Jump to content

Talk:List of governors general of Canada/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Determining the list

Please use more caution when making wholesale changes. The term "Governor General" does not contain a hyphen. Please see the official site for the Governor General of Canada to confirm this. - Cafemusique 21:34 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Untitled 1

According to the articles, the second table contains a mix of Governors General of Upper and Lower Canada. Could these please be sorted out? - Montréalais 05:31, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The best I could make of that is that some of them were simultaneously governors of Upper or Lower Canada while they were also governor of Canada. I'll see if I can find some more info about that. Adam Bishop 12:52, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There are lists that don't quite match Wikipedia in Jacques Monet. The Canadian Crown. Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1979. P. 85, 86.
Frustratingly, it doesn't say what their precise titles were: governor, governor general or lieutenant governor. I have arranged the lists into a table for easier comparison:
Governors of Canada 1760 to 1841
Canada Lower Upper
Name Term Name Term Name Term
Jeffrey Amherst 1760-1763 — 1760-1766 — 1760-1792
James Murray 1764-1768
Sir Guy Carleton 1766-1768
Sir Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester 1768-1778 — 1768-1770
H. Theophilus Cramahé 1770-1774
— 1774-1784
Frederick Haldimand 1778-1786
Henry Hamilton 1784-1785
Henry Hope 1785-1786
Sir Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester 1786-1796 — 1786-1791
Alured Clarke 1791-1793
Col. John Graves Simcoe 1792-1796
— 1793-1796
Robert Prescott 1796-1807 Robert Prescott 1796-1797 — 1796-1799
— 1797-1799
Sir Robert Shore Milnes 1799-1805 Peter Hunter 1799-1805
— 1805-1808
Francis Gore 1806-1817
Sir James Craig 1807-1811
Sir Francis Burton 1808-1832
Sir George Prevost 1812-1815
Sir John Sherbrooke 1816-1818
The Duke of Richmond 1818-1819 Sir Perigrine Maitland 1818-1828
The Earl of Dalhousie 1820-1828
— 1828-1830 Sir John Colborne 1828-1836
Lord Aylmer 1830-1835
— 1832-1867
The Earl of Gosford 1835-1838
Sir Francis Bond Head 1836-1838
The Earl of Durham 1838 Sir George Arthur 1838-1841
Sir John Colborne 1838-1839
Lord Sydenham 1839-1841
Indefatigable 18:49, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Wow...well that's probably more accurate than the websites I gleaned info from (and which I gathered together mostly through educated guesses, I must say). I haven't had a chance to look for any printed sources myself, yet. Adam Bishop 20:55, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a little chary about including anyone in this list who did not have the title Governor General of Canada. I would prefer that the governors of New France, for example, be at List of Governors of New France, with appropriate links. Discussion? - Montréalais 04:53, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suppose so...I think the government considers them all to be a continuous line (they are shown as such in Rideau Hall, I believe), but there is a Governor of New France page that redirects here, so they could be moved there. Adam Bishop 04:58, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I took off the redirect and put the list on Governor of New France and made a little stub. It is really confusing for someone reading about New France to end up on a page about the Governors General of Canada even if there is some claim to historical continuity. I doubt if anyone would agree that the Governors of New France were Governors General of the British Crown. N'est pas? — Alex756 |talk 23:57, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense :) Adam Bishop 23:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Untitled 2

"The Viscount Monck" --- I thought that noble titles only have the article when they are of the form "The (peer) of (place)," not when they're "(peer) (surname)." That's the form the GG's website uses: "The Earl of Minto" is followed by "Earl Grey". Please advise. - Montréalais 04:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's correct usage for the descriptive title of a peer (i.e. the form that shows his exact rank in the peerage) to be preceded by the definite article. Forms like "Earl Grey" and "Earl Spencer" are incorrect, though common in informal usage. The proper way to mention the Earl Grey without using "the" is to call him "Lord Grey", just as the Earl of Minto is "Lord Minto". (This doesn't apply to Dukes, of course, since they can never be called "Lord Title", but they always have "of" in their title anyway so the problem never arises.) Proteus (Talk) 13:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. I obviously haven't explained it very well. The formal style of writing a peer's name always includes "The" at the beginning: "The Duke of Norfolk", "The Marquess of Winchester", "The Earl Mountbatten of Burma", "The Viscount Stansgate", "The Lord Falconer of Thoroton". The informal way leaves it off and prefixes the title with "Lord" for all ranks except dukes, who stay the same: "The Duke of Norfolk", "Lord Winchester", "Lord Mountbatten of Burma", "Lord Stansgate", "Lord Falconer of Thoroton". So when full titles are used, barons (like Lisgar, Byng of Vimy and Tweedsmuir) are indeed "The Lord Title". Lord Lorne's situation is more complicated, in that he was a courtesy peer (i.e. he was the eldest son of an actual peer using his father's next-highest title by courtesy). It's Wikipedia policy (and a policy I disagree with, but that's neither here nor there) to leave out "The" for courtesy peers, even when they are "Rank of Place". Proteus (Talk) 18:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Title

Was Lord Durham (and, for that matter, Lord Sydenham) "Governor General of Upper and Lower Canada", or "Governor General of British North America", or "Governor General of the Province of Canada", or what? The Act of Union was in 1840, so it's not the third option. The second option seems a bit odd, considering that "British North America" consisted of "Canada" - "Upper Canada" and "Lower Canada" until 1840. The first seems the most accurate, but that's a handful for a succession box. Opinions? – ugen64 01:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Good question! I have yet to see an authoritative reference to what the exact titles were during that era, and in fact even the list of governors and dates are inconsistent from one reference to another. If anybody has all the details, please let us know. As to "British North America", wouldn't it have included the four Atlantic provinces? Indefatigable 00:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor of New France?

The introductory section seems to imply that there were Lieutenant Governors of New France before there were Governors General of New France. Is this true? QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 00:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see now it was a typo for Lieutenant General of New France. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 19:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Prime Ministers

It's worth noting the Prime Ministers of Canada who actually hand-picked the recent Governors General of Canada, so I added a column of them to the "Canadian" chart. The Prime Minister chooses the Governor General and the Queen formally appoints them. Gavin wants to use the term "advised by Prime Minister" instead of "chosen by Prime Minister" but I think that's misleading, as it creates the illusion that the PM simply counseled the Queen in some vague way, rather than explicitly telling her who to appoint. There's a difference between appointing and choosing, and it's not unconstitutional for the PM to choose the GG. That's why it happens in reality. J.J. 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that constitutionally the Queen governs the country. The Prime Minister is merely the most important of her ministers, who all advise her in her governance. Thus, whether or not the PM only chooses one name to offer the Queen as a recommendation, the Queen is not forced to accept his "choice." She can, if need be, reject it. Therefore, the Queen is still following the advice of her PM, not being told to do something, as though the PM were her superior.
Further, Senator Eugene Forsey, a constitutional expert, stated: "The Governor General, who is now always a Canadian, is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister." Note: "on the advice of," not "as told to do by..." --gbambino 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's the difference between a useful legal fiction and the way it happens in real life. What about "chosen on the advice of [PM]" as compromise language? By the way, do we know how long the Prime Minister has had the effective choice? Surely 'counselling' must have shaded into 'telling' gradually. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how it most often happens, the legal reality is that the Sovereign maintains the right to disregard the Prime Minister's reccomendation. That right is an important part of the constitutional structure. "Chosen on the advice of" says the same thing using different words.
Further, why does only one chart have a list of the Prime Ministers who advised the Monarch? Who recommended the names for Governor General before 1952? --gbambino 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You're the monarchist, you figure it out.
As far as your earlier comments go, I would just like to quote you Her Majesty's own words on the matter, as quoted by the deeply monarchist former Prime Minister of Australia, The Right Honorable Sir Robert Gordon Menzies:

File:Queen-afternoon.jpg

I agree that the legal reality is the Queen appoints the GG. But one can very, very easily appoint an individual chosen by someone else. You want to basically pretend the PM has no role whatsoever in the process, and if you had your way I have absolutely no doubt there would be no column of Prime Ministers at all. With all due respect, I think contributors like you are what is wrong with Wikipedia. You have systematically inserted countless examples of purposefully distorting and misleading language simply to serve the interests of your own organization and its agenda. If you want to make the Canadian Monarchist Encyclopedia and fill it with your own fairy tales and half-truths that's your business, but to keep adding this sort of nonsense to what is supposed to be a factual, academic resource material is doing a profound disservice to Wikipeida's quest for integrity.

J.J. 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! I remember that quote coming our during the Republic debate in Australia in 1999. I would add that Menzies very much represented the stolid post-war conservatism of Australia... and wait for it, Gavin will say that that quote only relates to "Australia", not Canada. Could the Queen be wrong? --Lholden 05:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you two make such a cute couple!
Anyway, John (seeing as we're all on a first name basis here), your quote is charming, but irrelevant. Not because it only applies to Australia, but because it is a quip, apparently said somewhat in jest (after all, what other relevance does the "twinkle in her eye" part have?), taken out of context, and which has nothing to do with legal realities. The Queen can refuse the advice of the PM if it is so necessary - that's an important part of the constitutional structure. It also doesn't address the fact that prior to 1967 the Prime Minister of Canada forwarded more than one name to the Queen.
Don't think you're the first republican to come in here ranting and raving about people pushing an agenda - I, and others, have been through it all before. If you want to see examples of distorted language, POV, misinterpretation, original research, and even flat out lies, being inserted into Wikipedia, look through some older edits by some of your fellow republicans to various articles. Though, you're doing not a bad job, so far, of maintaining the same level of distortion and hypocrisy. I mean, the PM appoints the Governor General? Can you actually provide a credible source that contradicts the Constitution of Canada?
See, there's the kicker - the republican bluster of bias and a monarchist agenda always dies out when the factual evidence is presented, and shows their edits for what they are - dripping with personal, republican POV.
But hey, no hard feelings, and happy editing! --gbambino 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gavin.

Honestly here, do you think it's a coincidence that when Liberals are in power Liberals are appointed to these various Vice Regal positions, and when Conservatives are in power the same happens for them? Iona Campagnolo for example became Lieutenant Governor of BC during Prime Minister Chretien's tenure. She was a former president of the Liberal Party of Canada and a former Liberal MP. Romeo LeBlanc was likewise appointed Governor General during Chretien's term, and he served in two Trudeau Cabinets, as well as being a long standing pundit and backroom strategist for the party. Ray Hnatyshyn was Energy Minister under Prime Minister Clark and Justice Minister under Prime Minister Mulroney and, coincidentally enough, became Governor General while Mulroney was PM. Are these all coincidences? Was Her Majesty perhaps just trying to pair up the Governor Generals with people who the PM liked? Obviously not. The Prime Minister of Canada appoints the Governor General of Canada as well as the Provincial Lieutanant Governors, aswell as every single Senator and every single member of his Cabinet. The Queen rubber stamps it.

For you to somehow claim that when facts are presented the republican argument crumbles is a bloody joke. We are presenting facts right here, the reality on the ground, and you're putting earplugs in and locking yourself in an ivory tower. As much as the US Constitution might claim that blacks are only 3/5th of a total person that's simply not true. The same principle of antiquety rings true here, Gavin. The Prime Minister of Canada is the supreme authority in this land, and every Vice Regal appointment is subject to his or her whim. While the Queen can theoretically block appointments, and I assume has in the past, this Queen hasn't because it simply doesn't mesh with 21st century democracy. For her to do so would just give ammo to the republican side. Face facts here man, the Queen does little more than rubber stamp these appointements and as much as you and your friends might like to think she exercises any sort of power she doesn't. Period. --SFont 07:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"I mean, the PM appoints the Governor General? Can you actually provide a credible source that contradicts the Constitution of Canada?"

Um, hello Gavin, when did I say that? Did you even read what I said, and what word I italicized? You are uncomfortable even admitting that the PM chooses the Governor General. That to me is a much more profound statement of ignorance. Well maybe not ignorance, because I know you know it's the truth. Weird warped fairy tale denial is more like it. J.J. 07:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are forgetting this edit? --gbambino 14:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I admit "chosen" is a more accurate word. But even then, I'd say it's still more accurate to describe a Governor General being "appointed by" the Prime Minister than to ignore the role of the Prime Minister in making the selection altogether. J.J. 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Gavin, your claim that Her Majesty's quote only applies to Australia is simply wrong; moreover your claim shows that you don't want to accept that the appointment of the Governor-General in other Commonwealth Realms could possibly be the same as in other Commonwealth Realms. Furthermore, your claims about republican POV is a nonsense, given that it is your desire to ensure that the mention of the part about the role of a Prime Minister in the appointment of the Governor-General is not stated.
As for your question "Can you actually provide a credible source that contradicts the Constitution of Canada?" I can indeed: Deirdre McKeown, a researcher for the Australian Parliament, said following the resignation of Governor-General Dr Peter Hollingworth in May 2003:
"Since 1930 the Prime Minister has, in effect, selected the Governor-General. Although there are no barriers to the Prime Minister seeking advice he/she is under no obligation to consult Cabinet, the Opposition or the Parliament on the appointment.
However, the Australian Constitution (section 2) states that:
"A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth".
Oh dear, we republicans must be *wrong* then. Or perhaps not, given the fact that Since 1930 the Aussie PM was the one submitting names to the Sovereign, therefore they had the sole right to tell HMQ who to appoint. Thus, the Governor-General is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister. The fact that a list was submitted means nothing; it only shows that the office was an English gentry country-club extension; the list probably had to do with the fact that - as was the case in Australia and New Zealand - the Governorship was used as a way to 'retire' members of the British Old Boys' Club and they had to find who was availiabe. In any case, the case post 1967 in Canada tends to show that the advice of the Prime Minister carries somewhat more weight than simply a 'recommendation'; moreover by constitutional convention, the Queen can only refuse the advice of a Prime Minister if the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of their Parliament. If you want to dispute that, you obviously havn't read anything about the British Constitution. Oh yeah, conventions matter more than legal fictions. --Lholden 00:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"...your claim that Her Majesty's quote only applies to Australia..." That is not what I said.
"...it is your desire to ensure that the mention of the part about the role of a Prime Minister in the appointment of the Governor-General is not stated." Again, that is not what I stated. I have no objection to the mention of the role of the Prime Minsiter, as long as it is factually accurate, which saying he appoints the Governor General is not.
"Since 1930 the Prime Minister has, in effect, selected the Governor-General." That was never denied. However, this does not contradict the Canadian Consitution. --gbambino 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This argument is really tiresome. It's just a list! Obviously we should explain both aspects of the issue; which one is constitutionally correct and which one is actual practise is hardly in dispute. Adam Bishop 01:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is; however there is an important difference between the legal fiction of whether the Queen can reject the advice of her Prime Minister and the actual constitutional convention... in any case, the constitutionally correct position is that the appointment of the Governor-General is made by the Queen soley on the advice of the Prime Minister; it is advice that due to constitutional convention is binding on Her Majesty; if not for constitutional convention then for constitutional reality. --Lholden 02:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there's room for debate (dare I say hair-splitting?) here... But are Wikipedia discussion pages the best place to do it? As far as I can tell, nobody's voiced any objection to the phrase "chosen on the advice of [PM]", so what are you all arguing about? QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 02:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (PS: I'll be happy to see yez in the bloggosphere!)

I think using the word "advice" is quite misleading, as it implies subjectivity and free-will on the Queen's part, when there is none in practice. "Upon the advice of the Prime Minister" evokes a situation like:

Queen: Hmm, who should I appoint as Governor General...
PM: How about Michaelle Jean? She seems pretty cool.
Queen: An interesting idea. I will research her and see if she would be a good candidate.
(Hours later)
Queen: She sounds like a very cool woman indeed, what a good suggestion Mr. Prime Minister, I am glad I took your advice!

Where as in reality it is like:

PM: Appoint Michaelle Jean.
Queen: Okay.

J.J. 05:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're privy to the discussions between the Queen and her Prime Minister, that is, of course, merely your opinion. --gbambino 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One would assume that if such intense dialogues actually took place, we would a) see historical records of such episodes, in Prime Ministerial memoirs and other primary sources, and b) see evidence of the Queen's influence over who does and does not become Governor General, as a result of her active involvement in the appointment process.

Someone who follows another person's "advice" 100% of the time is a person without free will. When do we cross the line from "advice" to an "order"? J.J. 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

One can assume all sorts of things, and stating the dialogues were intense is just another assumption. Conversations between the Queen and all of her Prime Ministers has always been kept confidential. Occasionally a comment or two will emerge in the memoirs of an indiscreet ex-PM, but there's no way of knowing whether HM does follow the advice of her PMs 100% of the time or not, or how much sway she has in the lead up to a decision. Some coincidences caused suspicion that she had a part in the stepping down, and eventual dismissal, of Australian Governor General Peter Hollingworth, but no documented evidence exists.
But, any speculation is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that, whether the Queen has ever exercised her Royal Prerogative under her free will, or involved herself in discussions, or not, she retains the ability to reject a PM's reccommendation on any matter. As long as she has that ability, the PM will always be her advisor, not her commander.
Anyway, QuartierLatin is right - there's no further objection to the wording of the article now, so why does this discussion persist? --gbambino 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to note that, by "On the advice of x PM" actually means that the advice is basically nothing less than a formality; the advice is really "Appoint person X". This debate is really about the extent of the Royal Prerogative; or whether the Queen has the right to reject the advice of her Prime Minister. In the instances where a Prime Minister advises the Queen, the Royal Prerogative is a nullity. The Monarch doesn't have any prerogative to reject the advice of Her Prime Ministers, unless, as I said above, they do not enjoy the support of Parliament. That is the iron hard rule in the Westminster system; anything less denies the outcome of the Glorious revolution and the Act of Settlement 1701. The Royal Prerogative is now restricted to the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and the "reserve powers" which are only qualified to extreme instances, usually where a PM looses the confidence of the House. Of course, the Royal Prerogative is unwritten and governed by convention; but I am yet to read any constitutional lawyer willing to abandon the clarity of constitutional conventions for some speculation that in the age of democracy some sort of arcane feudal Royal Prerogative on appointments still exists. It simply doesn't.
Thus, the Queen's understanding of the constitutional rule, as exposed in the Sir Robert Menzies quote, (and of course by the Sir Alec Douglas-Home appointment) is correct. Gavin will probably tell us that because the Queen had a 'twinkle' in her eye, (and probably had her fingers crossed behind her back) the Queen didn't mean it. That's not relevant; HM's observation of the constitutional convention is correct. She does not have the prerogative to reject the advice of Her Prime Minister. Parliament disposed of that power over three hundred years ago. To claim otherwise is to serve monarchist arguments that somehow the Monarch is a constitutional bulwark, when they are not.
So, I propose that the constitutional convention on appointments be mentioned: Something like "The Queen is bound by convention to implement the advice of her Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen is thus binding so long as the Prime Minister enjoys the support of the House of Representatives"

--Lholden 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That information, correctly worded, would go in Governor General of Canada, not a list of Governors General. --gbambino 01:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah this is really not the place for that. In fact, we don't even need "appointed by" and "chosen on advice of" here; it is sufficient to simply note who the monarch and PM were, so I have removed that wording. Adam Bishop 01:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Massey representing George VI?

According to the list, he wasn't sworn in until February 28th, which was well after George VI's death. This being the case, is it appropriate to say he represented George VI in Canada? --Ibagli (Talk) 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Art

I wunder would it add to the article if we included at Prince Arthur's entry, that the GG was a paternal-uncle to the reigning monarch. GoodDay 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Province of Quebec

The early governors, before 1791, were not Governors of British North America, but were governors of the Province of Quebec and the table should be fixed to correspond. BradMajors (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GG-no pic.jpg

Image:GG-no pic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Alexander of Tunis

The Viscount's tenure as Governor General expired on February 28th, 1952. Therefore, he should also be listed under Elizabeth II's reign. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Administrators

Can we please get rid of the administrators that the anon user has added to the list of governors general? These individuals were not appointed as governor general, and there's already a dedicated list of administrators further on in the article. --G2bambino (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, boot'em out. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The IP seemed either unwilling or unable to bring his reasons here for including the administrators in the list. Since there was no consensus to list them where he/she did, I removed them. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, GD. --G2bambino (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
No prob. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Table format for "Governors General representing Queen Elizabeth II"

Does anybody else think that switching from "Governor from" and "Governor until" (for all tables before Queen Elizabeth II) to "Date of appointment" and "Swearing in" (for Queen Elizabeth II) is confusing formatting?

I realize that the column headings clearly indicate what each column is for, and that the "Governor from" and "Governor until" years are shown in the "Name" column, but still... the first time you look at this article, and scroll down the page, it's very confusing. Or at least it was for me. I was curious, so I tested this on a few other people, and I found the same thing - looking at this article for the first time, the format switch is confusing.

I'd suggest having the "Governor from" and "Governor until" columns maintained for the Queen Elizabeth II table, and maybe having both the "Date of appointment" and "Swearing in" dates show in the "Governor from" column, with the exact date of leaving office shown in the "Governor until" column.

I don't want to make these changes without asking for some input first. Your comments would be appreciated! Zapraki (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Years of Representation

Lord Minto was Governor General of Canada from 1898 through 1904, but was the representative of Queen Victoria only during 1898. Thus, it says that he was governor from 1898-1898 under the list of governors for Victoria. However, as the headings are "Governor from" and "Governor until", wouldn't it be best if the dates were 1898-1904 for both times that his name appears? Lord Grey's dates are structured that way (he was a representative of both King Edward VII and King George V).

Any thoughts?

Ianus Maximus (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, there seems to be errors in the end years of all the GGs under Queen Elizabeth II. Anyone want to fix this?

--Benspigel (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no error as there are no end years shown. It's the dates of appointment and swearing-in only. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Champlain not governor, and date of first Governor of New France

According to Fischer in Champlain's Dream, Champlain was never Governor of New France. Cardinal Richelieu was viceroy of New France as of 1627, and, specifically denying Champlain the title of governor, commissioned him as "Lieutenant General of New France" in 1632 when France regained New France. Would this not make Montmagny the first formal Governor of New France (his bio at the Dictionary of Canadian Biography describes him as the first governor)? (I understand that Champlain was treated as if he were governor in Quebec, but this article is presumably about the actual office holders.) Magic♪piano 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Province of Canada

I don't like how the nation of Canada is implied to be a continuation of the Province of Canada. Before Confederation, there were representatives of the monarchs in all the provinces of British North America: Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, Newfoundland, and BC. To suggest that the Province of Canada's representative became the position of Governor General, wheras the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia's representatives became the position of provincial Lieutenant Governors, is to insubordinate NB and NS to the Province of Canada. It would be more accurate I think to state that the position of Governor General began in 1867, and the each provincial Lieutenant Governor, including Ontario's and Quebec's, were instituted in 1867 or whenever each respective province joined Confederation. 66.183.135.78 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

John C. Major

If Major is considered to have been an Administrator (i.e. Acting Governor General), for a few hours on September 27, 2005. Why isn't McLachlin considered to have been an Administrator, for a few hours on Ocotober 1, 2010? GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove "Governors-in-chief" ?

Is there a rationale for including Governors-in-chief in the heading for secion 5? If so, let it be explained, but if not, shouldn't it be removed? Qexigator (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems there was one: Some listed under the heading were governors-in-chief. I found at least one reference to the Lord Durham holding the post of "governor-in-chief of the five provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island."p.390 There's also multiple mentions of it in copies of letters patent and royal instructions here. I will look for more, as the position of governor-in-chief is mentioned in the history sections of both Governor General of Canada and Lieutenant governor (Canada). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Walter Görlitz, first, you indicated the use of shields is contrary to WP:MOSFLAG. WP:MOSFLAG tells us "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself... Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words." According to WP:MOSFLAG, the shields can be used in a list, they can be used here because they're pertinent to the purpose of part of the list (identifying the different successive sovereignties governors general represented: French, British, Canadian), they do not take primacy over words, and they do not change the expected style or layout of the list. You made no argument otherwise. The reason for the second revert was your opinion that the shields are simply decoration. That's a misunderstanding I hope the above dispels.

It remains a total mystery as to why you're reverting all the other edits besides the addition of the shields. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not really pertinent as flags are to carry meaning. No meaning is present in flags from two centuries ago that few, if any other than history buffs, recognize. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Two of the five shields are current. Regardless, of course the older ones have meaning; they still identify monarchs of certain countries at certain times. I think you're saying they just aren't commonly recognised, which is a fair point. I think, though, that, even if one doesn't immediately recognise the shields, it becomes pretty quickly obvious each is associated with a particular sovereignty and they still act as highlights of the evolution of the crown the governors general have represented. There may be a way to use less of them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Governors General of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Early vicroys of New France

There is a contradiction between the list of viceroys of New France from 1541 to 1627 in this article and the French Wikipedia article Gouverneur de la Nouvelle-France Gouverneur de la Nouvelle-France.

French article:

Lieutenant-generals:

  • Jean-François de la Rocque , Sieur de Roberval 1541-1543
  • Troilus Mesgouez , Marquis de La Roche-Mesgouez 1598-1606
  • Jean de Biencourt , Baron de Saint-Just 1606-1614

Governors:

  • Emery of Caen 1624-1626
  • Samuel de Champlain 1626-1629

English article:

We also have the article Lieutenant General of New France with the following list:

Office Holder Term Appointed by
Jean-François de la Rocque de Roberval 1541–1543 Francis I
vacant 1543–1598 during reigns of Francis I, Henry II, Francis II, Charles IX, and Henry III
Marquis de la Roche-Mesgouez 1598–1603[1][2] Henry III
Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Monts 1603–1610 Henry IV
Charles de Bourbon, comte de Soissons 1611–1612 Louis XIII (Marie de' Medici in regency)
Henry II, Prince of Condé 1612–1616 Louis XIII (Marie de' Medici in regency)
Pons de Lauzière, Marquis de Thémines de Cardillac 1616–1620 Louis XIII (Marie de' Medici in regency)
Henry II, Prince of Condé 1620 Louis XIII
Henri II de Montmorency 1620–1625 Louis XIII
Henri de Lévis, duc de Ventadour 1625–1626 Louis XIII
Cardinal Richelieu 1626–1627 Louis XIII

Which article is correct? McArthur Parkette (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC) I'm commenting out the section until this is resolved. There seems to be a conflation in this article between Lieutenant General of New France and other offices and it's not clear that this position is actually a viceroy per se. McArthur Parkette (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Morris, Richard Brandon (ed.) (1970 rev.) Encyclopedia of American History Harper and Row, New York, ISBN 0-06-016481-6 p. 59;
  2. ^ Harrisse, Henry (1872) Notes pour servir à l'histoire, à la bibliographie et àla cartographie de la Nouvelle-France et des pays adjacents, 1545-1700. Tross, Paris, p. 14;

Proposal re content

I don't think it's necessary to have two columns for dates - the "governor from" and "governor to" columns can be easily combined. I think it would be interesting to add a new column called "Prior position" as exists in List of Presidents of the United States that lists the most senior position previously held by the individual. McArthur Parkette (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Since it's somewhat a major change, would you mind either creating a sandbox under this page or in your own user space to demonstrate your suggested changes? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, on further thought, I think more important is to add a column in the Governors-General of Canada section that indicates Prime Minister as per List of governors-general of New Zealand. Does anyone know how to do this so that one can list prime ministers who overlap two or more governors-general and vice versa? McArthur Parkette (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Best photo of new GG?

Yes, Julie Payette was an astronaut but she is currently a businesswoman. Would a photo of her as such not be more appropriate?

e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Julie_Payette_-_JSC2009e123567.jpg That is the photo used of her in the Julie Payette article

The photo of David Johnston does not show him in University of Waterloo regalia.

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

While I totally agree with you, it is pretty amusing to scroll through this table and see an astronaut at the end. sikander (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous positions

Can Hungarian Phrasebook please explain why this table needs a column for randomly selected posts held, sometimes immediately previously and sometimes not, by the individuals listed? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think the burden is on you to explain why you removed the column on 9 July. You were bold and removed the column, I have reverted, now discuss and obtain consensus if you wish to implement a change as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As stated in edit comments, the information is relevant given the interest around several appointments in the previous careers of GGs and there exists the same or similar columns exist at President of Germany and List of Presidents of the United States. Also, your claim that it is inferred the GG left the position listed to become GG is tenuous. No such thing is implied but even if it were, this could easily be taken care of by adjusting the name of the label and does not require removal of the column. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
As I just explained, four days doesn't establish a status quo; especially when it removes a column that is entirely new to this article. Your edit was the bold one. It was reverted. You discuss with others to reach consensus, if any.
WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't justify the existence of the column here. "It's tenuous" is a statement, not an argument; the accusation of tenuousness is based on a straw man. The column doesn't make clear what criteria its content must meet to be included. The content is randomly selected. Once you start getting specific with the content, more questions arise: Last-held government office. Why just government? Last-held office. Why include those if some were less important than even earlier held posts? Previously held important office. What defines "important"? Etc. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal: You removed the column 4 days ago and changed the status quo, not me. It was the status quo prior to that. Removing the column for 4 days, as you say, does not make the status quo. If you wish to change the status quo I suggest you get consensus first. I believe your confusion arises because a few days ago I extended the, existing column so that it went back further than 1867 and you reverted that but the status quo ante was that the column started at 1867 and went to the present and that is the status quo you boldly changed without consensus. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
It appears you're right about the history. It could still be argued six months barely makes a consensus by silence; and that is the weakest form of consensus. Regardless, the issue is tangential; the information is unclear and thus not helpful. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Whether or not the information is helpful or not is subjective and I disagree that it's unclear but clarity can be addressed with a footnote or modifying the label. As to which past position should be highlighted, I think that's evident in most if not all cases but that can be discussed on a case to case basis and I don't see it as any different than deciding which position to highlight in a biographical infobox. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there was a discussion and consensus on which prior positions to include in the infoboxes of current or former Governor Generals of Canada. Many offices added to this list don't meet even that criteria. However, it's a red herring. The real point here is there's no need for any of that information in this list. Aside from the still confusingly indiscriminate nature of the selection process, as well as the bias against offices held post-viceregal service, what's the connection to these individuals having been (or being) Governor General of Canada? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

One person wanting to remove something is not consensus. If you want to eliminate a column then start a Request for Discussion. 2607:F2C0:958C:DE00:2502:A874:DB17:B0E2 (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Should this discussion continue @Hungarian Phrasebook: @Miesianiacal:
Without appealing to other articles, what's the benefit of the prior position, previous service, column to understanding Canadian Governors General? What's the relevant service for Payette? How is being an astronaut a benefit to the role (and jokes about working with space cadets are not appropriate). Why does it commence with confederation (or was the earlier content removed)? Was the previous role relinquished when the individual became GG or was the new role simply added?
Conversely, what's the harm in including it? I didn't mind it being removed since it made the table more compact, but that's my bias.
Who's this anon? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Keeping it in causes confusion; as illustrated by all the questions about it's meaning and purpose. Keeping it out does not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_governors_general_of_Canada/Archive_1&oldid=930000960"