Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 6
 | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Residences and Royal Household
Portland Island, which according to this article was the personal property of Princess Margaret and had been on loan to BC as a marine park, has now been incorporated into the new Gulf Islands National Park. I do not know precisely how this was done, but I know that a variety of small provincial parks, some other Crown land, and some land that was held directly by the Government of Canada was joined together. Establishing a national park requires that the land be set aside in perpetuity. I believe that it takes an Act of Parliament. Thus, the suggestion that Princess Margaret might have deeded this land to someone in her Will can be resolved by examining the Act. The plans for this new park were well under way before 2002 when the princess died, so perhaps she deeded it to the Crown. Njesson 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
NPOV lead
Following the edits by the newly arrived anon user, the lead is now not neutral: the anon has changed "since at least the end of the 15th century" to the selective "since the... turn of the 16th century." The sources clearly don't agree on the date, some saying 1534, others 1497.
The anon has also replaced "parts of what is now Canadian territory" with "some part of what is now Canadian territory"; I don't understand why he is claiming Canada grew out of one homogenous lump of a colony. If he's referring to the part of New France called "Canada", why the vague "some" before "part"? If he's referring to the various colonies, even within New France itself, why the use of the singular "part"?
The anon refuses to engage in discussion, though he has been asked twice to do so, though communication with him is problematic as he switches IPs. This is only worsening an already exasperating situation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The current is more correct than "since at least the end of the 15th century", which is plain false according to what you just said, as 1534 is in the 16th century. --zorxd (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is unreal. Your own words:
- Not to mention:
- "Canada has always had a monarch, since the time of King Henry VII of England..."1, p.7
- "Sovereigns of Canada: 1485-1509 Henry VII..."1, p.IV
- "The most appropriate date to mark the beginning of the Canadian Monarchy is 1497... In recognition of these beginnings, the head of King Henry VII... [is] carved over the doors to the House of Commons..."2
- I acknowledged that, though most sources seem to pin 1534 as the founding date, other opinions on that matter exist, and I edited the sentence to accommodate that and appease your objections to the specific focus on 1534. Now you're defending the use of 1534?!! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am not defending 1534. What I say is that it is debatable. Only, you can't write "since at least the 15th century" based on a source which say 1534. You can write "since at least 1867" (the latest undisputed date) or "since at most 1497" (the earliest date, altough not defended a lot). --zorxd (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- You say the foundation date is debatable (which I acknowledge) but then immediately say 1867 is the only undisputed date. You are being self-contradictory. We're not here to decide which date is right, only to outline that there are many dates proffered, the earliest of which being 1497; "since at least the late 15th century" sums this up accurately and succinctly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say that 1867 is the only undisputed date. What I say is that nobody dispute that Canada existed and was a monarchy in 1867. The same can't be said for 1497. That statement is disputed. Maybe my English isn't good enough, but to me, "since at least 1497" means that it is undisputed that Canada was a monarchy in 1497, and that some people even say that Canada was a monarchy before that. This is obviously false. "Since at least 1867", however, sounds true, and doesn't contradict that some people say that Canada was a monarchy in 1497. --zorxd (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think your English skills are causing a serious problem here. You did indeed say 1867 is the "latest" (not "only") undisputed date given (my apologies), but you seem to have meant to say that 1867 is undisputedly the latest date given. These are two completely different assertions; the former contradicted your claim that the foundation date is contested (no foundation date can be undisputed when the foundation date is disputed, regardless of whether the date is the latest date or not).
- What I meant is that it isn't disputed that Canada was a monarchy in 1867. We can't say the same of any other preceding date. Saying that it was a monarchy in 1867 doesn't mean that it has not been a monarchy before that, by the way. --zorxd (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Since at least the late 15th century" says exactly that a date in the late 15th century (1497) is only the earliest of multiple possibilities; this sentence in the article is still emphasised by (though presently contradicting) a footnote that details what sources say what date. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I translated in the google translator to make sure, and from what I understand what you mean is "since at most the late 15th century", but it doesn't sound very good. If I say that you have been the best hockey player since at least 1990, doesn't it mean that you could have been the best hockey player since 1985? If you have only been the best hockey player since 1995, my statement is false. --zorxd (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the translator is wrong. "Since at least [date]" sets the date as the earliest one. Saying I have been the best hockey player since at least 1990 means I was certainly not the best in 1989. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The translator is not exactly wrong, but there is ambiguity about whether least/most refers to distance back in time from the present or distance forward in time from our conventional "year 1" (i.e. the magnitude of the year-number). The distance-back-in-time meaning is usual, I think, and by that the earliest date should be "most" and "least" should apply to the latest date. That, seemingly, is the translator's handling. However, this issue is academic, with the present wording. -- 64.180.176.133 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the translator is wrong. "Since at least [date]" sets the date as the earliest one. Saying I have been the best hockey player since at least 1990 means I was certainly not the best in 1989. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I translated in the google translator to make sure, and from what I understand what you mean is "since at most the late 15th century", but it doesn't sound very good. If I say that you have been the best hockey player since at least 1990, doesn't it mean that you could have been the best hockey player since 1985? If you have only been the best hockey player since 1995, my statement is false. --zorxd (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think your English skills are causing a serious problem here. You did indeed say 1867 is the "latest" (not "only") undisputed date given (my apologies), but you seem to have meant to say that 1867 is undisputedly the latest date given. These are two completely different assertions; the former contradicted your claim that the foundation date is contested (no foundation date can be undisputed when the foundation date is disputed, regardless of whether the date is the latest date or not).
- I didn't say that 1867 is the only undisputed date. What I say is that nobody dispute that Canada existed and was a monarchy in 1867. The same can't be said for 1497. That statement is disputed. Maybe my English isn't good enough, but to me, "since at least 1497" means that it is undisputed that Canada was a monarchy in 1497, and that some people even say that Canada was a monarchy before that. This is obviously false. "Since at least 1867", however, sounds true, and doesn't contradict that some people say that Canada was a monarchy in 1497. --zorxd (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- You say the foundation date is debatable (which I acknowledge) but then immediately say 1867 is the only undisputed date. You are being self-contradictory. We're not here to decide which date is right, only to outline that there are many dates proffered, the earliest of which being 1497; "since at least the late 15th century" sums this up accurately and succinctly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am not defending 1534. What I say is that it is debatable. Only, you can't write "since at least the 15th century" based on a source which say 1534. You can write "since at least 1867" (the latest undisputed date) or "since at most 1497" (the earliest date, altough not defended a lot). --zorxd (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I don't agree at all with the foot note and I think that you misinterpret sources and cherry pick others. The references don't talk about the establishment of "the Crown in Canada", which have never been "established" as it means nothing. Back then, we were talking about the Crown of France or the Crown of the UK, and there was no reference to a canadian crown or a "Crown in Canada". All references to a "Crown in Canada" concept are modern and there is a reason for this : this is pure revisionism. Look at the text of the treaty of Paris. Does it say that the King of France gives the "Crown in Canada" to the British King? Of course not. Saying that Canada is a monarchy since 1534 doesn't mean that a "Crown in Canada" was established at this date, by the way. It should be understood as a synonym for a monarchical system of government. The legal concept of "The Crown in Right of Canada", however, was probably established in 1867. The foot note doesn't even talk about it. --zorxd (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Taking the two objections in turn:
- The wording "...around the turn of the 16th century" is, in fact a neutral way of putting it, being (quite deliberately) non-committal as to whether before or after. The key word is "around" -- "...around the turn of the 16th century." This word was left out of the quotation in the objection.
- Moving on to the business of "parts" or "some part": whenever it was that the first monarchical government originated within what is now Canadian territory, that government applied to "some part" of that territory -- just one part, at first, whichever part that was. This became "parts" as English and French colonies (or colonial claims) proliferated. This severalness (eventual, but not initial) is indicated by "...the founding of French and English colonies there...", just a few words further on in the same sentence. There is no implication, much less any "claiming", that "Canada grew out of one homogenous lump of a colony"; such an interpretation of the sentence is altogether inconsistent with its mention of "French and English colonies".
- In both cases, far from being point-of-view, the wording states uncontroversial facts about Canadian history, simply and plainly, while staying deliberately non-committal about the debatable details -- that is, about which event should be seen as the first, and thus what is the more exact date and which was that first "some part".
- 64.180.176.133 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see what you mean r.e. "around the turn of the 16th century"; this makes sense to me now. However, the difference between "some part" and "parts" actually now seems irrelevant; either way, the sentence still reads as though only some part or parts of Canada is/are presently a monarchy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, even if it was the case, that would be true since I think that small parts of what was called Canada during the French period is now part of the northern most states of the US. --zorxd (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- As it's not the case, we needn't worry if its true or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded offensive, I should have said "even if it *is* the case", without making any assumption or whether it is the case or not. --zorxd (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's not offensive so much as it's confusing; why raise the truth of something that patently is not the case? Canada is a monarchy in toto, not in part or parts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The current country called Canada, yes. But this country didn't exist before 1867. --zorxd (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it did, only not in its current form; Quebec (Lower Canada), Ontario (Upper Canada), New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia were all there before 1867, as was British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, and even the area that's now Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta was all there within the Northwest Territories. Kind of irrelevant to the issue, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The thing is, the whole territory of the country called Canada is *now* all governed by a monarchy. Back then however, whether it is in 1497 or 1534, it was only some/a small part(s) of what is now Canada which was/were claimed by monarchies. These parts grew to include was is now part of the republic of the USA, even if was called Canada back then. I know you like to say that the whole Canada exist as an uninterrupted hereditary monarchy since 1497 or 1534 (the date of the "establishment" of "the Crown in Canada" as you say it, as if there was a specific "Crown" associated to the territory of modern Canada instead of the political entity created in 1867), but the reality is more complex. --zorxd (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it did, only not in its current form; Quebec (Lower Canada), Ontario (Upper Canada), New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia were all there before 1867, as was British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, and even the area that's now Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta was all there within the Northwest Territories. Kind of irrelevant to the issue, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The current country called Canada, yes. But this country didn't exist before 1867. --zorxd (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's not offensive so much as it's confusing; why raise the truth of something that patently is not the case? Canada is a monarchy in toto, not in part or parts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded offensive, I should have said "even if it *is* the case", without making any assumption or whether it is the case or not. --zorxd (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- As it's not the case, we needn't worry if its true or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, even if it was the case, that would be true since I think that small parts of what was called Canada during the French period is now part of the northern most states of the US. --zorxd (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see what you mean r.e. "around the turn of the 16th century"; this makes sense to me now. However, the difference between "some part" and "parts" actually now seems irrelevant; either way, the sentence still reads as though only some part or parts of Canada is/are presently a monarchy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't dispute the first part of what you say, but the rest makes little sense, including what you say I said. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perfect, then why did you revert my edit when I tried to change the footnote about the "establishment" of "the Crown". I looked at the sources, and most of them do not say that a Crown was established, either in 1497 or 1534. --zorxd (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Because saying "the first establishment of the Crown in Canada" doesn't contradict "the whole territory of the country called Canada is *now* all governed by a monarchy"; the two statements are actually totally unrelated. You seem to ascribe to "Canada" and "the Crown" very narrow definitions not shared by the sources; of 13 cites, five explicitly refer to a crown/monarchy/monarch existing over "Canada" since around 1500, two refer to a governor over the same from the same approximate date. The authors and publishers of those works seemed confident that such wording wouldn't be confusing; it certainly isn't to me, and nobody else has had a problem with it until you came along. I think you need more opinions on this to see if this wording really is mystifyingly unclear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- That does not explain why you reverted my edit. The only source who talk about the "establishement" of "the Crown" is the revisionist propaganda document "A Crown of Maple" (which can't be used as per WP:SELFPUB as already said many times, see the other discussion where you never replied). Ironically, you use it *both* as a source for 1497 and 1534. All other sources use different words. To say that a monarch reigned over Canada, or even that Canada is a monarchy since 1534 is very different than saying that a Crown was established on this date. You are confusing what are sometimes synonyms, as described below. That's why I tried to replace "establishment of the Crown" by something more appropriate. No Crown was established in 1497 or 1534. No monarchical government or institutions were established either (as there was not even a governor). The only thing we can say is that parts of Canada were then claimed by kingdoms. Also, "The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust", as well as other monarchist blogs/web sites are *not* valid sources. So is an opinion article in a newspaper. --zorxd (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- First sentence of what I wrote gives the explanation you say isn't there.
- I'm not going to go around these inane arguments about the sources being monarchist propaganda again. You are going to have to get more editors to weigh in on that one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Already done by Gazzster, John K, and maybe others. And no, your first sentence doesn't explain why we can't change "the Crown was established in 1497 or 1534" by something like "parts of modern Canada were claimed by kingdoms as early as 1497 and 1534", which is more coherent with the sources. --zorxd (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- johnk said the entire article was based on one crown published source. Gazzster said it was possible for government-written sources to get things wrong. None said the sources were all monarchist propaganda.
- And yes, my first sentence does explain why I reverted your change: the reasoning you offered for your edit was: "the whole territory of the country called Canada is *now* all governed by a monarchy. Back then however, whether it is in 1497 or 1534, it was only some/a small part(s) of what is now Canada which was/were claimed by monarchies." That isn't even related to the statement "the first establishment of the Crown in Canada varies," unless one ascribes to your narrow definitions of the words "Canada" and "crown", which seven of 13 sources provided don't.
- But, if it will bring this ridiculousness to an end, I'll acquiesce and let you have "the date of the first establishment a monarchical form of government in parts of the territory which now forms Canada varies" instead of the apt and concise "the date of the first establishment of the Crown in Canada varies." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Already done by Gazzster, John K, and maybe others. And no, your first sentence doesn't explain why we can't change "the Crown was established in 1497 or 1534" by something like "parts of modern Canada were claimed by kingdoms as early as 1497 and 1534", which is more coherent with the sources. --zorxd (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- That does not explain why you reverted my edit. The only source who talk about the "establishement" of "the Crown" is the revisionist propaganda document "A Crown of Maple" (which can't be used as per WP:SELFPUB as already said many times, see the other discussion where you never replied). Ironically, you use it *both* as a source for 1497 and 1534. All other sources use different words. To say that a monarch reigned over Canada, or even that Canada is a monarchy since 1534 is very different than saying that a Crown was established on this date. You are confusing what are sometimes synonyms, as described below. That's why I tried to replace "establishment of the Crown" by something more appropriate. No Crown was established in 1497 or 1534. No monarchical government or institutions were established either (as there was not even a governor). The only thing we can say is that parts of Canada were then claimed by kingdoms. Also, "The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust", as well as other monarchist blogs/web sites are *not* valid sources. So is an opinion article in a newspaper. --zorxd (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Because saying "the first establishment of the Crown in Canada" doesn't contradict "the whole territory of the country called Canada is *now* all governed by a monarchy"; the two statements are actually totally unrelated. You seem to ascribe to "Canada" and "the Crown" very narrow definitions not shared by the sources; of 13 cites, five explicitly refer to a crown/monarchy/monarch existing over "Canada" since around 1500, two refer to a governor over the same from the same approximate date. The authors and publishers of those works seemed confident that such wording wouldn't be confusing; it certainly isn't to me, and nobody else has had a problem with it until you came along. I think you need more opinions on this to see if this wording really is mystifyingly unclear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The monarchy of Canada, The Crown in Right of Canada, etc
I am not sure that the introduction is right. Doesn't the monarchy of Canada refers to the complete system, as well as its line of succession, while "The Crown in Right of Canada", "Her Majesty in Right of Canada" and "The Queen in Right of Canada" are only legal concepts which only one part of the system? I don't think they are always synonyms. By looking at the content, this article is about the whole system, not only the legal concept. By looking at Monarchy of Australia, Monarchy of the United_Kingdom, Monarchy of the Netherlands and Monarchy of Belgium, I would say that this introduction might be a mistake. --zorxd (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I concur. "The Crown in the Right of Canada", etc. are specifically legal concepts which are but one aspect of the Canadian monarchy. In some contexts those terms might be used interchangeably with "the Canadian monarchy", but they are not fully congruent with it. Generally, "the Crown in the Right of Canada", when translated from legalese, means "the Government of Canada", and relates to the monarchy only in the abstract, symbolic, theoretical, legal-fictional way that the the power of the federal government derives from the monarch. The lead should not suggest that these terms are synonymous with "the monarchy of Canada". -- 205.250.64.112 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't have said it better. I was looking at the introduction of Monarchy of Australia, and I think that it could easily replace the current one with very minor modifications. --zorxd (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've moved those words out of the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is a good first start, but I still think the rest of the introduction should be modified to reflect the idea discussed.
- The monarchy of Canada is the constitutional system of government
- What is a constitutional system of governement? I don't think this expression is used a lot. Also I don't think it means much as pretty much every modern governement has a constitution, including many absolute monarchies, communist states, etc. We could say that it is a Westminster-style parliamentary constitutional monarchy (or something similar), which is the most precise way to describe the Canadian system.
- in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign and head of state of Canada,[1][2][3] forming the core, or "the most basic building block,"[4] of the country's Westminster-style parliamentary democracy.
- I think we should avoid advertising-like parts such as "the most basic building block". Also, what the source say is that "the Crown" is the most basic building block, not the monarchy as a system. We need to change that to reflect our previous discussion that they are not always synonyms.
- The Crown is thus the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Canadian government,[5][6][7] as well as the linchpin of Canadian federalism.
- Here the problem here is that "The Crown" is a concept which isn't defined. That sentence should be somewhere in the article, but only after "the Crown" is defined. "the linchpin of Canadian federalism" sounds like an other advertisement. --zorxd (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're trying to get at; your points waver all over the place from the form of Canadian parliamentary democracy to advertising and definitions. Please try to better sum up your arguments. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- My main argument is the following : it is one thing to remove "the Crown in Right of Canada" in the introduction, the rest need to be adapted to reflect the change. It isn't the case actually. We still see "the Crown" being used in an ambiguous matter as if it was a synonym of "Monarchy of Canada". --zorxd (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it's not impossible to shift text around in the lead. I guess a heirarchy of sorts can be established, wherein the concepts expressed move from the broad into the more focused. But, in doing a survey of most of the articles on monarchies in Wikipedia, they all make reference to the monarch's role in governance within the first paragraph. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, saying the role of the monarch is important. Do not confuse the monarch and the legal concept of the Crown however. What I say is that the legal concept of the Crown shouldn't be used before it is explained. --zorxd (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just want to agree, in passing, with the above comment that "linchpin" is a bit pseudo-poetic, lol, and for the reader who doesn't know or check what a linchpin is it might sound a bit malevolent too, i.e. like she is the pin they would all try to lynch for their greivances or the plug to pull etc., which may be true (?) but I doubted folk feel like lynching her too much. ~ R.T.G 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, saying the role of the monarch is important. Do not confuse the monarch and the legal concept of the Crown however. What I say is that the legal concept of the Crown shouldn't be used before it is explained. --zorxd (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it's not impossible to shift text around in the lead. I guess a heirarchy of sorts can be established, wherein the concepts expressed move from the broad into the more focused. But, in doing a survey of most of the articles on monarchies in Wikipedia, they all make reference to the monarch's role in governance within the first paragraph. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- My main argument is the following : it is one thing to remove "the Crown in Right of Canada" in the introduction, the rest need to be adapted to reflect the change. It isn't the case actually. We still see "the Crown" being used in an ambiguous matter as if it was a synonym of "Monarchy of Canada". --zorxd (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're trying to get at; your points waver all over the place from the form of Canadian parliamentary democracy to advertising and definitions. Please try to better sum up your arguments. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is a good first start, but I still think the rest of the introduction should be modified to reflect the idea discussed.
- I've moved those words out of the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't have said it better. I was looking at the introduction of Monarchy of Australia, and I think that it could easily replace the current one with very minor modifications. --zorxd (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Date format
This 2004 edit introduced a date format into the article. Per WP:DATE that MDY format has precedence as the default format for this article--JimWae (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Lead x96
The anon user has just reverted to his preferred version again. This is objectionable, as that composition is unnecessarily verbose and makes erroneous claims, saying in 40 words what mine says in 35, and also implying that colonial government exists to this day and that monarchical governance evolved into... monarchical governance. My version may not be a paragon of perfection, but it is certainly more concise and unambiguous.
Further, "colloquially" is quite acceptable, and has been used in that place in the article for well over a year. An argument needs to be made and consensus found to change it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Both versions seem fine, I don't see your objections (where is it said that a colonial government still exists?). I don't think it is a very important debate. There is only a difference of 2 characters between your two versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorxd (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- @Miesianiacal:
- My dear fellow, your interpretation is as much awry as it was in your last round of complaint. How do you manage to see an implication that colonial government exists to this day? Further, a difference of 5 words is niggling. Furthermore I've tried a number of versions, trying to work toward one that is satisfactory all round; I've not been stubbornly "reverting to [one] preferred version", as you make it sound (and perhaps even believe).
- Anyhow, let's let other editors have a go -- and for heaven's sake try to calm down.
- -- 205.250.72.215 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, your interpretation could never be awry! Well, on the contrary, you miss completely the way your composition communicates falsities. "Such monarchical government" follows on what? "European kingdoms began claiming lands." Well, what is European kingdoms claiming lands but colonialism? Has "such" monarchical government really carried on ever since? No. Remove the "such" and the sentence may work.
- Further, If a difference of five words is niggling, why are you niggling in favour of the extra five words? We should be concise, not unnecessarily prolix.
- And, lastly, you don't work out composition by reverting initial reverts. WP:BRD explains this. Nor do you insist your preference stay in the article so that "others judge between the versions (or make their own)." But, then, you wouldn't know any of that as attempts to get you to follow any Wikipedia guideline or policy are thwarted by your general reluctance to participate in discussion and daily shifting to a new anonymous IP. Funny that you should inflame an already contentious situation by ignoring and avoiding the restrictions the rest of us abide by and then infer that I'm off my rocker because I first asked and then told you to stop. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the word "such" imply colonialism today, especially not in the pejorative manner that you are evoking. I don't see the difference between this and saying that the "Crown" was established in 1534 and implying that the same "Crown" is still lasting today. But your two versions are so similar that I don't really care which one we keep. --zorxd (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- What do you think the "such" refers to, then? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- A monarchical government. --zorxd (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- What kind of monarchical government? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Any. That's the point. The only thing that we still have in common with the colonial government of the 17th century is that it is a monarchy. The British monarchy was a complete change of government, and then the various reconfigurations (act of union, etc.) were changes too, the confederation was an major one again (although maybe less than the status of Westminster when speaking about the monarchy), etc. What is the only thing that we kept since the beggining? Pretty much only the fact that a monarch is the head of state and we call this a monarchy. --zorxd (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did you miss the word "European"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Such as monarchical government doesn't mean that it is still European. Everybody knows that Canada is not in Europe, there is no confusion. --zorxd (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is indeed a problem when "such monarchical government continued" follows immediately on "European kingdoms". It implies not that Canada is in Europe but that a "European kingdom" still has government in Canada. Don't assume too much about what people know and don't know. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it is a problem (even if what you said is true, I see nothing wrong in saying that our monarchy is European, British in particular, since I don't consider this in opposition with the fact that it is also Canadian), but I see no reason for not making the change that you ask either. --zorxd (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is indeed a problem when "such monarchical government continued" follows immediately on "European kingdoms". It implies not that Canada is in Europe but that a "European kingdom" still has government in Canada. Don't assume too much about what people know and don't know. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Such as monarchical government doesn't mean that it is still European. Everybody knows that Canada is not in Europe, there is no confusion. --zorxd (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did you miss the word "European"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Any. That's the point. The only thing that we still have in common with the colonial government of the 17th century is that it is a monarchy. The British monarchy was a complete change of government, and then the various reconfigurations (act of union, etc.) were changes too, the confederation was an major one again (although maybe less than the status of Westminster when speaking about the monarchy), etc. What is the only thing that we kept since the beggining? Pretty much only the fact that a monarch is the head of state and we call this a monarchy. --zorxd (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- What kind of monarchical government? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- A monarchical government. --zorxd (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- What do you think the "such" refers to, then? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the word "such" imply colonialism today, especially not in the pejorative manner that you are evoking. I don't see the difference between this and saying that the "Crown" was established in 1534 and implying that the same "Crown" is still lasting today. But your two versions are so similar that I don't really care which one we keep. --zorxd (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- The lead as it stands is clumsy. The Canadian monarchy is not a 'system of government'. It is the Government. The terms 'Government', 'Crown','Crown-in-Right', 'Monarchy' are all terms describing the same thing. In Westminster tradition the constitutional person of the Sovereign is never abstracted from Parliament, in accordance with the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. Hence the expression, 'Queen-in-parliament'.I don't know that we need describe the Queen as Sovereign and Head of state. The Sovereign is, by definition, a head of state. I'll have a go at the lead and you guys see what you think.--Gazzster (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that was the previous version. But changes have been made after the discussion there Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#The_monarchy_of_Canada.2C_The_Crown_in_Right_of_Canada.2C_etc. I think there must be a difference between the articles Monarchy of Canada and Government of Canada (if they are the same, the articles should be the same as well) Your opinion is welcome however. --zorxd (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some here are overthinking this. Heck, it's a lead. A lead should be simple. It leads into a more involved discussion. That's why it's there. So rather than get tongue-tied by definitions, we could just describe it rather than define it. Something like, 'Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II is the country's head of state. She is represented by a Governor-general and by a Lieutenant-governor in the provinces.- now read on.' There. Simple, no brain-breaker.--Gazzster (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, it was too long. --zorxd (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The lead is supposed to summarise the article. What's there (or was there) could maybe have done with some work, but what you just did was simply obliteration. I'm certainly not impressed with that move at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- What I've written is a summary. A brilliantly accurate and concise summary, if I say so myself. It could be a dictionary definition. A lead should not go into complicated legal concepts even before the reader has any idea of what the article's about.--Gazzster (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- 'In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.'--Gazzster (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- You miss the point completely. You carelessly obliterated a chunk of text, taking out summarised information on the Crown's place in all three branches of government, removed rather than moved sourced text, and actually repeated information already given further on in the lead. Plus, the first paragraph now reads like it's the opening of a grade 5 paper. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The lead is supposed to summarise the article. What's there (or was there) could maybe have done with some work, but what you just did was simply obliteration. I'm certainly not impressed with that move at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, it was too long. --zorxd (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some here are overthinking this. Heck, it's a lead. A lead should be simple. It leads into a more involved discussion. That's why it's there. So rather than get tongue-tied by definitions, we could just describe it rather than define it. Something like, 'Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II is the country's head of state. She is represented by a Governor-general and by a Lieutenant-governor in the provinces.- now read on.' There. Simple, no brain-breaker.--Gazzster (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that was the previous version. But changes have been made after the discussion there Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#The_monarchy_of_Canada.2C_The_Crown_in_Right_of_Canada.2C_etc. I think there must be a difference between the articles Monarchy of Canada and Government of Canada (if they are the same, the articles should be the same as well) Your opinion is welcome however. --zorxd (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- The lead as it stands is clumsy. The Canadian monarchy is not a 'system of government'. It is the Government. The terms 'Government', 'Crown','Crown-in-Right', 'Monarchy' are all terms describing the same thing. In Westminster tradition the constitutional person of the Sovereign is never abstracted from Parliament, in accordance with the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. Hence the expression, 'Queen-in-parliament'.I don't know that we need describe the Queen as Sovereign and Head of state. The Sovereign is, by definition, a head of state. I'll have a go at the lead and you guys see what you think.--Gazzster (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, from your point of view perhaps. But the article isn't composed only for people with university education. I think authors tend to forget that. The old test used 'specialized terminology' without explaining it. It used 'uncommon terms' which were so ill-understood even by the editors themselves (hence the discussion about Crown-in-right etc). I didn't 'carelessly' obliterate a chunk of text. I did it deliberately and with thought. The repetitions can be dealt with easily enough. But I'm not defending my edit. I'm just suggesting it as a simple, uncomplicated introduction that describes the monarchy without pre-empting the in-depth discussions that follow.--Gazzster (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't suggest it, Gazz, you did it, and it seems that it was rather slipshod, given all the problems the move has now created. I must have said about six times now that I'm not objectionable to the lead being edited; but I expected a little more care in how it would be done. I know you mean well, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- An edit can be a suggestion. By all means revert if you think it right. I won't revert back.--Gazzster (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- As a proud Canadian I simple want to state that this edit war makes me feel proud, you fellas almost sound like a member of parliament, the ineffectual arguements you've been having forever, saying the same things in different ways with obvious dislike from each. Like watching Question Period.
- Quick note on our government, this is the same government that funds our education system, changes our text books at random every couple of years (well, seeming random, people on the ground level certainly don't get it, the foreign teachers claim that if it was down in their native dictatorship there would be a riot and new dictator), teaches the same 400 years of history until your in the 11th grade and currently believes that in grade school spelling is not a neccassary skill as we all have spell check in the real word. Personally I keep my spelling errors. Most relevently, this is the same government responsible for the education that allows most of it's citizens to believe that the Head of State is the Prime Minister. Honestly, we have one of the most biased, ineffectual governments in the world, most of my friends vote towards the purpose of keeping it on a hung or minority government, so noone can screw things up. They are rather good at slinging their propoganda, so I would not say relialbe source in the least, and they certainly know nothing about history, its in the realm of spelling and knowing math (opposed to memorizing math tables, another of our education flaws).
- Yeah, just kinda needed to say that after reading all your arguing.
- Also, I think it is definatly worth stating that no Canadian Monarch has ever resided in Canada. It is trivial, but not useless (and following our own rules trivial information should not be discluded but included in the actual text), a similar percentage of Canadians that believe the Head of State is the Prime Minister probably don't think there is a monarchy at all, or at least a distinct monarchy with its very campy crown (if I had to wear that I wouldn't visit very often either), as they are unfamiliar with the complications that can arise from monarchy laws, such as what is going to happen to the title Duke of Edinburgh, what a personal union is (in the complexity that it can allow for one monarch to rule over two monarchies, and have two distinct legal heirs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.19.122 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article (and quite a few others) already mentions that the monarch resides predominantly in the UK. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- An edit can be a suggestion. By all means revert if you think it right. I won't revert back.--Gazzster (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't suggest it, Gazz, you did it, and it seems that it was rather slipshod, given all the problems the move has now created. I must have said about six times now that I'm not objectionable to the lead being edited; but I expected a little more care in how it would be done. I know you mean well, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Constutiton of 1982
There has been no new monarch since the repatriation of Canada. IN the ammending formula there is the requirement of unanimous consent for changes to the office of queen. What haas precedent in the event all legislatures do not, such as Quebec,give consent to Charles assumping the office. As it states any changes to the office of the queen require unanimous consent of the house of commons, senate, and provincial legislatures.
173.32.157.59 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC) William
- It wouldn't matter. The Courts have ruled that the Constitution includes the Act of Settlement, as well as the unwritten conventions. The Courts have further ruled that Quebec not signing the Constitution has no bearing on its legality. As such, when Her Majesty dies, The Prince of Wales will immediately become King of Canada (And the other Commonwealth Realms) with no need for any actual recognition. While the Privy Council in Canada will (Presumably) get together and proclaim him as such, and then further down the road he will have a coronation, none of it is required for him to ascend to the Throne. The areas of the Constitution to which you refer only have any bearing on removing the Crown from our system. Dphilp75 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quite right. Further, it's a badly conceived myth that Quebec never "signed" the constitution. The province opted into Confederation by "signing" the BNA Act. When that document came fully under Canadian control in 1982, nothing in the aforementioned changed. The only thing the Quebec government and legislature at the time never approved of was the Constitution Act 1982, which is only but one part of the entire Canadian constitution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Further quite right! ;) I went with the not signing it more out of convenience sake! Should have known better with Miesianiacal on my arse! :P Dphilp75 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I wrote that under the impression that the anon had said it. Oops! Sorry for the lecture! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Was totally kidding man! :) I didn't take it as such at all! I took it as you just attempting to shed a little more light on the subject! :) Dphilp75 (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Further quite right! ;) I went with the not signing it more out of convenience sake! Should have known better with Miesianiacal on my arse! :P Dphilp75 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quite right. Further, it's a badly conceived myth that Quebec never "signed" the constitution. The province opted into Confederation by "signing" the BNA Act. When that document came fully under Canadian control in 1982, nothing in the aforementioned changed. The only thing the Quebec government and legislature at the time never approved of was the Constitution Act 1982, which is only but one part of the entire Canadian constitution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
infobox
Victoria was the first King/Queen of Canada? What are the grounds for that statement? Victoria was Queen of the UK and Empress of India. Her rule in Canada was a result of her role as Queen of the UK. You could maybe say her son was king of Canada, although he didn't use that title, due to the fact that he was King of the UK "and the dominions beyond the seas," but that seems like calling Charles IV of Spain King of Peru because among his titles was "King of the East an West Indies and the Isles and Mainland of the Ocean Sea," or whatever. I don't see any justification for putting Elizabeth II in a line of kings and queens of Canada going back anywhere before George V, and even then I think it would probably be more accurate to see EII herself as the first King/Queen of Canada. john k (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think we consider her to be the first "Queen of Canada" because Canada was formed during her reign. Her predecessors reigned over the territory that would become Canada, but not the geopolitical unit "Canada" itself. Jagislaqroo (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm...so Charles II was the first King of Jamaica, then? john k (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- No. Jamaica became independent from the UK on 6 August 1962. I think you're conflating geographical entities and political entities. The island of Jamaica has had a monarch since the British set foot there; Queen Elizabeth II is the queen—and so far the only monarch—of the modern state of Jamaica. Jagislaqroo (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Jamaica became independent in 1962, and Canada became independent no earlier than 1931. john k (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this is a somewhat murky issue, if only because people don't know that Canada Day celebrates Confederation, not independence. I think the key issue is when the entity in question became separate from the UK. I'm no expert on this, but if Jamaica had truly been a "colony", then it would have been "part" of the UK, no? Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Jamaica became independent in 1962, and Canada became independent no earlier than 1931. john k (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- No. Jamaica became independent from the UK on 6 August 1962. I think you're conflating geographical entities and political entities. The island of Jamaica has had a monarch since the British set foot there; Queen Elizabeth II is the queen—and so far the only monarch—of the modern state of Jamaica. Jagislaqroo (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm...so Charles II was the first King of Jamaica, then? john k (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- You are partially correct in arguing that Elizabeth II is the first "Queen of Canada"; she was the first monarch to have "Canada" included by legislation in her title. However, just because Victoria, for example, wasn't officially titled "Queen of Canada" doesn't actually mean that she wasn't. Jagislaqroo (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- But Canada in Victoria's day was not sovereign. Victoria ruled it by virtue of being Queen of the United Kingdom, not as a separate realm. The British Privy Council, parliament, cabinet, and colonial office also had authority over Canada in Victoria's time. Calling Victoria "Queen of Canada" is to backdate the constitutional notions of the present to the nineteenth century. 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion here is about the distinction between 'Queen of Canada', meaning Queen of Great Britain and its colonies - of which Canada was one; and 'Queen of Canada', meaning Queen of Canada as a constitutional nation. It's a subtle but unimportant distinction. In the constitutional history of the present realms the monarch of the UK was never regarded as a foreigner; the title Queen or King was never regarded as improper or irrelevant. If Victoria was not regarded as Queen in Canada, who was she?Gazzster (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused as to what is your question. She was Queen in Canada, but not Queen of Canada. William IV was King in Canada, too, as was Louis XV. Victoria was also Queen in Jamaica, and Queen in Hong Kong. Elizabeth II was Queen in the Federation of the West Indies, to pick an example more closely analogous to Canada after 1867. We don't say that Victoria or Elizabeth were Queens of these territories because they did not have separate crowns - they were colonies under the British crown. So was Canada before the Statute of Westminster or thereabouts. john k (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Since we're not talking about her legal titles, it doesn't make any sense to my why we're making a distinction between "of" and "if" in this context. Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Before 1867, "Canada" was a term - an alternate name for British North America - loosely applied to a collection of colonies and territories: Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, the Province of Canada, the United Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, the North-Western Territory, and Rupert's Land. Victoria was queen over all of those. But, on 1 July 1867, three of the aforementioned colonies - Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Province of Canada - united to become an entity called Canada, which wasn't a colony like the others around it, being entirely self governing in internal matters. At the time, the Fathers of Confederation even wished to name this new polity the Kingdom of Canada, in recognition of its status in the Empire higher than a colony. Of course, "Dominion" was the term employed, which was then used for all other colonies in the Empire that gained the same status Canada did in 1867.
- Regardless, the point is that modern Canada came into existence in 1867 and Victoria was its first queen. I don't know enough about the details of Jamaican history to say for sure who was its first monarch; the article Monarchy of Jamaica says Elizabeth II, but that could be wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Jamaica was a political unit (a British colony) since the 17th century. It only became independent in 1962, but Canada only became independent in 1931 or thereabouts. Canada in 1867 had more self-government than Jamaica at the same time, but both were essentially British colonies - I'm not sure I grasp the basis for the idea that Victoria was "Queen of Canada" but not "Queen of Jamaica." I'd add that, before 1867, "Canada" pretty clearly meant the Province of Canada, specifically, and before that the separate provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. "British North America" was the term for the whole complex of British colonies in North America. john k (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The key term is [self-governing] dominion! The dominions had their own monarch because the Imperial Parliament didn't (generally) legislate in these areas. Remember that the Imperial Parliament consisted of the (British) Queen, House, and Lords. In Jamaica, I suspect, the British government legislated, or at least delegated that authority so that it would be done 'in the name of' the British Crown. Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The British controlled Canada's foreign affairs until early in the 20th century. Weird eh? GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weird for us today? Certainly, but we all take the concept of the modern nation-state for granted. Fortunately we have made significant departures from colonialism. Jagislaqroo (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The British controlled Canada's foreign affairs until early in the 20th century. Weird eh? GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The key term is [self-governing] dominion! The dominions had their own monarch because the Imperial Parliament didn't (generally) legislate in these areas. Remember that the Imperial Parliament consisted of the (British) Queen, House, and Lords. In Jamaica, I suspect, the British government legislated, or at least delegated that authority so that it would be done 'in the name of' the British Crown. Jagislaqroo (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Jamaica was a political unit (a British colony) since the 17th century. It only became independent in 1962, but Canada only became independent in 1931 or thereabouts. Canada in 1867 had more self-government than Jamaica at the same time, but both were essentially British colonies - I'm not sure I grasp the basis for the idea that Victoria was "Queen of Canada" but not "Queen of Jamaica." I'd add that, before 1867, "Canada" pretty clearly meant the Province of Canada, specifically, and before that the separate provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. "British North America" was the term for the whole complex of British colonies in North America. john k (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused as to what is your question. She was Queen in Canada, but not Queen of Canada. William IV was King in Canada, too, as was Louis XV. Victoria was also Queen in Jamaica, and Queen in Hong Kong. Elizabeth II was Queen in the Federation of the West Indies, to pick an example more closely analogous to Canada after 1867. We don't say that Victoria or Elizabeth were Queens of these territories because they did not have separate crowns - they were colonies under the British crown. So was Canada before the Statute of Westminster or thereabouts. john k (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- If we really wanted to get picky, I'd say that the concept of "Queen of Canada" came into existence somewhere between the Imperial Conference of 1926 and the enactment of the Statute of Westminster of 1931, when it became clear that a government could only advise the monarch of their respective Commonwealth realm. Jagislaqroo (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's the point: Was Victoria Queen of Canada or just Queen in Canada. If the latter, then it would be that Canada (at that time) had a British monarch as its head of state. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the notion of "head of state" as we know today really didn't exist back then. I don't see any difference between your previous distinction in this context, since we're not talking about titles. I know that the phrase "Queen of Canada appears nowhere in the written constitution, but when we look at "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen", the phrase "of and over Canada" seems to cover both of your distinctions. Jagislaqroo (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you say that the notion of "head of state" didn't exist in the nineteenth century. Could you explain? john k (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the notion of "head of state" as we know today really didn't exist back then. I don't see any difference between your previous distinction in this context, since we're not talking about titles. I know that the phrase "Queen of Canada appears nowhere in the written constitution, but when we look at "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen", the phrase "of and over Canada" seems to cover both of your distinctions. Jagislaqroo (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It depends on which source one goes by. Some lists start at Henry VII/François I ([3], [4]), while other sources say Victoria was the first queen of Canada ([5]). I thought Victoria was more apt, since, as already mentioned above and, as stated in the third link I provided, "Queen Victoria was the first Monarch of the confederation of provinces that became known as the Dominion of Canada on July 1, 1867." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
independent reliable sources
We should not be using the Monarchist League of Canada. As their name implies, they have an obvious bias in promoting the significance and benefit of the monarchy. As well, we shouldn't be relying on the Canadian government in most cases. We need to go to 3rd party reliable sources, that are independent, in order to get a more balanced approach. --Rob (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I support your concern about bias. But organisations such as the Monarchist League could be reliable sources if its information is verifiable from other sources.The basic information about the Canadian monarchy should of course be based on the Canadian Constitution and other constitutional documents, authorotive interpretations of the same and the Canadian Government's understanding on the topic. Gazzster (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair use of Coat of Arms
I suspect that we don't have a fair use rationale. Could someone please apply one at File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Canadian Royal Family
"Most members of the Canadian Royal Family are also members of the British Royal Family". Who's in the Canadian Royal Family but not the British Royal Family? DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since no one's answered, I've struck "most". DeCausa (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I missed this.
- It says farther on in the same paragraph: "for instance, while he never held the style His Royal Highness, Angus Ogilvy was included in the Department of Canadian Heritage's royal family list, but was not considered a member of the British Royal Family." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's incorrect. The husband of a first cousin of the Queen would normally be considered a member of the British Royal Family (HRH does not determine membership of the royal family e.g. no one would say "Miss" Zara Phillips isn't a member of the Royal Family). Indeed Angus Ogilvy's obituary in the Daily Telegraph describes him as a member of the Royal Family. There's no source cited for saying he isn't. Unless there's any other examples, I'm going to revert and amend the later reference to Ogilvy. Membership of the "Royal Family" is obviously not a clear-cut thing, whether in Canada or the UK. Therefore, I think it's misleading to suggest there is a difference between the two. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Mmmm... I thought it was sourced somewhere that Ogilvy was not considered a member of Britain's royal family, whereas he appeared on Canadian Heritage's list of royal family members for Canada. Is there a way to reword the paragraph so as to avoid any OR either way? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Having briefly looked at Google and Google books there doesn't seem to be obvious/easy sourcing on this. The problem is that the British royal family is an amorphous concept. I can well believe that there is a source out there that says Ogilvy wasn't a member, just as others say he was. That emphasizes to me that claiming a "difference" between Canadian and British royal families is going to be misleading. I suppose claiming them as the same could be seen as OR without a specific source, but to be honest that is surely the obvious default position. Why should there be a difference? Probably the correct thing to do is not make any reference to it at all unless and until a source on point emerges. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Mmmm... I thought it was sourced somewhere that Ogilvy was not considered a member of Britain's royal family, whereas he appeared on Canadian Heritage's list of royal family members for Canada. Is there a way to reword the paragraph so as to avoid any OR either way? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's incorrect. The husband of a first cousin of the Queen would normally be considered a member of the British Royal Family (HRH does not determine membership of the royal family e.g. no one would say "Miss" Zara Phillips isn't a member of the Royal Family). Indeed Angus Ogilvy's obituary in the Daily Telegraph describes him as a member of the Royal Family. There's no source cited for saying he isn't. Unless there's any other examples, I'm going to revert and amend the later reference to Ogilvy. Membership of the "Royal Family" is obviously not a clear-cut thing, whether in Canada or the UK. Therefore, I think it's misleading to suggest there is a difference between the two. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
There's an article on the British Royal Family. There is no formal definition. Canada and the UK share the same line of succession, but that would be too broad a definition. The most narrow definition would be to take simply those with a royal title (MH/HRH), but the general convention is also to include any immediate family members of those with an official style. That leaves about 25 members. Sir Angus therefore was, and Zara Phillips is, but Tom Parker Bowles and Viscount Linley are not even though they are close relatives. 90.193.97.143 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Responsibilities
Per the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of the sovereign and/or governor general include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.
This statement is misleading. These things are under the Queen's authority, but must be performed by the Governor General (meaning, whomever the Queen authorizes to perform them). Currently, the Queen does not assign these responsibilities to herself, having vested them in the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada (per the letters patent constituting said office). SteveMcQwark (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are there two images of the same two people on the same trip?
The article covers decades of history, yet the image is very recent. Its redundant to have two images of the same two people only a few days apart, and that first image is not even in the proper section. The section discusses the history of the monarchy and its duties in Canada. William is not even a monarch. Better to have the image of a monarch in that section.--JOJ Hutton 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree to removing the image, as it has nothing to do with International and domestic aspects. The only image/images that I feel should be in the article are actual monarchs, not potential future monarchs.--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your reasoning given in your edit summaries were "Already an image of this couple in the article,in its proper section. No need to give too much weight to recent events" and "Must have reason why this should be here. The article DOES NOT need two images of the same two people on the same day. Its redundant. And images should not be placed anywhere in the article, but should be inserted in the proprer context." This seems to miss a few salient points:
- There are multiple images of the Queen (3), Prince Charles (3), and George VI (2) on this page.
- The image in question does not depict the couple on the same day as the other image showing them.
- The image illustrates the adjacent sentence "...officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other Canadian officials will take over from whichever of their other realms' counterparts were previously escorting the Queen or other member of the Royal Family." This is reflected in the image's caption: "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge escorted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police..."
- I hope this makes clear why the image is used and placed where it is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there are multiple images of both the Queen, Charles, and George IV, but each of those images are years apart, and have separate duties in the article.
- No they are not the same day, but does the article really need two separate images of the same 2 people only 3 days apart, on the same visit?
- There is a lot being said in that first section. Any image, like the one I replaced it with, would do better. The section does not require that an image to fit that single sentence be inserted.--JOJ Hutton 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- A stamp fails to illustrate anything in that section, as far as I can tell. There might be another picture that could work as an illustration there, but I've yet to come across it. Can you point to any alternatives? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I thought that the Canadian stamp was perfect. How about moving the image of George IV standing with the PM up from its current section. I had imagined doing that, but thought an image of George V would better serve the section, since the section deals with the early history of the monarchy,and he was King during that early time.--JOJ Hutton 22:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that photos should be restricted only to monarchs. The article is about the monarchy as a system, as well as the people, and not 'monarchs of Canada'. Further, there does not seem to be any disagreement on the photos of Prince Charles. Seeing as the Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all have their own Canadian standards, I see it fitting to have photos of all of them.
- It does seem reasonable to me however, to replace a photo of Prince William with one of King George V; or simply add a photo of the King if it doesn't overly clutter the article. Trackratte (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The photo of Charles makes sense where it is in the section about the succession, as he is the heir apparent, that would be the only appropriate place to put a picture of him. William is not part of the Monarchy of Canada, but a member of the British Royal Family, and a potential heir to the throne. (The most likely to succeed in the future, but the future has not happened yet) Having a Canadian standard is not in my opinion a justification for including a photo. --UnQuébécois (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- William is, by Canadian constitutional law, an heir to the Canadian throne, the next after his father. He's not considered by the government to be a foreigner; he, like the Queen's children and other grandchildren are part of the Canadian Royal Family. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's all correct, he is a member of the Canadian Royal Family, not the Monarchy of Canada.--UnQuébécois (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean by "monarchy" there. As I understand it, the monarchy encompasses the Royal Family. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's all correct, he is a member of the Canadian Royal Family, not the Monarchy of Canada.--UnQuébécois (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- William is, by Canadian constitutional law, an heir to the Canadian throne, the next after his father. He's not considered by the government to be a foreigner; he, like the Queen's children and other grandchildren are part of the Canadian Royal Family. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The photo of Charles makes sense where it is in the section about the succession, as he is the heir apparent, that would be the only appropriate place to put a picture of him. William is not part of the Monarchy of Canada, but a member of the British Royal Family, and a potential heir to the throne. (The most likely to succeed in the future, but the future has not happened yet) Having a Canadian standard is not in my opinion a justification for including a photo. --UnQuébécois (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- But the section doesn't deal with the early history of the monarchy; it only makes very brief mention of developments between the end of the First World War and the Statute of Westminster as background to the rest of the section. The one of George VI and Mackenzie King might work; but, the image also works well where it is, in a section discussing the relationship between the monarch (head of state) and the Cabinet (prime minister, head of government). So, why move it to replace another image that still also seems to work well where it is?
- If there's really that much objection to the picture of William and Catherine, the image of the Queen's Royal Standard for Canada can be moved up to replace it (or William's or Charles') and one of an insignia of a Canadian honour (say this one) can go where the Queen's standard is now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to see any logic behind excluding Prince William but not Charles. They are both in the direct line, and they have both been officially recognised by the Government of Canada as having Canadian positions within the Canadian Royal Family (thus the standards with the same rule and governing authority as the Queen's personal Canadian standard, in order to symbolically represent their place within the Canadian constitutional framework). I see no problem with replacing one of the photos of Prince William with a different one, whichever, to better reflect the text. However, if we include Charles, or talk about the succession within the article, then I feel that a photo of Prince William is absolutely fitting. To sum up, I gather we have 3 votes for keeping one photo and replacing the other, and 1 vote for getting rid of both, or am I mistaken? Trackratte (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- A recap of my view: This Article deals primarily with the Monarchy of Canada, not the succession, not the Canadian Royal Family, there is a small section about the succession of the monarchy and a small section about the royal family, these sections in my opinion the pictures are appropriate, Charles as heir apparent next in line to succeed - goes with the small section, and Will and Kate as members of the Royal Family - goes with the section. The remainder of the article is about the Monarchy and not the family/heirs and should have pictures representing the subject treated. Will and Kate picture (aka with the Mounties) is not relevant to the article or the section containing it. A picture of the Queen being escorted by Mounties, for example, would be fine it it's place. --UnQuébécois (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- So we are agreed then that as a compromise, we can leave a photo of Prince William where it is in the "Canadian Royal Family" section, and replace the picture of Prince William in the "International and domestic aspects" section with something 'more appropriate'.Trackratte (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also, as an aside, you're comments regarding whether Prince William is part of the Canadian Royal Family piqued my interest. Besides the Government of Canada officially and symbolically acknowledging Prince William's role as 3rd in line to the Canadian throne, I cannot find any explicit official references. There are a few Canadian media references, and somewhat ironically quite a few British Media references. "It is understood that the Canadian government will foot the two million dollar bill for that part of the tour as the Commonwealth country is one of the Queen's realms – meaning she is not a foreign monarch but the country's sovereign and head of state. This means that Prince William, 28, and the former Kate Middleton, 29, are members of the Canadian royal family and the country's authorities are taking the lead in organising the trip."- Telegraph. I only found more of the same, so I won't put you to sleep by including all of them.Trackratte (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That would be because there is no official Canadian Royal Family. It is a "media"/"social" construct, it is also tradition to "bring home" or "Canadianize" shared British/Commonwealth terms/concepts. Recognizing the heir/heirs to the monarchy is normal, as they in theory will become the next/future monarchs. --UnQuébécois (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Queen would disagree with your claim that there is no Canadian Royal Family. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Trackratte, please see my earlier proposal, at 01:52, 14 February 2012. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I agree with moving the Royal Standard up to replace that of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in the first section. I'm not too particular with what the Royal Standard is replaced with. I would like to see the Coat of Arms of Canada with a link to the page, or perhaps the badge of the RCN, but that's just me. In any event, I think it's come to a reasonable compromise to avoid any blatant revert wars.Trackratte (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The coat of arms is already in the infobox. The badge of the RCN would be fine, or that of the CF, if the Order of Canada insignia doesn't cut it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I threw in the RCN in place of the Standard, which replaced the first photo of the Duke and Duchess. Obviously feel free to change the RCN with something else if you really don't feel it should be there. UnQuébécois, let me know if you find that a suitable compromise. Trackratte (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I obviously made a few tweaks to that for reasons explained in my edit summary. Substantially, though, the change remains as agreed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would rather see the monarch's standard in an article about the monarchy. --UnQuébécois (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I obviously made a few tweaks to that for reasons explained in my edit summary. Substantially, though, the change remains as agreed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I threw in the RCN in place of the Standard, which replaced the first photo of the Duke and Duchess. Obviously feel free to change the RCN with something else if you really don't feel it should be there. UnQuébécois, let me know if you find that a suitable compromise. Trackratte (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- The coat of arms is already in the infobox. The badge of the RCN would be fine, or that of the CF, if the Order of Canada insignia doesn't cut it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I agree with moving the Royal Standard up to replace that of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in the first section. I'm not too particular with what the Royal Standard is replaced with. I would like to see the Coat of Arms of Canada with a link to the page, or perhaps the badge of the RCN, but that's just me. In any event, I think it's come to a reasonable compromise to avoid any blatant revert wars.Trackratte (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- That would be because there is no official Canadian Royal Family. It is a "media"/"social" construct, it is also tradition to "bring home" or "Canadianize" shared British/Commonwealth terms/concepts. Recognizing the heir/heirs to the monarchy is normal, as they in theory will become the next/future monarchs. --UnQuébécois (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- A recap of my view: This Article deals primarily with the Monarchy of Canada, not the succession, not the Canadian Royal Family, there is a small section about the succession of the monarchy and a small section about the royal family, these sections in my opinion the pictures are appropriate, Charles as heir apparent next in line to succeed - goes with the small section, and Will and Kate as members of the Royal Family - goes with the section. The remainder of the article is about the Monarchy and not the family/heirs and should have pictures representing the subject treated. Will and Kate picture (aka with the Mounties) is not relevant to the article or the section containing it. A picture of the Queen being escorted by Mounties, for example, would be fine it it's place. --UnQuébécois (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to see any logic behind excluding Prince William but not Charles. They are both in the direct line, and they have both been officially recognised by the Government of Canada as having Canadian positions within the Canadian Royal Family (thus the standards with the same rule and governing authority as the Queen's personal Canadian standard, in order to symbolically represent their place within the Canadian constitutional framework). I see no problem with replacing one of the photos of Prince William with a different one, whichever, to better reflect the text. However, if we include Charles, or talk about the succession within the article, then I feel that a photo of Prince William is absolutely fitting. To sum up, I gather we have 3 votes for keeping one photo and replacing the other, and 1 vote for getting rid of both, or am I mistaken? Trackratte (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I thought that the Canadian stamp was perfect. How about moving the image of George IV standing with the PM up from its current section. I had imagined doing that, but thought an image of George V would better serve the section, since the section deals with the early history of the monarchy,and he was King during that early time.--JOJ Hutton 22:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- A stamp fails to illustrate anything in that section, as far as I can tell. There might be another picture that could work as an illustration there, but I've yet to come across it. Can you point to any alternatives? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Monarchy in a federal system
How does a constitutional monarchy function within Canada's federal system? Is there, for example, the Queen in right of Ontario that is legally distinct from the Queen in right of Canada? How does this play out in legal cases between the Provinces and the Federation? Regina v Regina? P M C 22:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fair question, the Queen is the head of government of Canada, represented at the federal level by the Governor General and at the Provincial Level by a Lieutenant Governor in each province. She would always be referred to as the "Queen of Canada" regardless of what province she is in. Ontario is part of Canada and the Queen of Canada is therefore Queen in Ontario; but there is no specific title "Queen of Ontario". Mediatech492 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- According to Monarchy in Ontario, she is known by several names in Ontario, including the Queen in Right of Ontario. Though she acts as "Queen of Ontario", she is not titled as such, and Ontario is not considered a "kingdom". Canada certainly has a singularly odd form of government. By the way, when I was younger, I remember how Toronto Maple Leafs fans would stand and sing "God save the queen" whenever they played the Canadiens. Always amused me as an American hockey fan. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that is correct, the "Crown" is legally distinct in each of the 11 jurisdictions (1 Federal and 10 Provincial). The Queen is head of state both federally and provincially, but not of government, that is the "First Minister" of each legislature, aka. the Prime Minister of Canada, or the Premier of each province (sometimes known as Prime Minister of the province also). In the US the president is both head of state and head of government, in Canada they are distinct, the government is responsible to the people, the monarch can not be the head of government as it is not an elected position. --UnQuébécois (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- There's actually a whole article on this topic, Monarchy in the Canadian provinces which appears to be quite comprehensive and quite well sourced. DeCausa (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Original research
Are you actually reading the refs. provided before reverting my edits? "Until 1949, the member states of today's Commonwealth were united through common allegiance to the British Crown." 2.27.74.10 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how the references provided back up the edits made. Providing an overload of references does not justify Synthesis.--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- So the answer is no then? 163.167.171.212 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to make a change that is resisted you need to gain consensus for the change. You are edit-warring. You must leave the article in its original form until you have consensus for your change. Otherwise, your IP range may be blocked or the article protected so you can't edit it. DeCausa (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Can we discuss the content please? In what way are my edits contentious? 163.167.171.212 (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot aggressively ignore basic WP policies such as edit-warring and WP:CONSENSUS. Once an admin. has taken a look at this situation, we can take it from there. I've put in for semi-protection to prevent you from editing this article but suspect that I might be told your blocking is more appropriate. Will wait and see. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- How about we discuss in the mean time? You can set out your objections for future reference. Or do you have nothing to add besides hitting the undo button? 163.167.171.212 (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- There seems to be at least 3 different editors that "object" in some way shape or form to the edits that you are trying to make, that to me clearly shows that there is no consensus to making the changes. You can not just arbitrarily keep re-adding the same content. There is a process that exists, and it must be followed. At this point, the agreed upon version needs to be left in place. In other words the burden of "convincing" is upon "you" at this point, as many have objected to the edits.--UnQuébécois (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think this user has read (or read and understood) WP:SYNTHESIS. They are now blocked and the article is semi-protected so I would suggest that they read that policy and then consider whether they want to continue to argue for their change here when they're block is up in 48 hrs. DeCausa (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think the user wants to read any of the "guidelines" to contributing to Wikipedia, and is now at a point of just persisting in their point of view. Hopefully this is not the case and we can come to some agreement.--UnQuébécois (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think this user has read (or read and understood) WP:SYNTHESIS. They are now blocked and the article is semi-protected so I would suggest that they read that policy and then consider whether they want to continue to argue for their change here when they're block is up in 48 hrs. DeCausa (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- There seems to be at least 3 different editors that "object" in some way shape or form to the edits that you are trying to make, that to me clearly shows that there is no consensus to making the changes. You can not just arbitrarily keep re-adding the same content. There is a process that exists, and it must be followed. At this point, the agreed upon version needs to be left in place. In other words the burden of "convincing" is upon "you" at this point, as many have objected to the edits.--UnQuébécois (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- How about we discuss in the mean time? You can set out your objections for future reference. Or do you have nothing to add besides hitting the undo button? 163.167.171.212 (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot aggressively ignore basic WP policies such as edit-warring and WP:CONSENSUS. Once an admin. has taken a look at this situation, we can take it from there. I've put in for semi-protection to prevent you from editing this article but suspect that I might be told your blocking is more appropriate. Will wait and see. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Can we discuss the content please? In what way are my edits contentious? 163.167.171.212 (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to make a change that is resisted you need to gain consensus for the change. You are edit-warring. You must leave the article in its original form until you have consensus for your change. Otherwise, your IP range may be blocked or the article protected so you can't edit it. DeCausa (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- So the answer is no then? 163.167.171.212 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
That anon has been edit warring all over Wikipedia, using different IPs.
What he was trying to change this article to certainly is original research and synthesis; the edits he made here and has made elsewhere (see the recent IP edits and edit summaries here, here, here, and here), plus his comments at Talk:Vincent Massey#George VI, seem to collectively suggest that the anon has a specific, predetermined opinion about the constitutional arrangements of the Commonwealth realms before and after the passage of the 1953 Royal Titles and Styles Acts and has cherry picked and misread sources in an attempt to give the opinion credence. However, the sources don't, when read properly and in context, support the claims he has been making. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
In "Federal residences and royal household"...
...why does Rideau Hall need six references (plus one for it being in Ottawa, while la Citadelle has zero? Why does ANYTHING need six references? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
| Close soapboxing |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
ColonyAlthough the idea of trying to impose like a INDEPENDENT country (in the case of Canada and other colonies in the first world), simply acknowledge the fact framed as "Her Majesty" the Queen of the United Kingdom, and has to accept the appointment of officials on their behalf, in the rest of the democratic world that considers current situation as a symbol of colonialism in the XXI century and further those interests fit into a vision, as if certain events occur sovereignty of certain territories can be clearly contradicts the sovereignty thereof. Clearly the role of colony can not but ignored.--190.178.228.48 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Queen of Canada
This article says that the monarch's title is "Queen of Canada". In fact as pointed out in Title and style of the Canadian monarch, it is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, [etc.]". Only occasionally is the term "Queen of Canada" used. TFD (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- She is Queen of Canada at all times in addition to all her other titles; but when she is acting in her official capacity on behalf of Canada her other titles are irrelevant, and she is referred to solely as "Queen of Canada" for the purpose of those activities. Likewise for all other Commonwealth realms where she is regent. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- See the Royal Style and Titles Act (R.S.C., 1985): "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."[6] Other Commonwealth countries have different laws. There is no source in the article for the assertion and unless sources are provided, I will change it. TFD (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- As per your wish.Moxy (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- See the Royal Style and Titles Act (R.S.C., 1985): "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."[6] Other Commonwealth countries have different laws. There is no source in the article for the assertion and unless sources are provided, I will change it. TFD (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Phillip A. Buckner (2005). Canada And the End of Empire. UBC Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-7748-0916-0.
specifically as Queen of Canada, a title formally bestowed on the Queen by the Canadian Parliament in 1952
- Colin Coates (2006). Majesty in Canada: Essays on the Role of Royalty. Dundurn. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55002-927-7.
The Queen reigns separately and divisibly as queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
- Christopher Mccreery (2012). Commemorative Medals of the Queen's Reign in Canada, 1952-2012. Dundurn. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-4597-0756-6.
Elizabeth II became Canada's Head of State as Queen of Canada
- Nathan Tidridge (2011). Canada's Constitutional Monarchy: An Introduction to Our Form of Government. Dundurn. p. 205. ISBN 978-1-4597-0084-0.
As well as being Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II is also recognized independently as Sovereign of fifteen other states around the world. These are called Commonwealth Realms
- Your sources merely say that the Canadian Act (see above) was proclaimed on May 29, 1953. TFD (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure what to say all the source refer to her as the "Queen of Canada" and some go on to explain why. So will let other comment further as there is not much I can say if you are disregarding the wording used in all the source provided.Moxy (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your sources merely say that the Canadian Act (see above) was proclaimed on May 29, 1953. TFD (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Read what your second source (Coates) says:
- Upon her accession on February 6, 1952, all Commonwealth countries shared the same title for their monarch. At the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers held in Decemober 1952, all member countries agreed to pass appropriate legislation for altering the styles and titles in their respective parliaments....[Governor-General Vincent] Massey himself said that appointing "a Canadian [himself] makes it far easier to look on the Crown as our own and on the Sovereign as Queen of Canada." The Royal Styles and Titles Act for Canada was approved by the Canadian parliament and was established by royal proclamation on May 29, 1953. The new style of the Queen was proclaimed as follows: "Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."
How does that differ from what I just said?
TFD (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps your question is not clear - or I simply dont get what your saying. You said " Only occasionally is the term "Queen of Canada" used" - as indicated by the sources above - its very common. Then you seem to be suggesting your going to change "Queen of Canada" in the article to something you have not reveled yet. What are you proposing that we change "Queen of Canada" to "Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." all over the article or in just one location?Moxy (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, but this sentence needs to be corrected, "For Canada, the current monarch is officially titled Queen of Canada." Sometimes the office is referred to as Queen of Canada or the Queen in right of Canada, or more usually "the Queen". TFD (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've not been editing here but have referred to the article and can see that TFD has a point. A tweak is all that would be needed to make this spot on. How about having a go, anyone? Qexigator (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- --done per Royal Style and Titles Act, RSC 1985, c R-12, <http://canlii.ca/t/j00d> retrieved on 2013-05-29. Qexigator (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- --Another editor has undone this tweak,[7] without explanation or apparent reason, merely bare subjective assertion, thus letting the discrepancy noted by TFD be perpetuated. Qexigator (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've not been editing here but have referred to the article and can see that TFD has a point. A tweak is all that would be needed to make this spot on. How about having a go, anyone? Qexigator (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A number of sources have already been provided above affirming that Queen of Canada can be called a title. Another is a government publication, which states "Queen Elizabeth was the first... to bear the title Queen of Canada",[8] and uses the term frequently throughout the book. This one from the Department of Canadian Heritage claims "In 1953, a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon Elizabeth II the title of 'Queen of Canada'."[9] Also, this Senate page says "a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon her the title of Queen of Canada."[10] It is also embedded in both the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Citizenship. That the government considers this a title and its inclusion in law makes it rather official. However, the lead can survive without the word "official", so I've restored the original composition only minus that word. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mies: Explanation noted, which I had not seen when commenting above due to "edit conflict". All that is interesting, but TFD has undone your undo and maybe you can see that it is both accurate and improves the lead. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's actually WP:OR; there's no indication the term Queen of Canada is used either "less formally" or "as a contraction". Also, it's lengthier when the lead should only summarise and this article, specifically, is already way over the recommended size. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Are all the references necessary in that location? WP:LEADCITE discourages their inclusion in the lead and, as I already noted above, this article is past the point of being exceedingly large. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Since this article is called "Monarchy of Canada", we should present the official title, which is the one established by the Canadian parliament. Since MIESIANIACAL thinks it is OR to say that the term "Queen of Canada" is sometimes used, then he needs to present a source that explains its usage. BTW the most common term used in Canada to refer to the sovereign is "The Queen", or "R", for rex or regina. TFD (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- TFD's revision[11] looks the best so far. Qexigator (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is an article for the official title: Title and style of the Canadian monarch, which is linked to in the lead and the article body. This article is about the monarchy of Canada; it isn't necessary to go into detail in the lead regarding the Canadian monarch's title.
- Please read again what I said was OR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The refs are not necessary. I was merely illustrating the point using refs to provide an easy point of access to the material, and can be removed as appropriate. I don't see any need to remove the word 'official' as Queen of Canada is the official title and is used as such according to the British Government, the Canadian Government, as well as constitutional and legal scholars. Also, as an example of common official usage, the Royal Portrait has "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Queen of Canada". Evidently the simpler term "the Queen" is most often used, much in the same way that the 'Canadian Forces' is often used instead of 'Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces', or the 'Opposition' instead of 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition'. Such simplified forms do not detract from the official title. Also, I've never seen a simple "R" used as a title in common usage, so I fail to see your point on that one. Trackratte (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, maybe the refs are necessary, since WP:LEADCITE recommends we use them for contentious matters and this is proving itself more and more to be contentious. I don't know either why "official" became a point of contention; but, as I said above, the lead can work fine without it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
You can certainly find examples of the usage of the term "Queen of Canada" although the most common usage is "Queen". For example in the Constitution Act 1867 the term "Queen" is used almost entirely, although it also says, "Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland..." (preamble) "R" is used in legal proceedings. For example, if Smith is prosecuted for a crime, the case is referred to as "R v Smith". Coins say "Elizabeth R". Some government buildings have "ER" on them. TFD (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your point is. We're talking about a title, not usage of terms or words. Sources have been provided to affirm that the present monarch is titled Queen of Canada, precisely as the lead asserts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed Qexigator's addition to the lead for a few reasons: the links weren't properly formatted--this kind of linking isn't permitted in articles; the placement was off, not really clarifying the words "For Canada" the note followed; and the sources there already affirm the title Queen of Canada is used by the monarch; more matter in an already big lead for a massive article isn't desired.
The place of the title in the Oaths of Allegiance and Citizenship could be covered at Title and style of the Canadian monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Concealing Perth Agreement
In section "Succession and regency" another editor has undone a visible link to Perth Agreement[12] without rational explanation, as if it were shamefully taboo and not to be openly spoken in polite company or before the children or servants. Seems old-fashioned. Is that good Wikipedia practice, or peculiar to articles about Canada? Qexigator (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- That the explanation given wasn't rational is only your opinion. The article Perth Agreement was already linked to via a pipe that had ended up as a redirect. The redirect was replaced with the direct link to Perth Agreement so the pipe took anyone who clicked on the blue link directly there.
- You need to explain why the Perth Agreement needs to be explicitly named, since doing so will require a re-write of the paragraph. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Cannot agree, but will make no further comment. You have failed to deal with the point: irrational concealment of visible link. Qexigator (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Piping links is not irrational; it is a common practice all across Wikipedia: WP:PIPE. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- It seems perverse to imply that I am so foolish as to regard the technical trick of piping as irrational, when it is more than obvious that my point is that the reader should see Perth Agreement in the written text of the article proper. Are you mindful of the readability for inquirers unaccustomed to the whims of some editors? Are you aware that using "find" to search for Perth results only in note 130..".Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law (Perth: Murdoch University)"... I do not see that can be justfied by a rational approach to editing - unless there is a special case for this article which you may be able to disclose? Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- You called piping the "concealment of a visible link" and deemed that "irrational"; your words are still there for the record.
- Why is it "more than obvious" that the reader should see the words "Perth Agreement"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why persist in (pretending?) to miss the point, like a bad debater? Qexigator (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why persist in pretending I'm a "bad debater" (mind the personal attacks) while ignoring the question I put to you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why persist in (pretending?) to miss the point, like a bad debater? Qexigator (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- It seems perverse to imply that I am so foolish as to regard the technical trick of piping as irrational, when it is more than obvious that my point is that the reader should see Perth Agreement in the written text of the article proper. Are you mindful of the readability for inquirers unaccustomed to the whims of some editors? Are you aware that using "find" to search for Perth results only in note 130..".Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law (Perth: Murdoch University)"... I do not see that can be justfied by a rational approach to editing - unless there is a special case for this article which you may be able to disclose? Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Piping links is not irrational; it is a common practice all across Wikipedia: WP:PIPE. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Cannot agree, but will make no further comment. You have failed to deal with the point: irrational concealment of visible link. Qexigator (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Perth agreement should be named in the article because it is of great significance to the article, as it allows a female to become heir apparent. TFD (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now rectified.[13] Qexigator (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)