you felt anything about it one way or the other. As for the article, I don't want it to seem as though your opinion isn't respected. The information could well stay here if its removed from the other location, but my first thought about that is: wouldn't it then have to be put in at List of Australian monarchs, List of New Zealand monarchs, and List of British consorts as well? --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- No worries but Cam is short for Camilla. And, while I love our future Queen...I'm male so I prefer Cameron. ;) Oh dear, adding it to so many articles...sounds like it was better where it was. I'll revert myself...can't blame me for trying though! ;) --Cameron* 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. That must be a British thing, because I've never heard of such an abbreviation for Camilla. Indeed, you can't be blamed for trying. Now I think a link to the article on Philip's titles and styles is lacking, and I'll add it in. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- No worries but Cam is short for Camilla. And, while I love our future Queen...I'm male so I prefer Cameron. ;) Oh dear, adding it to so many articles...sounds like it was better where it was. I'll revert myself...can't blame me for trying though! ;) --Cameron* 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, first off, my apologies about your name; I wasn't aware you felt anything about it one way or the other. As for the article, I don't want it to seem as though your opinion isn't respected. The information could well stay here if its removed from the other location, but my first thought about that is: wouldn't it then have to be put in at List of Australian monarchs, List of New Zealand monarchs, and List of British consorts as well? --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Urgh, please don't call me Cam. Feel free to remove it if you both believe it irrelevant. I thought it more relevant here that it's old location. I was going to remove the version at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Royal and noble titles and styles but if you'd rather I didn't...--Cameron* 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Canada; Dominion of the British Empire
The line which says Dominion of the British Empire in the list does not belong. This is a list of monarchs. The status of Canada is explained elsewhere. --Lawe (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please have a read of the earlier discussion that resulted in the "split" of the list. Then please gain consensus to make your proposed changes. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have had to remove some of your references as they are not reliable sources. The Monarchist League of Canada is not a scholarly resource. Furthermore the reference to Burke's Peerage and Baronetage and Burke's Landed Gentry record the genealogies of the UK and Ireland's titled and landed families, but not Canada. It would be without comparison as a genealogical reference to the aristocrats of Great Britain and Ireland, but not provide any useful information for Canada, which has a separate monarchy. --Lawe (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yet, there was no source from the MLC. Further, the article clearly states that the Queen's consort holds no title in Canada, and only uses that accorded to him in the UK; so, it's unclear as to how Burkes doesn't apply. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is unclear why it does apply. Why does it apply to Canada? You will need a reference. --Lawe (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that when the Duke of Edinburgh is in Canada he's addressed merely as Philip Mountbatten? --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am saying it has probably has nothing to do with Canada. What is the Duke of Edinburgh called in the United States? Phil? If Canada has contributed anything to the title then mention it with a reference. If Canada is only doing what most other countries do, then exclude it. --Lawe (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Miesianical, you've added a useful reference [2] showing that Canada was informally consulted and opposed the term "Prince of the Commonwealth". The problem is that the sentence is about Prince Consort which according to the reference had the advantage that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers did not need to be consulted. Much is made about not having to consult by the British. There is a distinction between consulted and informed. In the end, it was a British decision and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers (and the Press) were informed, not consulted. --Lawe (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, but they were consulted none-the-less. I've no issue inserting the word "informally" if it makes things clearer. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Miesianical, you've added a useful reference [2] showing that Canada was informally consulted and opposed the term "Prince of the Commonwealth". The problem is that the sentence is about Prince Consort which according to the reference had the advantage that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers did not need to be consulted. Much is made about not having to consult by the British. There is a distinction between consulted and informed. In the end, it was a British decision and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers (and the Press) were informed, not consulted. --Lawe (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am saying it has probably has nothing to do with Canada. What is the Duke of Edinburgh called in the United States? Phil? If Canada has contributed anything to the title then mention it with a reference. If Canada is only doing what most other countries do, then exclude it. --Lawe (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that when the Duke of Edinburgh is in Canada he's addressed merely as Philip Mountbatten? --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is unclear why it does apply. Why does it apply to Canada? You will need a reference. --Lawe (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yet, there was no source from the MLC. Further, the article clearly states that the Queen's consort holds no title in Canada, and only uses that accorded to him in the UK; so, it's unclear as to how Burkes doesn't apply. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have had to remove some of your references as they are not reliable sources. The Monarchist League of Canada is not a scholarly resource. Furthermore the reference to Burke's Peerage and Baronetage and Burke's Landed Gentry record the genealogies of the UK and Ireland's titled and landed families, but not Canada. It would be without comparison as a genealogical reference to the aristocrats of Great Britain and Ireland, but not provide any useful information for Canada, which has a separate monarchy. --Lawe (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Serparation at 1982
Shouldn't the list also be divided at 1982, like at 1931? 1982 was after all the year when Canada got rid of all ties to Britain. Some books, websites, etc also state that Canada only got rid of the British Crown in 1982, not really 1931. Canada is also usually shown as a part of the British Empire on maps during and even after the Second World War. However after 1982, that no longer happens. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's true, in 1982 we got rid of the British crown & replaced it with the Canadian crown. In a way, this list should be of just one person. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Humm, to have just The Queen seems a bit silly, but if we do something like rename this to List of monarchs of Canada, we could go back all the way to Elizabeth I (?). I think however to start with Queen Victoria is a good idea, after all she was the first to reign over Canada as a country (even though only a semi-independent one). However we should note all of the three most important dates in Canadian history on this article - them being: 1867 Confederation ~ birth of nation as semi-independent country, 1931 Statute of Westminster ~ complete self governance (but retain links to British Crown and Parliament), 1982 ~ complete independence. Yes? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's cool with me. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Phew! Trying to amend the article properly was really hard. Are my changes alright? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's cool with me. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Humm, to have just The Queen seems a bit silly, but if we do something like rename this to List of monarchs of Canada, we could go back all the way to Elizabeth I (?). I think however to start with Queen Victoria is a good idea, after all she was the first to reign over Canada as a country (even though only a semi-independent one). However we should note all of the three most important dates in Canadian history on this article - them being: 1867 Confederation ~ birth of nation as semi-independent country, 1931 Statute of Westminster ~ complete self governance (but retain links to British Crown and Parliament), 1982 ~ complete independence. Yes? --~Knowzilla (Talk) 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- A fundamental legal principle of parliament is that no parliament can bind its successor - in other words, any parliament can repeal an act of a previous parliament. It follows that all these constitutional acts can be repealed by the British parliament at any time. For those that argue that such a repeal would have no force in Canada - since this has never been tested in a court of law, properly speaking we cannot say what the outcome would be, so until actually tested, the possibility must always remain that the repeal would be effective. Therefore, Canada's present constitutional independence may be able to be rescinded at any time by the British government. ðarkuncoll 13:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but the Constitution Act 1982 was not only an act of the British Parliament, but it was also reinforced by an Act of the Canadian Parliament. An act of the British Parliament will no longer affect Canada, let alone any reason why they would even try such a thing. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- A fundamental legal principle of parliament is that no parliament can bind its successor - in other words, any parliament can repeal an act of a previous parliament. It follows that all these constitutional acts can be repealed by the British parliament at any time. For those that argue that such a repeal would have no force in Canada - since this has never been tested in a court of law, properly speaking we cannot say what the outcome would be, so until actually tested, the possibility must always remain that the repeal would be effective. Therefore, Canada's present constitutional independence may be able to be rescinded at any time by the British government. ðarkuncoll 13:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's the whole point - no one can say if it would affect Canada until it was tested in a Canadian court of law. Since this is extremely unlikely to happen, the question must remain unanswered. ðarkuncoll 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, I can just imagine what would happen if the British Parliament did try it... --~Knowzilla (Talk) 15:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's the whole point - no one can say if it would affect Canada until it was tested in a Canadian court of law. Since this is extremely unlikely to happen, the question must remain unanswered. ðarkuncoll 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- What would happen is that representatives of the British government would attempt to enforce their decision in the Canadian courts. We might try and guess at the outcome, but since no such case has ever been presented, from a strictly legal perspective we can give no answer - and so the possibility remains. ðarkuncoll 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The British Parliament in consenting to the Canada Act (in 1982), effectively abdicated its authority over Canada. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, knowzilla, but I just reverted your edits for a few reasons: Firstly, I don't think it's necessary to go into too much detail re. Canada's previous legal relationships with the UK. "It can be argued" statements that aren't backed up with any reliable sources also appear to be rather POV. Lastly, I've never heard of the constitutional patriation in 1982 as having had any effect on Canada's status as a realm of the Commonwealth; most information I've read pegs the emergence of the distinctly Canadian Crown at the Statute of Westminster in 1931. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, alright, I've no real problem with that. 1931 or 1982; either is fine with me, both seem acceptable. I guess we could say that the distinctly Canadian Crown emerged in 1931. However what should be made clear is that Canada did not gain complete and total independence & sovereignty until 1982, when the final ties to Britain were cut. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 12:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact that it continues to retain the same monarch. That's a pretty major tie. ðarkuncoll 12:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not really; the Statute of Westminster already limited the UK parliament to amending the Canadian constitution only with the Canadian government's expressed consent. So, in all, Canada was legally independent already, only (willingly) adhering to the slightly odd construct of altering its constitution via a foreign parliament. However, I do admit that the 1982 patriation was still a landmark moment; it just didn't change Canada from a Dominion to a realm, as the list earlier implied. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact that it continues to retain the same monarch. That's a pretty major tie. ðarkuncoll 12:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wasn't it the case that prior to 1982, a Canadian constututional amendment would have required the agreement of both the Canadian and British parliaments? Hence Canada was not fully independent. A British parliament could have vetoed any change, whilst not being able to make any acting alone. In the event, of course, Margaret Thatcher's government went out of its way to ensure a smooth transition in 1982 (as with the case of the Australian states a few years later), devoting parliamentary time to it and not letting it be scuppered by party politics at a time when she was pushing through some very controversial domestic policies. ðarkuncoll 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Laughing My Ass Off
At attempts to distinguish between the Queen (or King) of England and Canada. Half of Parliament, the Senate, is permanently appointed by the Queen's representative. Mind you, not by the Queen herself because she resides in her capital city of London. Yeah, not London, Ontario either. Who's that on the face of Canadian money again? Eric12 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- What specifically would you like changed? Regardless of how little time the queen spends here, title "Queen of Canada" is legally separate title from "Queen of the UK". The article looks technically correct to me. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I removed that editor's comments before as a violation of WP:FORUM. There's no intent in it to improve the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at this user's past contributions, I'd say you're probably right, but when I see comments like this I like to give the editor benefit of the doubt because sometimes they have a useful idea about the topic but don't know how to express it in a way veteran editors consider constructive. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I removed that editor's comments before as a violation of WP:FORUM. There's no intent in it to improve the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Pre-Confederation monarchs
I agree that User:JWULTRABLIZZARD has a point about Monarchs of Canada being different from monarchs of colonial powers, but I don't think that deletion of the later is the right solution. Giving that monarchs of different colonial powers have reigned over the land that is now Canada, I think that a list saying which crown reigned over which parts of Canada at which times is encyclopedically notable information. We could move that information to its own list, but I don't think that's necessary in this case; this list is not overly long, and there is a pretty good chance than anyone reading about post-Confederation monarchs of Canada will also be interested in reading about pre-Confederation colonial monarchs. I think all this really needs is lead paragraphs for the sections explaining the differences between the lists. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Where's Mary II?
Why is Mary II excluded from this list? She was co-monarch with William III, from 1689 to 1694. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- William III of England states that Mary II only ruled in the British Isles, and Mary II of England makes no mention of colonies or America. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Government of Canada's book, Crown of Maples, has William III (1688-1702) and Mary II (1688-1694) listed in the "Sovereigns of Canada" list on page 78 (pdf). One would think that they could actually be listed independently since they were co-equal and had different dates for their reigns. The way it's listed now gives off the impression that she was subordinate. Trackratte (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- My brief research led me to the same conclusion. Does anyone have any ideas of a clean way to show the two of them in one row? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Government of Canada's book, Crown of Maples, has William III (1688-1702) and Mary II (1688-1694) listed in the "Sovereigns of Canada" list on page 78 (pdf). One would think that they could actually be listed independently since they were co-equal and had different dates for their reigns. The way it's listed now gives off the impression that she was subordinate. Trackratte (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)