Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Monarchy of Canada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Image of Great Seal, text, inline link

Noting the addition of an image of the Great Seal at Canada, given that it names Elizabeth II as Canada's queen, in both French and English, seated in full regalia on the coronation throne, with an image of the Royal Arms of Canada, and that the link to the Great Seal of Canada article provides good supplemental information, adding it would improve the Monarchy article. Perhaps the place for it would be under "Head of state", on the left side. Qexigator (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In agreement, with adding it to the section-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think adding it into the infobox would be best, replacing the unofficial coat of arms. Better to have an authentic image than an inauthentic one. – Illegitimate Barrister, 16:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If infoboxed, it could be alongside, not instead of, as exemplified in the Canada infobox. The rendition of the royal arms is authentic, actually, but that one is used because the "official" one is in copyright: see lengthy discussion at Archive 9[1] Qexigator (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The seal is related to legislation. If an image of it were to go in the article, it would be either in the 'Executive' or 'Parliament' section, where there's already enough illustration. The article could probably do with mention the Great Seal, though. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The seal is not related only to legislation, and, like "the Crown", signifies the unity pervading the three branches of a constitutional analysis, which is more pronounced in systems such as USA than in the Commonwealth realms, developed in the manner of the Westminster system. So then, where to put some text mentioning the Seal?

Federal and provincial aspects
Personification of the Canadian state
Federal constitutional role,

and for text, how about adapting to one of those:

"The Great Seal of Canada depicting the reigning monarch dates from the formation of the federation in the 19th century, for use on all state documents such as proclamations. Its design is changed soon after the accession of a new sovereign , and it currently bears the effigy of Queen Elizabeth II with inscriptions in French and English.< ref >The Great Seal of Canada[2]< /ref >"

Qexigator (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The seal is affixed to orders-in-council, letters patent, and royal proclamations. I meant "legislation" as including the aforementioned, but, I was wrong myself about it being placed on acts of parliament. It isn't. So, it really is related to the executive. I'd say mention of the seal should go there. I suppose an image can be jammed in there on the left side. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

+Subject to others' comments, I will go ahead by putting in the "Personification of the Canadian state" section, before "Head of state" : "From the formation of the federation in the 19th century, a Great Seal of Canada depicting the reigning monarch has been used on state documents such as proclamations. Its design is changed soon after the accession of a new sovereign, and it currently bears the Queen's effigy ~~of Queen Elizabeth II~~ with inscriptions in French and English.< ref >The Great Seal of Canada[3]< /ref >" Qexigator (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Go for it :) GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great Outback the koala (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

+ For reasons given, "Personfication" would be a better context for the proposed wording, and the image will be unnecessary, since it would be better to see the images at the linked article, rather than overdo images in this article. Qexigator (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, I disagree. The seal has nothing to do with personification of the state. It is a seal of monarchical approval/authority that goes on documents issued by the Queen-in-Council. It therefore does not "signif[y] the unity pervading the three branches of a constitutional analysis", which is an OR statement, anyway. Unless a supporting source can be found. And even if one were obtained, some place immediately under 'Federal constitutional role' would be the apt location. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mies: Much intelligent comment, including yours, is "OR" which as everyone knows, is guidance for article content not Talk pages. Your opinion about this noted, but not regarded as decisive. Now, here is a quote from the website of Governor General of Canada, David Johnston: "The Great Seal signifies the power and authority of the Crown flowing from the sovereign to our parliamentary government. ..It is used on all state documents, such as Royal proclamations and commissions issued for the appointment of Cabinet ministers, lieutenant governors, senators and judges. The presence of the Seal melds together the notions of authenticity, authority and the will of the Crown, while at the same time lending a certain prestige to a document....Our country's Great Seal is uniquely Canadian." [4] Qexigator (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you have a look at that link because I added it to Great Seal of Canada? That I added it is a good sign I'm aware of its content. I don't, though, see where the source says the seal has a role in or is a symbol of parliament or the courts. Nor do I see any explanation of how it symbolises the monarch personifying the state.

I hold the best place for the information is in the 'Executive (Queen-in-Council)' section of the article. If not there, then immediately above, just below the header 'Federal constitutional role'. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just below the header 'Federal constitutional role' is a good context, and it would read well there: "From the formation of the federation in the 19th century, a Great Seal of Canada depicting the reigning monarch has been used on state documents such as proclamations. Its design is changed soon after the accession of a new sovereign, and it currently bears the Queen's effigy of Queen Elizabeth II with inscriptions in French and English.< ref >The Great Seal of Canada < /ref >" . Qexigator (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Succession

Just to clarify. In this article, are we stating that the succession is still male-preference? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 9#Full agnatic or Male preference. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed inconsistency on this matter at Perth Agreement & Primogeniture, where it suggests that Canada has adopted the gender blind succession. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you noticed. But, what's the point of starting four discussions simultaneously? If you think an article is not representing the information accurately, pick it and propose the change you wish to see made. If someone disputes it, discuss the matter there. Whatever's settled there can be pointed to from any discussion arising from any subsequent similar change at another article.

This article presents the matter best. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I already have begun discussions at Perth Agreement & Primogeniture. Either this article is inaccurate or those 2 articles are inaccurate. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be easier to discuss in just one place. TFD (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've left notes on the other talk pages directing all discussion here. No sense pointing out in multiple places that the discussion is split without doing something about it. Meters (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Action required, if any, can be decided here and applied to the other articles. Meters (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The Succession and regency section's first & third paragraphs read as though the 2015 Act hasn't been in force & won't be until its constitionality is resolved. So, is this accurate? Is Canada's royal succession still male-preference? GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, your reading of the section is not accurate. It very clearly says "The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, was proclaimed as brought into force by order-in-council on 26 March 2015..." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

May we begin the first paragraph, with something like "Since March 26, 2015 the succession has been full agnatic..."? GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, because the courts have not yet given final ruling that will tell us whether or not that's true. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It says, "If the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, is not ruled invalid or ineffectual, the primogeniture has been absolute cognatic from 26 March 2015." Of course the same is true of any law. It is considered valid unless and until a court rules it unconstitutional, then it is treated as if it had never been the law. There is too much attention being paid to a frivolous lawsuit. TFD (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for sharing your opinion on the worth of the case, but, it doesn't affect in any way the fact there is a case (which the government of Quebec evidently feels is important enough) and it is relevant to the section of this article GoodDay has kindly drawn focus to, again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you arguing Mies? That Canada's royal succession is still male-preference? GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything. My personal opinion is irrelevant to the content of the article aside from my opinion the content of the article should reflect the content of the sources we have (though, there isn't really a choice in that matter, given WP:V). Are you trying to argue something else? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I wish the section to clarify as to what the royal succession is. Are we now under full agnatic succession or still under male-preference succession? If Charlotte had been born before George & Elizabeth, Charles & William were suddenly killed? Would Charlotte ascend Canada's throne or would George? GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You, like everyone else, will have to wait to find out. That's why the succession section purposefully avoids (the third paragraph crafted well by Quexigator) saying one way or the other; this isn't where that argument gets decided. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So then the country's royal succession is still under male-preference. Which means changes need to made at related articles, which are falsly claimng tha Canada's monarchy is under full agnatic succession. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what Canada's succession order currently is, GoodDay. Laws in Canada say one thing, the previous government claimed something else. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To expand on the above: The courts have said the Act of Settlement and Bill of Rights are part of Canadian law. There's also on the books the Succession to the Throne Act 1937 and Order in Council P.C. 3144, which constitutional experts assert brought the aforementioned two laws and the Royal Marriages Act into Canadian law. The previous government, though, either said those laws are not part of Canadian law or (I can't remember just now) never publicly said anything at all about some or all of them (either way, avoiding the whole "how can UK law alter law in Canada?" question) while claiming the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 leaves who Canada's monarch is to the UK. How those facts reconcile, if they do at all, is up to the courts now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not acceptable, Mies. Either the 2015 Act has taken effect or it hasn't. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "taken effect"? It's taken affect. Whether or not it's had an effect on succession in Canada depends upon whether or not the courts agree with the prior government's take on the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I had my edit 'here' revert, thus restoring male preference & I had my edit at Perth Agreement for Canada reverted, thus restoring full agnatic. That's it here for me, at this discussion. I'll let somebody figure out, why we're pushing this inconsistency across these related articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence supporting your claim. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, according to Canada's legislation, if the first two in line were a brother and sister born after 2013, then the eldest would be the heir apparent, regardless of gender. Barring an injunction, the heir would be crowned. I suppose at some point a successful challenge could be made, which would nullify the reign. It's also possible that one of the birther challenges would successfully show that Obama is not the real president of the U.S. And the monarchy could also face a successful challenge from a Jacobite pretender. The issue is how much weight to provide the opinion of the people challenging the legislation. I think the onus is on Mies to provide a reliable source saying it has better than a snowball's chance. TFD (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

How irrelevant. And wrong. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Instead of making pronouncements and expecting other editors to believe you, you should present reasoned arguments based on facts and policies. TFD (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Says the sarcastic opinionator. I believe it's up to you to show what policy requires me to find some source speculating on the outcome of a court case and why it would matter to the content of this article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No I do not have to provide a source saying the challenge is not substantial, you need to provide a source that says it is. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Where are your legal opinions that say it has any chance at all? TFD (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I asked you point to the policy, or even a guideline, that requires me to do what you ask. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I provided it: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." It is part of the policy of "Neutral point of view." But you have it backwards. You are supposed to have policy or guideline reasons to add material. TFD (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not able to find where in there, or even at WP:WEIGHT, it says I must "provide a reliable source saying [the case] has better than a snowball's chance" or anything more general but remotely close to that. You also haven't explained how someone's opinion on the possibility of the case's success is at all relevant to the matter of what goes in this article and how much "coverage" it gets vis-a-vis the size of the article itself.

Oh, but then, you shifted the goalposts since asking for that and now seem to expect I present to you a source that proves the case should get the amount of "coverage" it does in this article. Well, WP:WEIGHT doesn't require that, either.

Other than your personal opinion that the case is a joke, do you have any reason why the one or two sentences dedicated to the case is too much? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Could not find it? Here's a link: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects. WEIGHT also says we must "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." And FRINGE says views of tiny minorities should not even be mentioned. You need to show that reliable sources on this subject take the issue seriously and we would be tendentious to provide it with any more coverage than it deserves. The way you present it makes it appear that there is a serious risk the courts will strike out the current law, yet you have not shown any evidence for that view. TFD (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't say what you asked for--either time--is required. Nonetheless, the information in the article is reliably sourced and two sentences in a 7,000+ word article is not too much to give to the subject. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is no one knows what the status is (Full agnatic or Male preference) at this very moment, so stating either one as true is OR. The fact is that legal and academic expert opinions are divided as to the law's validity, and the law is currently challenged in the courts. trackratte (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We know the exact status because the law has received royal assent and been ordered into effect. Are you saying that if for a lark someone filed a claim in court that he was the rightful Queen of Canada that we should change "The current Canadian monarch...is Queen Elizabeth II," to "Who is the current Canadian monarch is disputed?"

Also, even once the issue is resolved, it does not close others challenging the law hoping for a new outcome. So basically we will never know who is the monarch or the order of their heirs, since someone somewhere someday may challenge them.

TFD (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, has been in force since March 27, 2015. We should be reflecting this. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

From 20:36, 16 November 2015: It very clearly says "The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, was proclaimed as brought into force by order-in-council on 26 March 2015..." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Canadian monarch gave the Act royal assent on March 27, ~~2015~~ 2013. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

~~No, it was 27 March 2013. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)~~

Yes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Act came into force on 26 March 2015, along with the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So why are we stating that the Canadian royal succession is male preference?. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't answer a question with a question. What do you think the enforcement of the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 did? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Act upon enforcement on 26 March 2015, changed the Canadian royal succession to full agnatic primogeniture. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What part of the act says that? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Act says it's in agreement with the British succession act. I don't like it anymore then you do. But until it's declared unconstitutional, it's the law. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, it says the parliament assents to the British succession bill; it says nothing about agreement or the British succession act. But, I asked what part of the act says it changes Canadian royal succession? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I give up. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I rather imagined you would or would concede the act doesn't say anything about it changing royal succession in Canada. And that's because it was never intended to change any Canadian law. Rob Nicholson said when the bill was presented to parliament in Ottawa that Canada has no succession laws to alter; by his reading of the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867, whomever will be Canada's monarch will always be decided by the British parliament. The assent given in the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 was only to meet part of that agreement--treaty--among the realms I mentioned at TFD's talk; the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931 says each realm's parliament must assent--that's the word used--to any other realm's alteration in the succession. Canada assented. That's it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I concede that you refuse to acknowledge that Canada's royal succession was altered in 2015, from male-preference to full-agnatic. That's all I concede. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't. You did, however, definitely say you gave up trying to figure out how the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 changed it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope I'm not unnecessarily stirring up any dead hornets (to mix a metaphor) if I observe that this is a strange use of the word agnatic, which elsewhere seems to mean male line only (aka Salic law). —Tamfang (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The word "agnatic" is not in the present version. It is an unusual technical term, and its use would not, in the context of this article, elucidate the matter for readers without prior knowledge of it, given that it is not generally used in connection with the law of Succession to the British throne. It came into an earlier version as at 17:39, 30 October 2011,[5] referenced to Office of the Prime Minister of Canada,PM welcomes proposal to amend rules governing the royal line of succession, 28 October 2011, but that link is broken, making it uncertain whether the source used the word, or it was a paraphrasing editor's unsupported surmise or OR or SYN. Qexigator (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

+ A link to the web archive[6] shows that the nearest the referenced source gets to "agnatic" is to mention the proposed ending of "the practice of placing male children before their elder sisters in the line of succession", so evidently that is not where "agnatic" came from. Qexigator (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a tiresome and needless debate. Leaving aside exasperated remarks (such as 'a joke'), as I see it Mies. has persistently failed to produce good and sufficient reason to rebut the main points others have been making in favour of clarifying in this article the present law of succession pursuant to the Canadian act.While, for the time being AGF-ing, I could point out that, whether or not the judicial proceedings have lapsed, there appears to have been too little interest, even among the parties themselves or the general public, to make a further reported statement, satirical or straight-faced. Qexigator (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Strike as a result of later websearch and updates. Qexigator (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"The law in Canada, binding the government and the Crown, is as enacted by parliament, unless a court of competent jurisdiction eventually rules otherwise. At present, the line is the same down to 27th. Thus there is little prospect of the heir apparent being any different in the near future. A difference would occur if a third Cambridge child is born and he is a prince, but not if she is a princess. It may be surmised that by the time Prince George is heir apparent, the supposed problem under the law of Canada will be resolved. Qexigator (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"

That was at the time you composed the third paragraph of the succession section in the article, which I complimented above for its handling the rather fuzzy present situation with succession in Canada.

One might be led to think your more recent remark was simply a way to couch your contempt for me. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

But the "problem under the law" as you see it can never be resolved because of the nature of common law. Whatever the outcome of the current case, it is always possible that a future case will have a different outcome. When Tony O'Donaghue challenged the Succession Act in 2003, no one would have said the situation was "fuzzy." In fact used (unsuccessfully) the same Charter arguments we are now hearing.

When anti-smoking laws were introduced, they received numerous court challenges, but no one would have said was unclear what the law was. The only exception I could see would be if a court were to order putting the law on hold until it had decided.

TFD (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What future case? Why are we bothering with speculation? There are currently two opinions: Prior court rulings and some constitutional experts said there are succession laws in the Canadian constitution (the Canadian parliament determines succession in Canada). On the other hand, the former government, after 2013, and some other constitutional experts said there are no succession laws in the Canadian constitution (the British parliament determines succession in Canada). Until the court--and it could well be the Supreme Court--makes its ruling, we cannot choose sides; it would be a complete violation of WP:NPOV to say in the article the Harper government was correct in that there are no succession laws in the Canadian constitution and succession for Canada is determined by the British parliament and the Supreme Court was wrong to state the Bill of Rights, and the Ontario Superior Court was wrong to twice say the Act of Settlement, are part of the Canadian constitution and amendable only by the Canadian parliament. We can only reflect what the sources say, not synthesise our own truth. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Updates on judicial review here[7] and here[8] and here[9]. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've updated that the Canadian royal succession is (and has been since March 26, 2015) absolute primogeniture. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that lasted long. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, that is synthesis: "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you want to make the case that there is a significant chance a court will agree with your interpretation, you need a reliable secondary source that says that. As you said, "Why are we bothering with speculation?" TFD (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are taking facts about the O'Donoghue case and pre-2013 government statements and comparing them with the government's current statements, and concluding that they are different and that may have a bearing on the merits of the current case. The "multiple sources" are the O'Donoghue case and earlier and newer government positions and the "conclusion...not stated by any of the sources," is that the challenge may have merit. That is synthesis which policy prohibits. TFD (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've said nothing about the merit of the case and nor does the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

See my posting above: "t says, "If the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, is not ruled invalid or ineffectual, the primogeniture has been absolute cognatic from 26 March 2015." Of course the same is true of any law. It is considered valid unless and until a court rules it unconstitutional, then it is treated as if it had never been the law. There is too much attention being paid to a frivolous lawsuit." [20:50, 16 November 2015] TFD (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW: I've asked for a WP:THIRD opinon, folks. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's only for a dispute between two editors. I suggest either NPOVN or RfC, but best to make sure the request is written clearly so that editors will respond. TFD (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No fourth opinion

TFD is right. This appears to be a dispute between three editors asking for a fourth opinion. Third opinion is for issues between exactly two editors. Any of moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard, or a neutrally worded Request for Comments are valid next steps. I am removing the third opinion request.

Cool. BTW, does anybody know when that bleepin Quebec court is gonna make its decision? ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Succession to the Canadian throne.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus for absolute per the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Is succession to the Canadian throne, absolute? or male-preference primogeniture? GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolute Under the provisions of Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, the governor-general-in-council of Canada ordered that from 26 March, 2015, the eldest child who was not otherwise disqualified, regardless of gender, of any sovereign would inherit the throne. TFD (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing debate - belongs in discussion section

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cite? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Here. I did not know you were unaware and suggest you take this opportunity to change your analysis below. TFD (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's the cite, can you point specifically to the part that says "the governor-general-in-council of Canada ordered that from 26 March, 2015, the eldest child who was not otherwise disqualified, regardless of gender, of any sovereign would inherit the throne"? That would be helpful. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is in the UK succession rules that become the law of Canada upon the governor general's order. You know that. If you want to continue your filibuster, please do so in the discussion section below. TFD (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is in the UK's law. But, you said it was in the provisions of the Succession to the Throne Act 2013. The order-in-council does not say anything about making any UK law part of Canada's law, either. I'm certain you know that. If you're going to make claims, be prepared to back them up; trying to silence challenge by demeaning it as "filibustering" strongly hints at uncertainty. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Feigning ignorance is a passive agressive approach. Again, please present your arguments in the discussion section. 03:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Indirectly accusing someone of feigning ignorance is itself passive aggressive and, in this case, a decoy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your reply is basically "I know you are but what am I?" You repeat you are unaware of the facts and do not know about the order in council, the Canadian law or the UK one. I think you are aware of them and are feigning ignorance as some part of a passive agressive rhetorical device. If you are ignorant of them then please read them before expressing your opinion. If you are not ignorant, then please explain why you keep asking me about them. TFD (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation; another decoy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not known There currently exists two opinions: On one hand, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Ontario Superior Court (twice), other government sources, and some constitutional experts have said there are succession laws in Canada's constitution that can only be altered by Canada's parliament.

"[T]he rules of succession are part of the written constitution, but they are, in my view, part of the unwritten or unexpressed constitution and are therefore not subject to the Charter...

[T]he rules of succession (and, in particular, the Act of Settlement) have constitutional status can be found in the treatment of that Act in the Revised Statutes of Ontario of 1897... The fact that the Act of Settlement was indexed among the constitutional acts is a further indication that, despite the fact that it was not listed in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, the Act of Settlement was intended to be a component of our constitutional enactments." Ontario Superior Court

"The prohibition against Catholics succeeding to the throne has been part of our law since the Act of Settlement, 1701. This Act itself is an imperial statute which ultimately became part of the law of Canada." Ontario Superior Court
Reference may appropriately be made to art. 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689, undoubtedly in force as part of the law of Canada..." Supreme Court of Canada
"In the 1940s, indeed, the Canadian Department of External Affairs actually put together a list of all the British statutes that applied as a part of Canadian law and they included in that the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Royal Marriages Act, and the abdication legislation of 1936, all as part of Canadian law... There wasn't something separate or special about rules concerning succession to the throne that meant they only applied as part of the law of the United Kingdom, they did also apply as part of the law in each of these Dominions...

"[The government] requested and consented, by way of an order-in-council, for that law [His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936] to be made part of the law of Canada. So, to that extent, it's quite clear that the abdication law, which changed succession to the throne in relation to the United Kingdom, is part of the law of Canada." Anne Twomey

"[T]here is a Canadian law of Succession existing not just through received law but through a Canadian statute. The statute is the Succession to the Throne Act passed by the Parliament of Canada on 31 March, 1937. That statute gave assent to His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936, passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom... [S]uch assent was morally but not legally necessary for the British act to extend to Canada since Canada had already 'requested and consented' that the British act extend to Canada through an invocation of Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 by a Canadian order-in-council, and the British act had become 'part of the law' (to quote Section 4) of Canada on 11 December, 1936.

But passage of the Succession to the Throne Act by the Parliament of Canada on 31 March, 1937 had the secondary statutory effect of establishing from that date a law of Succession for Canada by Canadian enactment if in fact none existed at the time by inheritance, as the Government of Canada now argues. That is to say, the Succession to the Throne Act of 1937 is the statutory repository of the law of Succession for Canada, so it is irrelevant whether or not the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 specifically incorporated the UK laws of succession into Canadian law, as that had already been done in 1937, and it was not necessary in 1982 to create a Canadian law of Succession since one already existed." Gary Toffoli

Also see: Macgregor Dawson, Robert (1970). The Government of Canada (5th ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 63. and (particularly re. the Royal Marriages Act) Boyce, Peter John (2008), The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, Sydney: Federation Press, p. 81, ISBN 9781862877009.

On the other hand, the then government and some other constitutional experts said in 2013 there are no succession laws in Canada's constitution and the British parliament determines who Canada's monarch is and will be in future.

"The United Kingdom Parliament is not making law for Canada, and there is nothing in the United Kingdom bill that purports to extend to Canada. The British bill is amending the United Kingdom laws that define who may become the sovereign of the United Kingdom in the future. It is our Canadian Constitution that provides that the sovereign of the United Kingdom is the sovereign of Canada.

"Bill C-53 will simply declare the Parliament of Canada's assent to change ancient rules of succession..." Rob Nicholson

"Those are British laws [the Act of Settlement, etc.], and we have left it to the British Parliament to amend the legislation." Warren J. Newman
"The United Kingdom determines who is the sovereign of the UK and that person becomes, ipso facto, the sovereign of Canada." Benoît Pelletier
"The laws governing succession are UK law and are not part of Canada's constitution." Department of Canadian Hertiage
See also: Walters, Mark (17 February 2013), "British laws and the Canadian Crown", Ottawa Citizen.

It's currently not determined which position is correct or whether both somehow are. That means it is not yet known if the Succession to the Crown Act 2013—a British law—had or did not have any affect on the succession in or relating to Canada. That very question (among others) is currently before the Quebec Superior Court, with the government of Quebec challenging the government of Canada's (the previous government, anyway) position. It would be a major violation of WP:NPOV for Wikipedia editors to determine the answer here; to create a truth. For now, we can only reflect in the article what the sources say. On that note: Neither the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 nor the order in council bringing it into force state what the succession order will be or how succession is to be governed, nor do they make any reference to amendment of any Canadian law or any foreign law becoming law in Canada. (Likely because, all along, the former government's position was that the matter of changing law is entirely within the UK's jurisdiction.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolute - I'm no legal beagle, but it appears to me that in order to legally challenge something, that something must exist. As I'm understanding it, Quebec is challenging Canada's having allowed the United Kingdom to change the Canadian succession to absolute primogeniture, via rubber stamping the UK's succession act. Well, it appears to me that Canada must have done the deed, otherwise Quebec wouldn't be challenging anything. Therefore, my previous changes should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolute, but reference the ongoing jurisprudence – The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 states that it is absolute primogeniture. While the law may be found to be ultra vires or otherwise unconstitutional by the courts, the same can be said of most any law. In the absence of reliable sources overwhelmingly saying that the law will most probably be found to be unconstitutional, we can hardly assume by default that it will be. However, of course we should always be referencing the fact that the law's constitutionality is in contention and that it is currently before the courts. Graham (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect, the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 does not state that at all. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Largely concur with TFD above ("Absolute") and in discussion below, and differ from Mies. ("Not known"), but unless common law and the relevant statutes, up to and including Canada's of 2013, specifically use the term agnatic (or cognatic) then it would be better to state the position without it, except perhaps in a well-sourced footnote. Whether described by an extraneous term such as "agnatic" or "cognatic" makes no difference to the law or the facts of the line. I do not see either term in the linked articles Perth Agreement and Succession to the British throne. Qexigator (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolute, per points made by TFD and Graham, above, and the article should reflect that consensus until a court rules on the merits or stays implementation of the law by injunction pending a ruling, neither of which has occurred. I will be much surprised if any such terms as "agnatic", "cognatic" or "primogeniture" are found in any law, common or statutory, defining the succession. Those words are not used because they are those used in law; rather they are descriptors of the formula which is applied to the genealogy of the Electress Sophia to identify her heir pursuant to law. As editors, we are responsible for putting together words, nouns and adjectives, which explain how that formula is applied and label it as it is normally referred to (although "cognatic" seems to me an unnecessary and confusing neologism in defining succession formulae). We are not bound to use or avoid any particular words in the effort to convey the formula comprehensibly to Wikipedia's readership. FactStraight (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Do we know what the Trudeau government's position is, on the Canadian royal succession? GoodDay (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Parliament, there was no debate on the bill.[10] I assume that means there was no opposition from the two official opposition parties. TFD (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Liberals haven't seem to have changed their stance, since becoming government. Atleast, I haven't been able to find any sources that they have. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Backing out would infuriate other Commonwealth countries and reignite constitutional debate - a lose-lose situation. TFD (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Miesianiacal: We require reliable sources to determine the challenge to the law is significant, not our own opinion, which is prohibited by such policies and guidelines as neutrality, synthesis and fringe. Wikipedia editors are not required to be able to decide between legal arguments, but they are required to determine what weight should be provided to different arguments. Having said that, you are misrepresenting primary sources.

While the Bill of Rights 1689 and other "Imperial legislation" may still be part of the laws of Canada, they are received laws that remain in effect until Canada amends them and are not part of the constitution requiring special amendment to change. In R. v. Montague for example the defendant argued that Protestants had a right to bear arms and the court of appeal determined that the right had not been incorporated into the Canadian Constitution Act 1982.[11] The Bill of Rights does not prevent federal, provincial and municipal governments from restricting or removing that right. And to anticipate an objection, independence of the judiciary which is guaranteed in the Succession Act 1701 is part of Canadian constitution because it was incorporated into sections 99 and 100 of the British North America Act 1867.

While an Ontario Superior Court judge indeed said that the laws of succession were part of the "unwritten constitution" (para 28), in paras. 27 and 29 he said the reason is that Canada's sovereign should be same as that of the UK and other countries that currently share the same sovereign.

TFD (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources are in this article and others. There's more off Wikipedia, if you care to look, since the case received a fair bit of media coverage earlier this year. You can also check with the Government of Quebec, since it is party to the challenge. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No reliable sources say the challenge is significant and the applicants did not apply for an interim order preventing the governor general from declaring the changes in effect. TFD (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a reliable source stating material meets your definition of "significant" and Wikipedia has no definition of what is "significant enough" to merit inclusion. There is WP:NOTABILITY, but it applies to topics getting their own articles and still doesn't fix a definite line between significant and not significant. Plus, even if we apply WP:NOTABILITY to this subject, it states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". As I already pointed out, the case received fairly wide coverage in the media and has been mentioned in more scholarly publications. So, we can drop your "where's the cite?" canard. Again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ee my reply to you above: "We require reliable sources to determine the challenge to the law is significant, not our own opinion, which is prohibited by such policies and guidelines as neutrality, synthesis and fringe." [06:57, 18 November 2015] No one except you has brought up Notability. TFD (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We should point out aswell, that marriage to a Catholic no longer causes one to loose his/her sucession rights. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think FactStraight makes a good point about using terminology. The legislation is written in plain English, and we should use plain English in explaining the succession law. We should not use jargon unless it is in the sources used, in which case it should be explained. TFD (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In agreement. Instead of absolute primogenitrue, we can use eldst chid, regardless of gender. For the succession before 2015, instead of male preference primogenitrue, we can use eldest son. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I updated (though another editor has since reverted it) the article here and here to reflect the royal succession's current status. If my changes are restored? I would appreciate it, if someone who's a better wordsmith, would refine it. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Your edit was both unsourced and in conflict with the sources used to support the information immediately around it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We've better writers in the area. If the changes to the succession are added to this article, hopefully, they'll help write it up. :) GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

See my question below. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-Write proposals

Following on GoodDay's recent attempt at altering the first paragraph of the succession section: Those who wish to change the content of that section, what's the exact wording you envision? (I'm surprised this hasn't yet been discussed.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the write up at Monarchy of Australia, would seem an appropiate example. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what part of that section you're referring to, but I don't think it is, overall, much of an example for this article, since Australia approached the whole succession alteration matter in a completely different way to Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It does not make sense to say what the UK Succession Act 1701 says when it has since been amended. TFD (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be best to remove that simply because doing so avoids implying either that there is an Act of Settlement in Canadian law and its provisions remain the same as before 2013 or that the Act of Settlement is not a part of Canadian law and the altering of its provisions in Britain had an affect on succession to the Canadian throne. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you please re-phrase your comments, I cannot understand what it has to do with whether or not the succession rules have been changed for Canada. TFD (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is your proposed wording for the section? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For now, I agree with GoodDay. TFD (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you and he are going to have to get more detailed because there are issues either specific to the Canadian situation that aren't found at all in the Australian one, or are also found in the Australian context, but are contradicted by other claims in the Canadian one. For instance, the Australian article states "Succession is according to British laws that have been incorporated into Australian law". We do have sources that support the statement "Succession is according to British laws that have been incorporated in to Australian law". However, the government in 2013 was quite clear when it stated there are no succession laws in Canada. How is that going to be reconciled in this article? The sentence "Australia agreed to change its rules of succession only in agreement with the UK and the other then Dominions" doesn't apply here as, again, the government asserted Canada has no rules of succession to change. Also, there's the claim "Australia, along with the other realms, repealed the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which gave precedence to male heirs and excluded from succession a person married to a Roman Catholic." That's incorrect, as not all the other realms repealed the Royal Marriages Act, Canada being one of them. "In Australia, federal legislation to do this required request and concurrence from all of the states, so that the necessary federal legislation was not passed until 24 March 2015" simply doesn't apply to the Canadian story.

That's quite a lot of the succession section of Monarchy of Australia either eliminated or simply similar to material here that's valid and sourced, but contradicted by other sourced material. If you're going to insist the article state succession in Canada (or the British succession the Harper government said Canada follows) is by absolute primogeniture, there is more work to do than you maybe think. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Should adopting the Australian example be unworkable? another option would be to cut down the section & move most of it to Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. Then, add to this article that the succession is now eldest child, regardless of gender & that the ban for marrying Catholics is lifted. We'd of course add in the details of post-2011, Charles descendants & monarch can only block marriages of the first six in line. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly Australian law is different from Canadian law. For example the Canadian crown dates back centuries, while the Australian crown dates back to 1900. But what has this got to do with how we present the changes? TFD (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A proposed rewrite

Can we try working on this to open the Succession section?

The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 was passed to change the law of succession from male-preference primogeniture, to absolute primogeniture. The act came into force on 26 March 2015. The succession of the present queen and her predecessors since before Confederation, was by male-preference primogeniture governed by common law... (etc.)....

Qexigator (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This version for the opening, describes the current status, accurately. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Succession to the Throne Act 2013 didn't change anything, though; by both the content of the act itself and the then-government's argument. According to them, it was the enactment of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 in the UK that changed the law of succession for Canada; Canada simply takes as its monarch whomever is monarch of the UK. As the Statute of Westminster is law in the UK, the UK required the "assent" of Canada's parliament according to convention iterated in the statute's preamble. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The similar sentence "The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, was enacted on 26 March 2015 replacing male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture, as it consented to the corresponding change in the British line of succession" has been inserted in the article, but it still has no source to support it and contradicts what available sources say. Again: the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 did not replace or amend anything--read the content of the act to see none of that is in there. As such, there was no change to correspond with any other change. Further, the Cabinet at the time said it's the British act that changed succession. Period.

If you really want to sum up the current succession situation according to the previous Cabinet, you'd want something like "Succession for Canada is governed by British law; whomever is the monarch of the United Kingdom is automatically monarch of Canada. Though, convention iterated in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931 requires the UK to have the assent of Canada's parliament for any alterations to succession in Britain to have effect." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(Response to Qexigator) The 2013 Act consented to the changes to the British succession, on 26 March 2015. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If I may: The 2013 act assented to the bill proposing (because it was just a bill) changes to the British succession. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

An assent, which came into effect on 26 March 2015, along with the British succession act-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation demand

Can I have a clarificaton on exactly what citation is being asked for? GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I just gave one up above at 03:23. A citation is needed to support the claim the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 replaced, changed, amended, or altered anything. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

My edit has clearly explained that the Act came into effect along with the British succession act.GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a non sequitur, GoodDay. Nobody even alluded to the date the act came into effect. It's the claim of what the act did that has no supporting reference. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to allow the other participants to review my additions to the opening sentence. If they agree with your observation, then my changes will be reverted. However, if they agree with my observation, then my changes will stand. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Or, someone changes it to reflect the citations available? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If my additions are agreed to, then (of course) your citation tag should be removed. Again, I'll allow others to decide this, as I've no intentions of edit-warring over it, with you. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed to? Facts aren't determined by a majority of editors. You've been around here long enough to know that. This is getting worrying. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm but one editor in this entire discussion. My changes will either be accepted or rejected. Once an editor make an edit, it becomes public domain & thus open to reversion, alteration or acceptance. I leave the fate of my changes into the hands of those participants here. It's out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Further concern about opening

"Which as enacted, took effect, in the United Kingdom on 26 March 2015". Hasn't it also taken effect in Canada? Or is succession to the Canadian throne, suddenly no longer a reflection of the succession to the British throne? GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The implication is that it has no effect anywhere else. We would not say for example that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was an Act of Westminster, took effect in the UK in 1982. TFD (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem, GoodDay? The sentence in full (per [12]) reads The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, assents to the proposed changes to the succession to the British throne as set out in the UK's Succession to the Crown Bill, 2013, which ~~, as enacted, took~~ came into effect ~~in the United Kingdom,~~ on 26 March 2015. The bill refers to the content of the UK act (previously a bill), to which the Canadian act, which also operates from that same date, had assented in advance. That was the factual situation. The next paragraph outlines the state of the law before the proposed change, the next paragraph, the manner in which Canada was committed to the intent of the Perth Agreement (fully described in its own linked article), followed by the passing of the Canadian act in order to fulfil the committment, and the subsequent judicial review in Quebec on the question of the validity of the federal act, the detail of which is not the topic of this article. Qexigator (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC) + update strike Qexigator (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The previous opening version (before TFD's change) read as though the change took effect only in the United Kingdom. As though the British succession was now absolute primogeniture, with marriage & catholic rules amended, but the Canadian succession was still male-preference primogeniture, with the marriage & catholic rules un-amended. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the legislation comes into effect everywhere, as future monarchs will be recognized as kings and queens of the UK. Its like saying the Cambridges' marriage took effect in the UK, casting doubt on whether they would be considered married outside the UK. TFD (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand, at least, most certainly did not take the view their monarchs are whomever is recognised as kings or queens of the UK. There, succession is by domestic, not foreign, law. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TFD's change. Once again, if the Canadian succession hasn't changed in 2015, what then is being legally challenged in Quebec. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't matter what you agree with. Facts are not determined by what most editors think is true. Please provide reliable sources to support your edits. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It does matter what editors agree with. That is how consensus is formed and articles are changed. Notice for example the RfC above that asked what editors thought. TFD (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I said facts aren't determined by what most editors think is true. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No they are not. But editors determine what are and are not facts. TFD (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

~~Hey TFD, in relation to the Canadian succession, is the Canada Act, 1982 valid? Afterall, that act was also passed by the British Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)~~

Miesianical, I did not say that Australia and NZ would recognize the kings and queens as their own, I said they "will be recognized as kings and queens of the UK." GoodDay, sorry I do not understand your question. TFD (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I'm sitting in the Quebec courtroom? It appears as though the aforementioned 'challenge' to the law, is being fought out here, in this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TFD's comment at 21:42, 24 November. An act which has the force of law in a country, such as UK or Canada, may have an effect in other countries, such as in respect of nationality or citizenship or trade barriers or generally when implementing an international treaty. But we (that is Wikipedia) must await the ruling of a lawyer accredited with the skill, knowledge and public responsibility of a judge to determine (at least at first instance), after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the parties, whether the Canadian act is effective in Canada to accomplish what was intended. If the act is effective in Canada, then it will apply world-wide in determining what is the line of succession of the Canadian monarchy. In the meantime, with the Quebec government and the federal government as parties to the judicial proceedings, we are not in a position to treat the matter as of no more weight than fringe opinion among academic theorists identified with an insignificant political cause, though it may turn out to be of no more than passing interest. Qexigator (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you had the court issued an interim order preventing the governor-general from ordering the provisions of the Canadian act into effect. If the application fails, there is nothing to prevent others, indeed you are at liberty to apply to a court to claim you are king of Canada, but if you did we would not change this article to say the current holder of the crown is undetermined until your claim is ultimately resolved. TFD (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In the circumstances, I would look at the simple facts without the aid of hyperbolic hypotheticals. There was no need for the court to issue an interim restraining order, even if asked. Such an order would have been to impede the will of parliament without compelling reason of law, which remains to be determined by the court, or compelling reason of fact to avoid irremediable injury or damage to person or property. The court has not dismissed the motion as frivolous, and we may surmise that the provincial and federal governments are not displeased to have an opportunity to have the propositions tested in argument to arrive at what can be expected to be a well-reasoned judgment, which could well be taken to the highest court on appeal, even if in the expectation of no more than an affirmation there. In the meantime, the position of the nearest in line is unaffected, and public and private interests in respect of persons or property are happily unaffected, with, may be, exceptions such as betting odds. Qexigator (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know if you are aware of legal procedure, but courts do not just dismiss cases as frivolous. The defendant must apply for a default judgment which is normally carried out after they have submitted their written defense. Orly Taitz filed to have Obama's election to be declared void 20 January 2009 (the day he was sworn in) and the case ended 11 July 2011, (2 1/2 years later!) when the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. Only birthers would have argued we could not say Obama was elected president for most of his first term. You need to provide a reliable secondary source (i.e., not something written by the litigants and their team) that says the challenge has any chance of success and not speculate.

The reality is that if tomorrow the government had to choose between following the old and new rules, they would choose the new ones. It's the same as the challenges to anti-smoking laws. we do not wait until all possible challenges have run out before saying the law has changed.

TFD (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My comments stand undeterred by your remarks, which seem to be straying further from the topic. If the government had to choose tomorrow, we would all know about it and there would be no need to speculate. Some may now be better able than others to see the situation for what it is and the expected outcome, but opinionated speculation is not the basis for sound editing here. What we know is that the government decided how to proceed and parliament passed the act, but if the time comes, we know not when, for further decisions, we do not know what the circumstances will then be, or the composition of the government or the political state of affairs. Qexigator (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

So if tomorrow you file a claim in a court that you are Qexigator I, than we could not say the current queen is the monarch until your case is ultimately refused? You are using your personal judgment that this case is viable, which is contrary to the policy of neutrality. We are not supposed to elevate disputes above what they receive in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Is any of this somehow related to the content of the article? It sounds like you want the article expunged of all mention of the court case unless its "viability" has been opined on in a reliable source. If so, that is a bizarre and made-up rule for inclusion.

No one is arguing Elizabeth isn't the Queen of Canada. No one is disputing Charles' claim, nor William's after him, nor George's after him. So, your hypothetical is completely irrelevant. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

TFD: I am no more exercising "personal judgment" about whether the case is "viable" than I am indulging in increasingly irrelevant hyperbolic hypotheticals. The fact is that, regardless of the private opinion of anyone here or elsewhere, or the publically stated positions of the parties, the proceedings are being contested between the government of Quebec and the federal government. No one yet knows the judge's ruling or the reasoning he will give. It may yet come as a pleasant or unpleasant surprise to some, whose understanding of the situatiion is less sound than they imagine. Qexigator (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mies.: If anyone can trace a source explaining to an actively inquiring but uninformed reader why the federal parliament which passed the act is not a party to the court proceedings, as an alleged defaulter in breach of the Constitution, maybe the information could be added to the article. Qexigator (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

+ Given that the common law rule of male preference primogeniture, which derived from the days of barons and men-at-arms (and continues in the UK peerage), has been abated by the UK parliament to absolute in respect of the line of succession to the present queen, is there any hint or certainty that the reasoning in Edwards v Canada (AG) has been invoked in the current Quebec case, such as The exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours, but it must be remembered that the necessity of the times often forced on man customs which in later years were not necessary. Such exclusion is probably due to the fact that the delberative assemblies of the early tribes were attended by men under arms, and women did not bear arms.[13]? Qexigator (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

+ More information about common law and male preference primogeniture in Canada, which could be within the scope of the judicial review, if not skirted round by mutual consent: "Primogeniture accompanied the settlers to British North America, but the Maritime provinces ...abolished it in favour of partible inheritance, although ... the eldest son got a double share of the property of the deceased intestate parent... Because the puritans of Massachusetts had done so, believing they were following a biblical injunction. New Englanders dominated the legislatures of the Maritime provinces in the early years and brought their legal culture with them. As a more democratic and egalitarian ethos emerged by Confederation, authorities quietly dropped the double share. In Ontario, the abolition of primogeniture was a much bigger deal. The Constitution of 1791 had provided for a landed aristocracy after all. Even though an aristocratic political order didn’t develop as planned, primogeniture symbolized a deferential, hierarchical society in a way that appealed to the colonial elite. Eighteen bills to abolish primogeniture failed before the reform finally succeeded in 1851. Even then, Ontario hung on to the fee tail, even as most other provinces abolished it, until 1956. (Philip Girard in Canada's Law Times, 16 September 2013. [14] Qexigator (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

May we please have discussions take place in the discussion section? Otherwise, editors' bullet points will get spread out & thus make the RFC more difficult to read for the Rfc closer. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.