Talk:List of Canadian monarchs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Monarchs? Canada?

I don't think it's appropriate to talk of "monarchs of British North America" or of "monarchs of New France" for the same reason it's not appropriate to talk of monarchs of London or of monarchs of Paris. A monarch is the head of a monarchy; there has never been a monarchy of London, much less a monarchy of Brtish North America.

Furthermore, I am not sure why French kings and Victoria's British predecessors are included. Including them is entirely comparable to including Roman emperors into List of English monarchs or List of French monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically, yes. However, I do think that this list--monarchs that have ruled over the land that is now Canada as part of their kingdoms--is encyclopedicly relevant, and can easily be done in one article unlike the list of monarchs in England. We may just need to change the wording around. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I fail to see the relevance. In fact, it's misleading. By including them in a list of Canadian monarchs, we are directly stating that they were monarchs of Canada, which is simply not true. The article is not called List of monarchs who ruled over the land that is now Canada. As I said, the situation is entirely comparable to having Roman emperors in the list of English monarchs, or having Teuta in the list of heads of state of Yugoslavia. What is wrong with starting the list of Canadian monarchs with the person who was actually the first Canadian monarch? The fact that other European monarchs ruled what is now Canada can be mentioned in prose, without stating that they were monarchs of Canada. Francis II of France certainly does not belong here more than Donnacona does. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the pre-1867 monarchs were never monarchs of Canada. However, given the country's somewhat messy territorial evoution, in which two lines of monarchs reigned simultaneously over different lands that would all become part of Canada and, later, monarchs reigned over Canada while simultaneously reigning as sovereigns of another country over lands that would become part of Canada, I can see a certain value in including the pre-Confederation kings and queens. That, though, doesn't mean I'm wedded to the idea of keeping them here; I wouldn't fight hard (if at all) over their removal. That might change if some rewording and/or reorganisation took place.

It should probably be noted that there's a similar list at History of monarchy in Canada#Monarchs of Canadian territories. It was originally intended to give the more broad monarchical lineage behind the current reigning Canadian monarch that this list did not before it was expanded. Now the two are nearly identical, though the one at 'History of monarchy in Canada' obviously omits Newfoundland. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right, of course. We shouldn't ignore the fact that realms of certain French and British monarchs included parts of what is now Canada. We should mention that, but not in a way that would make it look like they were monarchs of Canada or that they had much to do with the state of Canada. Instead of including them (and thus misleading readers), can't we simply mention that "the realm of Francis I of France and his successors included New France, until Louis XV ceded it to George III of Great Britain" and so on? By treating them the same way we treat Victoria and her successors, we are playing down what took place in 1867, and almost downgrading an independent state to the rank of a colony. I suggest replacing lists of British and French monarchs with a note in the lead section explaining the situation and then starting the list of Canadian monarchs with the first Canadian monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem, how do you get "Monarchs of Canada" out of "Monarchs of New France (1534-1763)"? 117Avenue (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"List of Canadian monarchs" is written up there in much bigger letters than "Monarchs of New France (1534-1763)". Besides, there was never such a thing as "monarch of New France". The problem is obvious and already explained above. Why isn't Donnacona in this list? Why don't we have Roman emperors in the list of heads of state of Spain? Why isn't Philip II of Spain in the list of Belgian monarchs? It's simple, really - a list of Canadian monarchs should contain Canadian monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Surtsicna has a very good point, and I wholeheartedly. New France was a colony. Colonies are not independent states and thus by definition don't have a Head of State, be it a President or a Monarch. Elizabeth II, for example, is not 'Queen of the Falkland Islands', because no such office exists and the Falklands are not an independent state. Francois Hollande is not 'President of French Guiana', because French Guiana is a French overseas department, and so on. Again; colonies cannot have a Head of State by definition!

Canada after 1867 of course was not a colony, legally had a monarchy separate from that of the UK, and thus 1867 really should be the cut-off point.

'Monarchs who ruled the country that was the colonial power that colonized Canada' is not the same thing as 'Monarchs of Canada'-including the French monarchs and the UK monarchs prior to 1867 makes as much sense as having a list of the British monarchs prior to 1776 on the page 'List of Presidents of the United States'JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the list doesn't (or, didn't, now, apparently) present anyone as King of New France or Queen of British North America. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There is still a sovereign over the land. Even though Ontario isn't an independent state we have Monarchy in Ontario. Does this mass removal, without garnering consensus, mean Canada doesn't have history before 1867? What is the fate of 1812 in Canada now? 117Avenue (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

But Ontario is a sovereign state: each of the Canadian Provinces, like the component states in any federation, e.g. the U.S.A., Malaysia, Australia or the UAE, is sovereign in its own right, which is why you have such legal terms as 'the Queen in right of Ontario" and why we also have an Order of Ontario. Ontario wouldn't be able to do that if it wasn't sovereign, and that is in contrast to such places as the Falkland Islands, which are just British territory.

"There is still a sovereign over the land"

-this is wholly irrelevant. Elizabeth II of the UK is 'sovereign over the land' of the English County of Kent. Kent was formerly a Kingdom in its own right in the Dark Ages. We have a page with a list of the Kings of Kent, but we don't put Elizabeth II in that list because she doesn't hold the office of 'Queen of Kent', because Kent is now not a sovereign state; it does not have its own monarchy in its own right. Likewise, New France was just French territory, there was no 'King of New France'. To wit: we don't put James I in a list of 'monarchs of the United States', even though he was King of England etc. and was thus 'sovereign over the land' because the thirteen colonies were just English/British territory and nothing else. Again, colonies do not have monarchs. Sovereign states (and a few non-sovereign ones too, e.g. the Isle of Man or Buganda or Zululand) do.

"Canada doesn't have history before 1867? What is the fate of 1812 in Canada now?"

-Partly (but not wholly) irrelevant. This is a page detailing a list of office holders. It is not about Canadian history, except tangentially. It is about the office, not neccesarily the history of the office. There was no 'Sovereign of Canada' before 1867 because Canada was not a sovereign state and thus was legally incapable of having a Sovereign in its own right. Of course, the historical element needs to be mentioned in passing, but it is not the main focus of this article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not quite as clean as that. Canada before 1931 was technically still a colony of the UK; it, upon confederation, simply gained a level of self-governance not enjoyed by other colonies (and hence began the new category of territory within the Empire: Dominions); but Westminster legislation still trumped Canadian laws if, according to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, that British legislation was made to be applicable to the colonies. Still, we have sources stating that Victoria was the first monarch of Canada.

Is there some other, perhaps less elaborate, way to show the pre-1949 lineage? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is a list of title holders ("King of Canada" or "Queen of Canada"), shouldn't it be named List of Sovereigns of Canada, like other lists of title holders? 117Avenue (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a list of people who held a title, though. Even if the list goes back to only 1867, the titles the people in it held changed over the years. The title "Queen of Canada" didn't legally exist until 1953. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus behind this change. Official sources, such as A Crown of Maples and The Kings and Queens of Canada both support the status quo. Personal hypothesizing on what or who meets the criteria for inclusion does not trump these sources. trackratte (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does that source say? That Henry VII and Charles, Count of Angoulême, were monarchs of Canada? That Francis I (or anyone for that matter) was a "monarch of New France"? No, it says nothing to that effect. It says that the history of Canadian monarchy stretches back to the 15th and 16th centuries, which is a fact acknowledged by the article. It does not say that French kings and pre-1867 British kings were monarchs of Canada, because they were not. See discussion above. Concepts such as "Monarchs of New France" and "Monarchs of British North America" don't make sense, much like it would not make sense to talk about "monarchs of New York" or "monarchs of London". The first monarch of Canada was Victoria; we all agree about that. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

They are titled "Constitutional Monarchy in Canada" and "The Kings and Queens of Canada", names similar to "List of Canadian monarchs", and list the monarchs starting with Henry VII. Sorry Surtsicna, you're wrong, the first page of the appendix of "Constitutional Monarchy in Canada" says "Sovereigns of Canada: 1485 – 1509 Henry VII, 1515 – 1547 François I...", and the opening paragraph of "The Kings and Queens of Canada" says "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France and England in the 15th and 16th centuries... These monarchs influenced the founding and development of our country and can be truly said to be the Kings and Queens of Canada." 117Avenue (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

They also list Charles, Count of Angoulême, Marguerite de Navarre, Lord George Lennox and a bunch of other non-monarchs in that supposed list of "Kings and Queens of Canada". And in what possible sense was Henry VII monarch of Canada in 1485 or in the ensuing decade, as is claimed in the appendix? That's just nonsense on their part. Our article about the Monarchy of Canada correctly lists Victoria as the first monarch, citing Department of Canadian Heritage and the The Royal Heraldry Society of Canada as sources. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Those individuals are not listed as monarchs. That first link is the link I provided which states that the kings and queens starting in the 1500s "can be truly said to be the Kings and Queens of Canada". The heraldry page that you link to talks about Confederation. None of the above supports your statement. Just to be clear here, Confederation was not the birth of Canada, if that is what is causing all of this confusion. The sources, as quoted by 117Avenue, are explicit, and trump your personal opinions on what is 'ridiculous' or not. trackratte (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

They are explicitly and ridiculously wrong, as I have pointed out. Henry VII was monarch of Canada from 1485? That's just laughable. The first time (not counting the 11th-century Norsemen) Europeans even saw the coast of what is now Canada was in 1497. Even the word "Canada" was non-existent until the late 1530s. The first time Englishmen claimed a piece of land there was in 1583, well after Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I. And that tiny piece of what is now Canada but was then merely an English colony made Elizabeth I queen of Canada? Hardly. Claiming that she was a monarch of Canada is like claiming that she was a monarch of the United States. The List of Australian monarchs also begins with Victoria, naturally excluding George III, George IV and William IV, who were not heads of state of Australia - much like they were not heads of state of Canada. A monarch is a head of state; only a state can have a head of state; a colony is not a state; thus, a colony cannot have a monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The dates are birth and death, not the years of their reign over what is now Canada, although mostly the same thing, they are not with Henry VII. I have no idea how Australia's constitutional system works in any great detail, nor do I know their history. That being said, this is not an article about Australia. If a colony cannot have a monarch, then Queen Victoria cannot be on this list either. In fact, if that were the case, there would only be Elizabeth II on this list and perhaps (debatably), George V and VI. Canada after Confederation was still a colony. Confederation did not create a new country, only the status of Dominion. You have to separate the concepts of country, state, nation, colony, dominion, and province in order to readily grasp the nuances of Canadian constitutional history (Canada=country=geographic entity, as supposed to an independent state). Thus, the official sources are only ridiculous when you apply your own self-created criteria, as well as your own personal definition of what constitutes 'Canada'. trackratte (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Birth and death? No. The years in the appendix are the years of each monarch's reign. Henry VII was not born in 1485 but in 1457; 1485 was the year he ascended the English throne, but certainly not the year he ascended a supposed 15th-century Canadian throne. Mostly the same thing? Very few monarchs ascended the same year they were born, and none of those listed in the appendix did so. I have no idea where you got that idea. Those years are the years of each monarch's reign as king of England/Great Britain/United Kingdom, which is proven by the example of Henry VII. Canada is not mentioned at all in articles about monarchs from Henry VII until Mary II (of which 5 are FA and 2 are GA); Canada is mentioned once in the Legacy section of the article about William III (a FA), but not as a country William was monarch of. The curious omission of all references to Canada, a realm these people were supposedly monarchs of, continues in the articles about Anne, George I and George II (all FA). Canada is mentioned once in the article about George III (a FA), but again not as a country George was monarch of. It is entirely omitted again, in the article about George IV (a FA). The article about William IV (a FA) mentions Canada a staggering 3 times - though all in half a paragraph, and explicitly describing it as a colony; unsurprisingly, William is not mentioned as monarch of Canada. Why would these high-quality articles fail to mention a country their subjects were supposedly monarchs of? The answer is simple: they were not monarchs of Canada. Surtsicna (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be correct to describe Canada 1867-1931 as a 'colony', rather a country with it's own Queen (albeit not holding the title 'Queen of Canada), House of Commons and Senate. Confederation clearly created a new status that was later followed by Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, Eire, and later Pakistan, India and Ceylon. A dominion (what later evolved into what we now call a 'commonwealth realm') was an autonomous country within the British Empire-which is clear when you bear in mind Canada sent representatives to the Versailles Peace conference in 1919-something the Falklands or Bermuda certainly didn't do.

Canada clearly was not a colony prior to the reign of Elizabeth II either (although she was the first to hold the title'Queen of Canada, but that is wholly irrelevant); Canada did not automatically enter World War Two in 1939 just because Britain did, George VI had to separately declare war in right of Canada due to the 1931 Act of Westminster. And, like I said, many of the dominions (Canada included) were already acting in a sovereign way before 1931: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Eire and South Africa all joined the League of Nations, and Eire even had its own great Seal made, as well as receiving ambassadors of foreign states, which are all things that sovereign states do, not colonies. Queen Victoria did not give royal assent to acts of parliament, or issue letters patent or orders in council or confer knighthoods or peerages or other awards in right of Canada in its own right before 1867. After 1867, she did.

I really don't see the logic in including the pre-confederation monarchs of colonial powers. We don't, for example, speak of George V, Victoria, etc. etc. as 'Monarchs of Pakistan' for example, even though they were the monarchs of the colonial power (and both George VI and Elizabeth II were, incidentally both for a short while actually monarchs of Pakistan.), because not only was the area now known as Pakistan not an independent state (and thus incapable of having a monarch in the first place), but it wasn't even called Pakistan at the time. Go figure likewise as regards Canada pre-1867. To quote Surtsicna: only a state can have a head of state, a colony is not a state, thus, a colony cannot have a monarch

Anyway, Surtsicna etc. does have a point: what is now Canada is essentially the same as the entity created in 1867. New France is not, and anyway, what is the criteria for inclusion anyway? Does a pre-1867 monarch of a colonial power count if they ruled only a tiny part of Canada (like Elizabeth I did)? British Colombia was claimed by Spain until 1793 and Russia until 1825, do we include them as well? Why aren't any of the indigenous pre-Colombian monarchs of pre-European conquest listed? (Slightly euro-centric, not to mention racist and revisionist of the source there) Why aren't the Viking leaders who ruled what is now Labrador and Newfoundland listed?

Of course, in your eyes, the criteria is 'if its in these two sources', even if that makes no sense, the country they ruled only controlled a small portion of Canada or even if, like Francois of Angouleme or George Lennox, they were never monarchs of these countries in the first place.

Canadiancrown sources be damned: you can't just blindly cite sources, particularly when they make no constitutional sense.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The events which you are alluding to happened 50 to 60 years after Confederation. Canada in 1868 was a colony, was not autonomous nor independent, and no contemporary sources from the time point to an understanding of the monarch as anything except for British. Canadian citizenship did not exist, the highest court in the land was British, and the Governor General was an agent of the British Government. Your choosing, according to your own criteria, of 1867 as a start date for a uniquely Canadian monarchy is completely arbitrary. Canada now is not "the same as the entity created in 1867", politically, culturally, constitutionally, nor even remotely similar geographically. To follow your own logic, Canada did not then have a monarch in 1867, which is obviously not the case. Trying to port over comparisons of titles such as "Monarchs of Pakistan" is of no relevance. It is not for an encyclopedia to determine what constitutes a country's own history, monarchs, or constitutional understanding of itself, but to merely document it using reliable sources. Canada existed for hundreds of years prior to Confederation, and it has always had a monarch. What constitutes a 'Canadian monarch' is not for us to speculate when there already exists official and reliable sources outlining the list for us to document. The list makes perfect sense as a list of monarchs of a country (geographic entity), but not of a state (unique polity possessing a monopoly on violence). Pushing a personal interpretation or understanding of such a complicated topic does not trump reliable sources. trackratte (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point.

Canada in 1868 was a colony

-no, it was a dominion. A crown colony was British territory, not autonomous, and governed by a governor rather than a governor-general. Ontario and Quebec were crown colonies before 1867, after 1867, they were part of a dominion.

nor independent

-nobody said that it was 'independent' (by which you mean 'sovereign', just that Confederation created a state (albeit not a sovereign one) within the British Empire, subject to British sovereignty but with its own monarch and parliament. Similarly, there were other territories within the British Empire that were most certainly not sovereign or independent, had a British governor appointed by the British government, and yet had their own monarchs. These territories were referred to as protectorates as opposed to crown colonies-the former is a state under protection of a foreign power (namely Britain), the latter is just British territory in almost the same way as say Kent or London.

Tonga, Brunei, Swaziland, Basutoland, (now Lesotho), Zanzibar, the various Arab and Malay states under British protection, as well as the Indian Princely States all had their own monarchs. None or them were sovereign, the monarchs of these territories could not control foreign policy, declare war on another state in their own right, the inhabitants of these states were British subjects, the highest court of appeal in respect to these territories was British, the only legal flag in these territories was the Union Flag, they were governed by a governor (the High Commissioner) who was directly appointed by the British government.. But yet it would not be correct at all to say that for example Queen Salote Tupou III of Tonga was not a monarch. Same goes as regards Queen Victoria in right of Canada after 1867.

Canadian citizenship did not exist, the highest court in the land was British, and the Governor General was an agent of the British Government

-please see the above paragraph. All this equally applied to the protectorates as much as it did Canada 1867-1931.Canada was no less a state in 1868 just because it was not sovereign.

Canada now is not "the same as the entity created in 1867

-Really?? Has the British North America Act 1867 (AKA the Constitution Act, 1867) been repealed then? Canada in 1867 is the same state we have now in exactly the same sense that the USA is the same state that was created in 1776. The fact that it now occupies a vastly different territory and now possesses sovereignty via the 1931 Act of Westminster and the constitution has been repatriated is of no consequence: the 1867 Act is still in force, and is an integral part of the 1982 Constitution of Canada.

Trying to port over comparisons of titles such as "Monarchs of Pakistan" is of no relevance.

-it's of supreme relevance. New France was not called 'Canada', the bit of British Indiathat is now part of Pakistan was not called 'Pakistan'. Both were colonies and thus didn't have monarchs.

Canada existed for hundreds of years prior to confederation

If you mean 'there has for hundreds of years been a thing on the map called 'Canada', I'm not disputing that. The British crown colonies of Upper and Lower Canada obviously had 'Canada' in their name. But the point is: a crown colony is not a state. A dominion is.

And more to the point, of what relevance is the name particularly? There was a constituent part of the Roman Empire called 'Britain' that was just Roman territory and didn't have its own monarch-we don't speak of Hadrian or Trajan or Marcus Aurelius as monarchs of Britain just because they ruled a state that had a part of it called 'Britain' in it.

and it has always had a monarch

-does Gibraltar have a monarch? Does the Cayman Islands, or Bermuda, or Anguilla? No, they just belong to Britain as overseas territories. We don't speak of Elizabeth II as for example 'Queen of the Falkland Islands' because The Falklands aren't a state so therefore she isn't. In exactly the same way, Louis XIV of France wasn't 'monarch of New France' or 'monarch of Canada'.

To give a parallel example, we had a couple of sources from the British government with a list of all British monarchs, and it included the Roman Emperors in the list, or various monarchs of the petty kingdoms that existed before England existed as a state as British (or English) monarchs, then we can safely ignore it because it contradicts the massive wealth of Acts of Parliament as well as historical evidence that shows that is not the case (and the fact that, for example, there was no such thing as 'England' when Britain was ruled by the Romans). There are for example various parts on the official website of the British monarchy that list people in the line of succession as being in it when it is not possible for them to be so as they are Roman Catholics and are thus excluded (namely, Albert and Leopold Windsor), it also says the Queen is 'Duke of Normandy', when she isn't, and that she is 'Duke of Lancaster' when she isn't. Just because a source is 'official' does not mean it is infallible just because it is official, and it should not be cited blindly without looking at the wealth of contradictory evidence or law that contradicts it, or without looking at context. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly and foremostly, Trackratte, if a source claims that Henry VII became monarch of Canada in 1485, it is not a reliable source. If a source lists each monarch's reign as monarch of England/Great Britain/UK, then it doesn't list them as monarchs of Canada but as monarchs of England/Great Britain/UK. Either way, it does not prove that Henry VII (or his successors up to the 19th century) were monarchs of Canada. London has existed for almost two millennia and has been part of a monarchy during all of that period, save for the Interregnum, yet nobody has ever claimed that London itself was a monarchy or that London itself had a monarch. That would be absurd. Canada, just like London, was part of a monarchy but not a monarchy itself. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Albert and Leopold Windsor are still in the line of succession because they have not been confirmed as Roman Catholics. Opera hat (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That's correct, but there is a legitimate problem regarding their place in the line of succession; their aunt and her children are listed ahead of them on the official website, which cannot possibly be accurate. Surtsicna (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see a source that says the Canadian monarch started in 1867, so to avoid original research we should use the cited sources. By the way, when I Googled history of Canadian monarch, I found a Parliament of Canada source as well. 117Avenue (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, (such as some facts added by Opera hat), opinions here on Wikipedia remain simply opinions until they are verified by reliable sources. I don't actually personally care what year this list starts, or even if there exists a list at all, but if it exists, it should be based on more than editorial opinion.

The choosing of 1867 is an arbitrary date. Canada in 1868 was not a state. According to the Constitutive theory, a state is only a state when recognised by other states, which of course at the time Canada was only seen as an extension of the UK (and operated as such). According to the Montevideo Convention, a state is only a state when it has a capacity to enter into relations with other states, where Canada in 1867 had no control of foreign affairs. Any other definition of state I have seen requires that a state must have a monopoly on legitimate force within its borders, which Canada in 1867 did not have. As you’ve said, “only a state can have a head of state”, so therefore, by your own definition, Canada could not have had its own unique sovereign in 1867.

The fact that the Constitution Act of 1867 is still in force does not mean that Canada is still the same country now as it was back then. The majority of the operation of the constitution is not codified, and the way that Canada's constitution operates today as opposed to 1867 is vastly different. There is no date when Canada suddenly became a state, because it wasn't sudden, but took place through a slow evolution of de facto operation. And please stop bringing up examples of Canadian sovereignty from circa 1900 onwards, as this is not even the time period being discussed. The operating principles of the Canadian constitution had evolved to such an extent, that by 1926, it was generally accepted that Canada had been conducting itself as a sovereign state by that time.

As for “I really don't see the logic in including the pre-confederation monarchs of colonial powers”, it is logical when the word Canada is taken to mean the country or the nation but not the state. I assume that this is the criteria being used by the referenced reliable sources, although I cannot say for certain as that would simply be my personal interpretation of the sources that makes sense. All we know for sure is what the sources explicitly say, and as they actually provide a list of Canadian monarchs, I would say that they are more than explicit enough. trackratte (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is 1867 arbitrary when we have reliable sources saying Canada became a "kingdom in its own right" in that year? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that from the British Monarchy website ("Canada has been a monarchy for centuries - first under the kings of France in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, then under the British Crown in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and now as a kingdom in her own right.")? Since it says British Crown during the 1800s, and only now a kingdom in its own right, that phrase is not being applied to 1867 in that reference. In any event, kingdom does not necessarily mean state, and it is clear from contemporary and present sources that Canada circa 1867 did not think of itself as a state, nor of its monarchy as anything but British. trackratte (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's said in more places than just the UK monarchy website; consider the statement made here: "a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward." "In her own right" is the key part; I'd say the point at which the country became a kingdom in its own right is relevant to a list of monarchs of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That one website source is contradicted by the other. Both are official and reliable sources (and both have been referenced in various Wiki articles), so it's not clear which would trump the other. More sources however, and more reliable ones as well (such as the Crown of Maples publication) clearly outline the Crown in Canada as having started in the 1500s, and the first uniquely Canadian monarch being Elizabeth II (1952). In addition, Canada in 1867 did not operate as a kingdom in its own right, nor did it acknowledge ever having had a separate Canadian monarch. trackratte (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And what does the Parliament website say? That French and English kings were monarchs of Canada? No, it does not.

Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British, who have had a significant influence on our country's development.

This is exactly what the lead says now. The website does not claim that those monarchs were monarchs of Canada. It would make more sense to list Elizabeth II as the only monarch of Canada than to list Francis I or Mary I as monarchs of Canada. They were both monarchs of Canada as much as they were monarchs of the United States. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Surtsicna, upon closer reading of Crown of Maples (I use this as a primary source since it was thoroughly researched, and academics and experts within the field were used in its creation) it seems to me that they see the Crown in Canada as a single and continuous institution ("The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France in the sixteenth century"). It also states, for example, that "During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Canada’s monarchical institutions remained a pivotal aspect of its government", even though Canada obviously did not exist as a state in the late 1700s. In that sense, the sources are discussing holders of the Crown in Canada throughout Canada's history. It is not so much a list of Canadian monarchs in the sense of the nationality of the person of the sovereign his or herself, but a list of Monarchs of Canada (sovereign of a geographic entity), if the nuance can be suitably grasped. I'm not sure if I adequately explained the difference, but I think a name change to 'Monarchs of Canada' would be a more accurate title. trackratte (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but I remain unconvinced that it is accurate to list people as monarchs of Canada simply because their realm included [parts of] what is now Canada. That would be akin to having Elizabeth II and her predecessors in a List of monarchs of London. Note that the list of Scottish monarchs and the list of English monarchs do not include her, despite her being "sovereign of the geographic entities". As I have also pointed out, articles about English monarchs who were supposedly monarchs of Canada do not even mention Canada, at all, despite being either featured or good articles; articles about Francis I's successors do not mention Canada either. Had they really been heads of state/monarchs of Canada, I doubt it would have been possible to write such high-quality articles about them without mentioning Canada. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

On Canadian statehood and a unique Canadian Crown from a Crown of Maples:

“The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France in the sixteenth century”

“Yet the Crown would evolve in the years following 1867 and become a uniquely Canadian institution” (The Crown evolved to become Canadian after 1867)

“Fifty years after Confederation, Canada attained a true and lasting sense of statehood at the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917 ” (Canada did not think of itself as a state until 50 years after Confederation)

“Moreover, with the passage of this law [Statute of Westminster, 1931], the Canadian Crown became something that was Canada’s own” (A uniquely Canadian Crown did not exist prior to 1931)

“Although her father, King George VI, was specifically asked to govern Canada and respect its laws at his coronation in 1937, Queen Elizabeth was the first to be proclaimed independently Sovereign of Canada in 1953” (Although probably possessing a uniquely Canadian Crown as an institution by 1931, Queen Elizabeth II was the first sovereign to be seen as Canadian as opposed to British or French).

“the institution of the Crown, how it has evolved and grown with the country over hundreds of years as a uniquely Canadian institution” (domestic operation of the Crown in Canada over hundreds of years providing a Canadian institution, whether or not Crown was British or French)

On the subject of Canada having attained statehood in 1867 (Montevideo Convention/Constitutive Theory):

In 1867 the governor general was an agent of the British sovereign, and all federal legislation passed in Canada was forwarded for review in the UK, and any bill could be disallowed by the British sovereign (in practice providing a legislative veto to the British Government in all Canadian matters foreign and domestic). In addition, no laws passed in Canada could conflict with or override British Imperial legislation (the supremacy of British legislation over Canadian legislation, regardless of domain). One Canadian law was disallowed by the British Government in 1873, and one reserved in 1886. Canada did not have control over foreign or domestic policy and was not recognised as a state by any other state, and could not therefore qualify as a state according to either benchmark.

On the subject of Canada having attained statehood in 1867 (often used monopoly of legitimate force criteria, originating with Marx?)

British forces were the only regular forces (except for Canadian units raised under British legislation, of which I can only think of two regiments) until 1871, when a large portion of British troops left. However, all naval forces remained British, as well as nearly all regular soldiers (the authorised strength of Canadian regulars was raised from 750 to 1000 men in 1886). Military forces in Canada were commanded by British Generals until 1904. Declarations of war and diplomatic affairs were run by the British government until after the First World War, and thereafter run by the Canadian Government, but still through the British, until (I believe, although not entirely sure) roughly 1926.

In summary, Canada’s first monarchs were French, and then they were British. They were still Canada’s monarchs. Queen Elizabeth II however, is the first to be a Canadian monarch, and not simply a monarch of Canada. What I’m getting at is that nothing changed in 1867 with regards to whether or not the sovereign of Canada was Canadian or not. Queen Victoria, while the Sovereign of Canada, was and remained British, not Canadian. There have always been monarchs of Canada since the late 1500s however. If this is to be a list of Monarchs of Canada then it should be in line with the reliable sources’ explicit lists. If it is a list of Canadian monarchs, then it would only contain one person, and then it is no longer a list, so it might as well be deleted. So as I see it, there are two options, we follow the sourced lists, or we delete the article. Determining an exact point where Canada could have possible attained statehood and therefore its own head of state is a futile exercise. Even the Supreme Court of Canada cannot determine such a date, only saying that it probably occurred sometime between 1919 and 1931 ([1967] SCR 792 - Re Offshore Mineral Rights of British Columbia). trackratte (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained that the reliable sources are a) undisputably factually incorrect, or b) do not prove that these people were monarchs of Canada. Henry VII cannot be listed as a "sovereign of Canada" from 1485. He simply cannot be. If he is listed there as a "sovereign of Canada", then the list is wrong and the source's reliability is highly questionable. If he is listed there as a sovereign of England, a realm which included parts of what is now Canada, then the list is accurate but doesn't prove that he was a monarch of Canada. The next question is - how much of Canada did he even rule? Wasn't the first colony in North America founded during the reign of Elizabeth I? It seems to me that Henry VII was chosen only because he was the most recent common ancestor of Elizabeth I and her successors. Furthermore, does having 2% of Canada as part of your realm make you a monarch of Canada? Would establishing oneself as ruler of Kaliningrad Oblast make one sovereign of Russia? The other "reliable source" states that Mary I was the "first female monarch of Canada to reign in her own right", as if queens consort were monarchs. There are reasons to seriously discredit these sources.

If we have to choose between presenting no information and presenting false information, I am much more in favor of the former. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Trackratte, I would appreciate it if you would directly answer Surtiscna's questions before editing without reaching a consensus.

In the meantime, I'm going to create a page called List of American monarchs, and stick the English/British monarchs from James I to George III in it. Oh, and the King of Sweden on the basis the Swedes had a colony in Delaware. Oh, and some of the French and Spanish monarchs while I'm at it.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't edit the list at all, with consensus or not. That was another user who restored the status quo until consensus is reached otherwise, which is what should have been done in the first place. Second, you are of course free to create whichever articles you please, and I'm sure they will all be treated according to their individual merits. As for any questions posed by Surtisicna, which ones would you like me to respond to specifically? I thought most of them rhetorical. In any event, I don't agree that the sources are "indisputably factually incorrect" for reasons I've already explained (Canada as a state versus Canada as a country, a matter for interpretation either way). Canada considers this list of monarchs as having been monarchs of Canada and part of the country's constitutional and historical makeup. And as it says in the lead, the list is about those "monarchs who have reigned over what is now Canada", although I still think the article should be re-titled 'Monarchs of Canada' and not stay 'Canadian Monarchs', as the latter speaks to the nationality of the individuals concerned, which is not what this list is about. trackratte (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"List of Canadian monarchs" follows the pattern that includes List of Scottish monarchs, List of French monarchs, List of Belgian monarchs, List of Spanish monarchs, etc.

I still don't see why the pre-Confederation monarchs can't just be in a separate section topped by an explanation about the status of Canada/eventual-Canadian-territories under those monarchs and titled accordingly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Would anyone be upset if we split this list into two pages, one called List of Monarchs of Canada and one called List of monarchs that have ruled over Canada? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's really consistent with the sources. 117Avenue (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As for 'Canada wasn't a sovereign state after 1867' well, no it wasn't (though I must reiterate: it most definitely was not a colony), but neither was Brunei before 1984, neither was Tonga before 1970, Swaziland before 1968 or Lesotho before 1966. But we still have lists the monarchs of those territories because they were not colonies. They were protectorates and, like dominions, they can have a monarch in their own right. But the point you are missing is that, unlike protectorates and dominions, colonies cannot have a monarch in their own right.

I am particularly interested in you answering the question: "does having 2% of Canada as part of your realm make you a monarch of Canada? Would establishing oneself as ruler of Kaliningrad Oblast make one sovereign of Russia?"

As for 'oh, it's the official source of the Canadian government'...so? That doesn't mean they can't make mistakes! Just like the official website of the British Royal family states things that are demonstrable incorrect (such as saying the Queen is Duke of Normandy and Duke of Lancaster and it also has the line of succession wrong), and if this official source states things that are demonstratably untrue (such as saying Henry VII ruled over a part of Canada from 1485 when he most certainly did not), then it can be dismissed as unreliable.

I just don't see the logic at all: you don't include the French monarchs in a 'list of Algerian monarchs' just because Algeria was incorporated into France and the area happened to be called 'Algeria' at the same time, do you? JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Among other edits, I've repositioned the sub-lists and altered the headers in an attempt to differentiate between the main focus of this list--monarchs of Canada--and an associated but tangential subject--monarchs of territories that eventually became part of Confederation. I'm not certain it's a perfect solution to the above dispute; but, it might be a start. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we put more important above less important if it is against chronological order in an article chronicling history? 117Avenue (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not saying official sources are infallible (infallible sources don't exist, because infallible people don't exist). Wikipedia requires that we use reliable sources, which is what we are trying to do.
2. For "unlike protectorates and dominions, colonies cannot have a monarch in their own right" and the Dominion of Canada was "most definitely was not a colony", can you provide a reference or is this opinion? As far as I'm aware, there is no firm definition on what exactly 'dominion' constitutes, as it referred to different concepts at different times and places. For example, Canada in the Making states "With the passing of the British North America Act in 1867, Canada became a Dominion in the British Commonwealth...This did not mean that it was a fully independent country, though. It remained a colony of Britain for many more years."
3. As for "does having 2% of Canada as part of your realm...", where does this 2% stat come from? Are you speaking about 2% geographically? Canada has always been a monarchy (100% of it, how can a country be only half a monarchy?). Canada has grown, geographically, over the centuries. There is no fixed point, no declaration, no moment that Canada officially started. There is no date where Canada suddenly magically came into being. Historically, what evolved into Canada, is generally considered to have started the moment Jacques Cartier planted a cross in the name of King Francis in 1534. It's from that moment on that Canada officially draws its history, and from that moment on where Canada considers itself to have been a monarchy. Thus, the Crown of Maples quotes, "Initially established under the rule of the kings of France during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Canada’s monarchical institutions continued as a key element of government under the British Crown as a colony, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries", and "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France in the sixteenth century", and "It was with the Treaty of Paris of 1763 that the powers of the last absolute monarch to reign over Canada (King Louis XV of France) came to an end". It is not the role of an encyclopedia to dictate what a country's history may be according to editor synthesis, but to outlay factual information based on the best available references (and not inferences). If we are going to provide a historical list of all of the monarchs of Canada, then we will follow the most reliable and explicit sources available. If we are going to provide a list of independently Canadian monarchs of the modern fully independent Canadian state, then only one sovereign fits that criteria and there is subsequently no list.trackratte (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The more this goes on, the more I'm leaning towards returning this list to the way it was before it was expanded and leave the lineage of monarchs to be covered where it already is. That or replace the pre-Confederation monarchs here with that list at History of monarchy in Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Canada has always been a monarchy, 100% of it"

-o...kay...so it was a monarchy before there was any European settlement on it??

"If we are going to provide a list of independently Canadian monarchs of the modern fully independent Canadian state, then only one sovereign fits that criteria" -Precisely because the development of 'Canada' from the 1867 'Dominion of Canada' to the fully sovereign in international law 'Canada' of 2013 was a very, very gradual process, but nonetheless the process is clearly a direct one.

Where do we draw the line? 1867? But then Canada was not independent nor sovereign. 1919 and the inclusion of Canadian (as well as Australian and New Zealand) delegates at the Peace of Versailles? No? What about 1931 and the Act of Westminster? No? How's about Canada being a signatory to the 1945 UN Charter, and it being a founding member of the United Nations? How's about the 1953 Canadian Royal Titles Act that actually used a title for the Canadian monarch in right of Canada for the first time? Or the repatriation of the Canadian constitution? Where...where do you draw the line?

Simply saying 'any monarch that rules over the territory we now call Canada' is most patently not acceptable. Just bacause there was a French colonial territory called 'Canada' that was part of the French (non-sovereign I hasten to add) colony of New France does not mean that they were 'monarchs of Canada', just the same as the fact there was a Roman colony called 'Britain' does not mean that we should include any of the Roman Emperors should be included in an article called Monarchs of Britain.

I'm not saying official sources are infallible

-Never mind 'infallible', the information contained in that source is plain wrong, and we can demonstrate it is wrong. There was no English colony, anywhere on the territory of today's Canada in 1485. Therefore he could not have been a 'Canadian monarch' in 1485 (never mind the fact that a colony cannot have a monarch). Stop skirting round the issue. This source is not reliable because the information provided in it is incorrect. For that reason, and that reason alone, it is not acceptable.

can you provide a reference or is this opinion?

-There most clearly was a status of 'dominion' that pertained to the autonomous territories within the British Empire. Which is precisely why you had a 'Dominions Office' that dealt only with the affairs of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State-because they were, uh, the dominions. That's also why they had high commissioners rather than ambassadors, also why the full titulary of the British monarch included (after 1901) the words 'the British Dominions beyond the sea' (in reference to the Dominions) and so on.

More to the point, it most definitely was not a colony, for the following reasons:

• It had a Governor-General rather than a Governor-crown colonies had a governor. Until 1867, the title 'Governor-General' was reserved solely (in conjunction with other titles such as Viceroy) for territories like Irelnd or Corsica that were in theory independent Kingdoms, but in reality had limited sovereignty, or British India after 1858, but then British India was in its own category and did not fit simply within the category of 'Crown Colony.'
• It had its own parliament, consisting of Queen, Senate and House of Commons-none of the crown colonies had a parliament or other legislative body constituted in this way
• It had its own Great Seal-none of the crown colonies had this.
• It had its own Prime Minister

aaaand many, many other reasons.

where does this 2% stat come from? Are you speaking about 2% geographically? Canada has always been a monarchy (100% of it, how can a country be only half a monarchy?). Canada has grown, geographically, over the centuries. There is no fixed point, no declaration, no moment that Canada officially started. There is no date where Canada suddenly magically came into being. Historically, what evolved into Canada, is generally considered to have started the moment Jacques Cartier planted a cross in the name of King Francis in 1534.

-The 2% comes from the fact that 2% of Russia is the Kaliningrad Oblast. Do we list Wilhelm I of Germany as a monarch of Russia because he ruled over an area of land (the former East Prussia) that today consitutes 2% of today's Russia? Why does Canada have such exclusive treatment?

Was Canada a monarchy before it was colonised by Europeans?? Was it a monarchy before any part of it was called 'Canada'?? Obviously not.

As for the rest, all that happened in 1534 is that a French Colony came into being on what is now Canada. A colony that later became a British crown colony (also called Canada), that achieved Dominion (i.e. autonomous) status within the British Empire and subsequently, between 1867 and now, gradually achieved sovereignty and independence from Britain. It did not become a monarchy in 1534 any more than Saint Pierre and Miquelon did, because COLONIES DO NOT HAVE MONARCHS. 'Crown of Maples' source be damned everlastingly to hell and back with little red demons with pitchforks up its backside.

Any one else willing to write up a List of Monarchs of St. Pierre and Miquelon?

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Canada has been a monarchy since the day it was claimed by monarchs (Upon arrival, Jacques Cartier was informed the place was called 'Kanata' in 1534, and has been known as Canada since then).
2. Where do we draw the line? Independence or sovereignty are not requirements to have a monarch. Obviously colonies can have monarchs, since every British, French, Spanish, etc, colony did. No one is saying Canada had its own, independently Canadian, monarch prior to 1931. The sources state that "Since then, [1931] the Canadian Crown has been legally distinct from those of the other Commonwealth realms, with its own separate and distinct monarch."
3. "the information contained in that source is plain wrong, and we can demonstrate it is wrong". Your opinion is that these reliable and academically verified sources are wrong. However, if you can demonstrate they are wrong using reliable sources, please do so. And no, your opinion or synthesis does not count as a reliable source.
4. Dominion was first used by Canada in 1867 and as a term, did not come to be connected with independence until much later. In 1867 with the announcement of the title of Dominion, nothing with regards to Canada's relationship with the UK was changed. As you can see from the sources I provided in the section below, Canada was in no way autonomous in 1867. trackratte (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This did not mean that it was a fully independent country, though. It remained a colony of Britain for many more years.

-This is clearly and demonstratably not true. Neither Canada as a whole, nor the constitutent provinces of Canada that made up Canada after 1867, were Crown Colonies of Britain (I'm assuming, of course, you know what a Crown Colony is) after 1867. So, no; Canada did not 'remain a colony of Britain for many more years' after that date

Canada was in no way autonomous in 1867.

-Eh? It had its own Prime Minister, it had its own Governor General, its own Parliament consisting of Senate and House of Commons, directly modeled after that of Britain, after 1867. How in any way, shape of form is that 'in no way autonomous'?? Care to name any crown colony in the British Empire that had that much autonomy in 1867? No? Thought not.

In fact, your own criteria ('any monarch who was monarch of a colonial power that colonised Canada after it became called 'Canada' in 1534' is therefore a 'monarch of Canada') would exclude Henry VII, as well as most of the reign of Henry VIII, which directly contradicts the 'Crown of Maples' source. And that is besides you patently ignoring the fact that colonies do not have monarchs.

In legal (but not literal) terms, a colony does not have a monarch sitting on a throne with a crown on his head granting assent to legislation. It has a governor who governs in the name of the colonial power (and by extension the monarch), governing the said colony according to the laws of the land of the said colonial power, and not in its own right. A colonial power does not grant assent to legislation in the name of an absentee monarch who cannot be physically in the country due to the fact they are also simultaneously the monarch of another country because of a personal union between that state and another state(as is the case with a Governor-General of a Commonwealth Realm). Canada as a colony did not have (in legal fiction terms) its own throne and its own crown in the year 1813, whereas it is absolutely correct to speak of Canada now having legally its own throne; indeed, Canada has a Speech from the Throne at the State Opening of Parliament in exactly the same way the UK has, as well as its own crown in the year 2013 -even though an actual physical Crown or throne may not exist, but then, neither has existed for Belgium either.

-Here's my next question: Do the British Virgin Islands have a monarch? Does Greenland? Is there a 'Queen of the Falkland Islands' or a 'Queen of Greenland'? Or do they just belong to a sovereign state that has a monarch? Nobody talks about 'Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Pitcairn Island', and Barack Obama is not 'President of American Samoa' precisely for the fact that it does not work like that. Rather, to use the last example, American Samoa is just a territory that belongs to the USA, and Barack Obama happens to be President of the USA, and he does not hold an office like 'President of American Samoa', either de jure or ex officio. Likewise, Queen Victoria for example was not 'Queen of Cape Colony' in 1840, just like she wasn't 'Queen of Canada'; Canada and Cape Colony in 1840 were just crown colonies of Britain, and as such had no monarch, just like American Samoa has no President in 2013.

Anyone mind if I start a page about the non-existent Presidents of American Samoa?

A colony is simply a territory that belongs to a sovereign, colonial power, specifically for the colonisation by nationals of the colonial power, as opposed to a protectorate (a country that is not sovereign, but is under the protection of a colonial power, and retains considerable internal autonomy and often its own Head of State or monarch) or a dominion. As such, they don't have monarchs. George V of the UK, for example, was never, in law, viewed by anyone in Britain or the colony itself or anywhere else, as a 'monarch of South Georgia' whether at the time or retrospectively.

Your opinion is that these reliable and academically verified sources are wrong

-er, what? No, really, what?? It is not my opinion, or anyone else's for that matter, and it has already been pointed out why the source is unreliable by myself and other users. The source states that Henry VII of England was a 'monarch of Canada' from 1485 to 1509 (i.e.. the period he was King of England) So, here's another question for you to answer (or just ignore as you have all the others): was there an English colony anywhere on the territory of today's Canada in 1485? 'No', is the answer. Therefore, he could not be a 'Canadian monarch' if he didn't rule over a single inch of Canada, never mind the fact the term 'Canada' was not used as a term for anything for another 52 years. As for sources, how's about picking up all the countless books that detail the English/British colonisation of North America that state, oh, I don't know, that Henry VII didn't grant a Charter to John Cabot to colonise what is now Canada until after 1485?? Seriously, how can you not see that?? It's just common sense. Again,stop blindly following sources if it can be demonstrated that they are wrong.

And I really, really would appreciate it if you would directly answer the questions I have given in my text, rather than just this endless 'but the Maple crown sources says this' rhetoric. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me see I can distill your points and address them one by one so we don't miss anything. I would also like to apologise if my tone has been below board, sometimes our written remarks can become somewhat flippant.

1. Whether or not Canada remained a colony post-Confederation, regardless of what the sources say.
2. Whether Canada was autonomous or not post-Confederation.
3. "Is there a Queen of the Falkland Islands?" --> Can Canada be said to have had a Queen of Canada previous to 1867? After 1867?
4. "was there an English colony anywhere on the territory of today's Canada in 1485? 'No', is the answer. Therefore, he could not be a 'Canadian monarch' if he didn't rule over a single inch of Canada". Is permanent habitation a prerequisite of ownership by a state/sovereign?
5. Is an issued royal charter to colonise a territory necessary for claim? (John Cabot did not possess any such charter)

From what I gathered, those were all of your salient points/questions. Please let me know if I've overlooked anything.

Now, I'll try my best to address each one:

1. Yes the sources say that Canada remained a colony post-1867. Whether or not Canada was a 'Crown Colony' is irrelevant though, if you look at the Colony article, you'll see that it says "a colony has no independent international representation, and its top-level administration is under direct control of the metropolitan state." Canada in 1867 had no international representation as all international affairs were controlled and directed by the British. Its top-level administration was under direct control of the British (the governor general was an agent of the British Government). (Source): "The Dominions started out as Crown colonies, but as responsible government developed in the United Kingdom, the British Cabinet (rather than the reigning monarch) exercised practical control over policy affecting the Dominions. The legislatures of the Dominions were therefore not sovereign; they consisted of the King of the United Kingdom, and their upper and lower houses. This colonial control extended to the Governor General, who used to function as an agent of the British government that nominated him. But the Statute of Westminster, as this diagram shows, fundamentally altered that relationship by establishing a personal union of legally separate Crowns such that, for instance, the Parliament of Canada consisted of (at the time) the King of Canada, the Senate, and the House of Commons". Another source reads "Before 1926, the Governor General acted as the representative of the British government in Canada". It wasn't until 1926 that the top-level administration fell under domestic control with it being said at the 1926 Imperial Conference that "In our opinion it is an essential consequence of the equality of status...that he [governor general] is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that Government" (source).
2. This point is largely inline with that above. As pointed out below "the British Parliament could exercise the legal right of supremacy it possessed at common law to pass any legislation on any matter affecting the colonies" (source). So, as per the sources just stated above, Canada in 1867 did not possess any sovereign authority to pass laws (authority was derived from the British Crown, and all legislation could be reserved or cancelled by the British Parliament), its own Parliament consisted of the King of the United Kingdom (represented domestically by an agent of the British Government), and the British Cabinet exercised practical control over Canadian policy. I fail to see how this could somehow equate to an autonomous state.
3. "Do the British Virgin Islands have a monarch? Does Greenland? Is there a 'Queen of the Falkland Islands' or a 'Queen of Greenland'?" I think the crux of this issue is that we are not recognising the difference between a title and a function. No there is no Queen of the Falkland Islands, but the Falklands Islands most certainly has a queen, and by definition, a monarchical form of governance. In much the same way as there was no 'Queen of Canada' before 1952, but Canada most certainly did have a Queen in 1842, for example.
4. Was there an English colony in Canada in 1497? Not that I'm aware of. However, having permanent habitation on a given area is not necessarily a prerequisite to claim or rule, particularly at the time in question where explorers were claiming vast swathes of territory in the name of their respective sovereigns without even knowing the extent of them. However, 1497 is when the British Crown first lay claim to what came to be known as Canada. 1534 is when the French lay claim to Canada. Also, huge amounts of territory were completely uninhabited outside of Canada, but were still under the British Crown, and would only later become part of Canada and be inhabited.
5. As for possessing a specific charter to colonise a given territory, I don't see why that would be a requirement to lay claim on behalf of ones sovereign. Colonisation and claim are two different beasts.

Let me know if there is any points that I missed or forgot to address.

trackratte (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the crux of this issue is that we are not recognising the difference between a title and a function. No there is no Queen of the Falkland Islands, but the Falklands Islands most certainly has a queen, and by definition, a monarchical form of governance. In much the same way as there was no 'Queen of Canada' before 1952, but Canada most certainly did have a Queen in 1842, for example.

-Hmm, well, it's only really this I have issue with. I really don't understand where this curious notion of yours that a territory annexed by a foreign power can have a monarch in respect of itself. To wit: if Britain annexed Spain tomorrow, for example; that wouldn't mean the Queen would instantly become 'Queen of Spain' because Spain would cease to exist. It would become British territory. She would certainly 'reign over' Spain in these circumstances, but then, she 'reigns over' Norfolk. That doesn't mean she's 'Queen of Norfolk', and we don't speak of there being a 'Queen of Norfolk', Norfolk is just British territory, it is 'just' a part of the United Kingdom. Norfolk doesn't have a 'monarchical system of governance', just like it doesn't have a 'republican form of governance'-because it's just a part of a monarchy.

Likewise, the Falklands is 'just' British territory; it is not 'Falklandese'; thus there is no 'Falklandese monarch', or any other type of monarch in respect of the Falklands, it is just a possession of Britain, a possession of the British monarch, and it thus has no separate sovereign existence. Like Norfolk, the Falklands doesn't have a 'monarchical form of governance', nor a republican one, because there is no monarch at the apex of its governance, just a governor.

As regards the 'only Queen Elizabeth II, out of the five monarchs since Victoria has actually borne the title King/Queen of Canada' argument, let us take for example, Tuvalu. Tuvalu has been independent since 1978, but a Royal Titles Act is respect of Tuvalu was only granted Assent in 1987. So, between 1978 and 1987, the title of the monarch of Tuvalu was By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith (and this was specifically stated to be the title of the Tuvaluan monarch in the 1986 Tuvaluan Constitution.) In 1987, the title of the Tuvaluan monarch was changed by Royal Titles Act to: By the Grace of God Queen of Tuvalu and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth-Style and titles decreed by Act 1 of 1987 (Cap 10).

So, from 1st October 1978, but not before; as Tuvalu was a British territory prior to this date and not an independent state, there certainly was a 'Queen of Tuvalu'; but she didn't bear the title of 'Queen of Tuvalu'. But there certainly was a 'Her Majesty the Queen in right of Tuvalu' between 1978 and 1987 that was able to conclude treaties with other independent countries, declare war on other countries, and accredit foreign ambassadors in respect of Tuvalu. A colony cannot do that. The title is not important, it is the powers connected with that title.

Also, the title of the Queen as regards Canada isn't simply 'Queen of Canada', it is: "By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" -i.e. it includes the United Kingdom in the title(as does Grenada).

1497 is when the British Crown first lay claim to what came to be known as Canada

-Correct; so how therefore, could Henry VII of England have 'reigned over' Canada starting in 1485? Your own logic defeats itself.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

" I really don't understand where this curious notion of yours that a territory annexed by a foreign power can have a monarch in respect of itself". That's precisely my point, Canada did not have a monarch in respect of itself (to use the same phrasing), until 1931. However, Canada has always had a sovereign since the kings of France/England first lay claim to it (first by the English crown in 1497, and by the French crown in 1534). It wasn't called Canada back in 1497 though, but was called Canada in 1534. So, since 1534 Canada was a named entity, and it had a sovereign, however it didn't have a Canadian sovereign, but a French one. Thus, the lists' (and the supporting references) division of sovereigns of Canada into three categories, the French crown, the British crown, and the Canadian crown.

"that wouldn't mean the Queen would instantly become 'Queen of Spain' because Spain would cease to exist". Just because Canada was a British territory, or even a nominally British controlled territory, until 1931, does not mean that Canada did not exist previous to 1931.

"it is just a possession of Britain, a possession of the British monarch, and it thus has no separate sovereign existence". I'm not arguing that Canada had a 'sovereign existance' under a British crown, but Canada certainly did exist, and it existed independent of the UK as it was not part of the UK, but was its own non-sovereign country within the British Empire. A distinction needs to be made about the existence of a country, and the sovereignty of a country.

"In 1987, the title of the Tuvaluan monarch was changed..." Titles can exist and/or change independent of function. We're not discussing title ("The Queen of Canada"), but function (one of the queens of Canada).

"Also, the title of the Queen as regards Canada isn't simply 'Queen of Canada', it is: "By the Grace of God...". I've gone over this in other forums, there is a difference between a style and a title. That phrase you referenced is the "Style and Titles" of the Queen of Canada (thus the "Style and Titles Act"). The Royal Style: "By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories". The Royal Titles: "[1]Queen, [2]Head of the Commonwealth, [3]Defender of the Faith". United Kingdom is part of the Royal Style (she is of the UK), and not part of the Royal Title in Canada.

"so how therefore, could Henry VII of England have 'reigned over' Canada starting in 1485". The date in the list is 1497. Crown of Maples lists the full reigns of the individual sovereigns, CRHT lists both dates for their full reigns, as well as the dates that pertain specifically to Canada (really only applies to Henry VII and Francis I). So no one is saying that Henry VII had claimed sovereignty over what would become Canada in 1485, but only in 1497.

trackratte (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Canada as a Kingdom in its own right & Difference between Dominion of Canada and Canada

1. The reference that Canada was a kingdom in its own right as of 1867 is directly contradicted by the British Monarchy website, as well as the Constitutional History website (accessed through the Government of Canada History Portal) which states that it was only with "the passage of the Statute of Westminster, [that] Canada ceased to be a colony of Britain: She was a proper country in her own right.". Also, here which states that with "the passing of the British North America Act in 1867, Canada became a Dominion in the British Commonwealth and John A. Macdonald became Canada's first prime minister. This did not mean that it was a fully independent country, though. It remained a colony of Britain for many more years". Andrew Heard adds that with regards to Canada after Confederation, "the British Parliament could exercise the legal right of supremacy it possessed at common law to pass any legislation on any matter affecting the colonies". Frank Scott explains that (same ref), "Never at any time in [1919-39] was the full international personality of the Dominions, as distinct from Great Britain, established beyond equivocation". John A. Macdonald outlined in the Confederation Debates that "Not a single suggestion was made, that it could...be for the interest of the colonies...that there should be a severance of our connection". To sum up, taking a cursory glance at the sources, it is perfectly clear that Canada did not consider itself an independent kingdom in its own right, it did not operate as such until much later, and was still a colony until at least 1919 (and firmly by 1931).
2. A distinction must be drawn between the Dominion of Canada as a polity, and Canada more generally, as I believe this is a cause of much of our supposed disagreement. To be clear, if you've taken the time to go through the sources and study Canada's constitutional evolution and history, 1867 was an important milestone but it was by no means the start of Canada, but of the Dominion of Canada. For example, the Canada Gazette ("the official newspaper of the Government of Canada") commenced publishing in 1841 ie. there was a Canadian Government making and publishing laws long before Confederation. A proclamation from 1843 commenced with "VICTORIA, by the Grace of God, Of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c. &c. &c. To Our Beloved and faithful, the Legislative Councillors of the Province of Canada", whereas in 1869 it read as "VICTORIA, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c., &c., &c., to Our Beloved and Faithful the Senators of the Dominion of Canada, and the members elected to serve in the House of Commons of Our said Dominion". As you can see, the practices barely differ at all from 1843 to 1869, and a completely new system of monarchy can hardly be claimed to have arisen entre temps. Thus, when we title a list of Monarchs of Canada (1867-Present) we are really saying Monarchs of the Dominion of Canada, as Canada includes all of its iterations from at least 1791 to present. When it comes to a list of monarchs, 1867 is a completely arbitrary date, as nothing changed with regards to the monarchy itself, nor its role within the colony. Confederation was not the start of Canada, but a significant milestone along its evolutionary path. trackratte (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "independent kingdom in its own right".

From the source: "Canada has long been a monarchy--under the kings of France in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, under the British Crown in the 18th and 19th centuries, and as a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward." Confederation was in 1867. That doesn't contradict the British monarchy website. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the list to fit with the two explicit reference lists (titles, sovereigns, dates), and added references. I'm not arguing that Confederation was in 1867, I'm saying that none of the academically verified reliable sources support that Canada was a kingdom in its own right in 1867. One government webpage says that in the face of all the other, more reliable sources. trackratte (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There are no sources (at least, not so far presented) that assert Canada was not a kingdom in its own right after 1867. Methinks you're applying your own, restricted definition of "kingdom in its own right" here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That may be. What is your interpretation of "kingdom in its own right"? I see it as the Crown acting in its capacity as the state, independent of those of other states (somewhat as perhaps here). In the same way as the "Queen in Right of Canada". As the state and the Sovereign are de jure one and the same, for there to be a Queen in Right of Canada there would have to, I would think, be an independent Canadian state. Since, in 1867, the Crown was an agent of the UK (the Imperial Crown over the entirety of the British Empire, with the British Parliament being supreme to all colonial parliaments), it would seem to me that in 1867 everything would be issued by the Queen in Right of the United Kingdom. So, since authority in and over Canada came from the UK, I would think that Canada could not be a kingdom in its own right as the UK was the fount of all state authority. Naturally I haven't seen any sources outlining this issue. Do you have any that you could share to enlighten me? In the absence of any definite sources, I would suggest a different turn of phrase or explanatory note since I think it's confusing with one ref saying that Canada was still a colony post-confederation, and then the other saying it was a kingdom in its own right within the same sentence. Let me know what you think. trackratte (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I could say, but it doesn't really matter what my interpretation is; it's what the source says. Since the article says the country was still within the British Empire at that point, I don't think the article in any way misleads people into thinking that kingdom in its own right was independent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

From Macmillan Dictionary "in your own right: as a result of your own ability, achievements, qualifications etc and not because of anyone else". FromCambridge Dictionary "If someone has a position in their own right, they have earned it or got it by themselves and not because of anyone else". FromOxford Dictionaries "as a result of one’s own claims, qualifications, or efforts, rather than an association with someone else". FromCollins Dictionary "having a claim or title oneself rather than through marriage or other connection". So, having an achievement, position, claim, or title independent of an association or connection with somone else. In English, 'a kingdom in its own right' means that it is a kingdom on its own authority without any connection or association with any other state. Canada became a dominion on the authority of the UK, and remained connected to and in association with the UK, as Canada fell under its direct control as part of the British Empire. Yes, one official source says that Canada was a kingdom in its own right, but a host of other, more reliable sources, both official and academic, do not jive with Canada being a kingdom on its own authority independent of that of the UK. All I am suggesting is we change the wording as to more clearly explain the situation and to reconcile the sources. As it stands now, I think the phrase is clearly confusing since both of us took away completely different meanings from it, and I had to actually look it up to confirm its meaning. trackratte (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the office of Monarch of Canada wasn't created until 1931, but most sources list Victoria as the first Canadian monarch even though her role was technically the same as her British predecessors. We need a really relabel source, preferably from the government, that unambiguously says that the office of Monarch of Canada did not exist before 1931. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)