Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Shortening (and clarifying) the lead

Noting "Lead" (2010), and after above discussion (2013) about the Queen's title, the content of the article now seems to be well enough settled to let the lead be trimmed, by moving some of the more detailed passages to the appropriate section below (with copyedit to suit). If that is accepted in principle, would the article's more longstanding editors consider the passages bolded below to be eligible for removal from the lead? Tentative suggestion for moves now added in italics.

• The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism and its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy,[1] being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Canadian government and each provincial government.[2][3][4] The current Canadian monarch, since 6 February 1952, is Queen Elizabeth II. Although the person of the sovereign is equally shared with fifteen other independent countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, each country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct. As a result,....

mv to 1 International and domestic aspects

• ...the current monarch is officially titled the Queen of Canada and, in this capacity, she, her consort, and other members of the Canadian Royal Family undertake public and private functions domestically and abroad as representatives of the Canadian state. However, the Queen is the only member of the Royal Family with any constitutional role.

mv to 2 Federal and provincial aspects

• While several powers are the sovereign's alone, because she lives predominantly in the United Kingdom, most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties in Canada are carried out by the Queen's representative, the governor general. In each of Canada's provinces, the monarch is represented by a lieutenant governor, while the territories are not sovereign and thus do not have a viceroy. Per the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of the sovereign and/or governor general include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual are required to enact laws, letters patent, and orders in council. But the authority for these acts stems from the Canadian populace and,[5][6][7] within the conventional stipulations of constitutional monarchy, the sovereign's direct participation in any of these areas of governance is limited, with most related powers entrusted for exercise by the elected and appointed parliamentarians, the ministers of the Crown generally drawn from amongst them, and the judges and justices of the peace.[5] The Crown today primarily functions as a guarantor of continuous and stable governance and a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power,[5][8][9] the sovereign acting as a custodian of the Crown's democratic powers and a representation of the "power of the people above government and political parties."[10][11]

mv to 4 Federal constitutional role

• The historical roots of the Canadian monarchy date back to approximately the turn of the 16th century,[n 1][19][20][21][22][23] when European kingdoms made the first claims to what is now Canadian territory. Monarchical governance thenceforth evolved under a continuous succession of French and British sovereigns, and eventually the legally distinct Canadian monarchy,[12][15][16][18][24][25] which is sometimes colloquially referred to as the Maple Crown.[n 2][15][27]

mv to 8 History

If the bolded passages were moved, the lead (subject to copyedit) would read:

• The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism and its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy]],[1] being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Canadian government and each provincial government.[2][3][4] The current Canadian monarch, since 6 February 1952, is Queen Elizabeth II, officially titled the Queen of Canada. While several powers are the sovereign's alone, because she lives predominantly in the United Kingdom, most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties in Canada are carried out by the Queen's representative, the governor general. In each of Canada's provinces, the monarch is represented by a lieutenant governor, while the territories are not sovereign and thus do not have a viceroy. Per the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of the sovereign and/or governor general include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual are required to enact laws, letters patent, and orders in council. The historical roots of the Canadian monarchy date back to approximately the turn of the 16th century,[n 1][19][20][21][22][23] when European kingdoms made the first claims to what is now Canadian territory.

Qexigator (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to move any of that into other sections in the article body; all that information is already there, expanded upon, which is precisely why its summarised in the lead. Also, if that highlighted information is simply removed from the lead, the lead will no longer "stand on its own as a concise version of the article", as instructed by WP:MOSINTRO.

This is a long article; it's going to have a long lead. As WP:LEADLENGTH says, "[t]he appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." The only way I can think the lead could be shortened without compromising its purpose as described above is to recompose it to say all the same things with less words. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I expect others will agree per WP, and I will let it go at that. I am not as conversant with some aspects of the topic as others are, so will leave it to them to improve the conciseness if they can. As a reader of articles such as this my own preference would be a shorter lead as above, but, while the principles of WP mentioned should ideally be applied with skill and judgment, not slavishly or mechanically, I will not make further contest about the editing here. I can see that editors have been at pains to accomodate various aspects to present the information from the available sources in a way that is reasonable and intelligible. Qexigator (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"...because..."

The third sentence of the present lead is ambiguous. To a reader who does not already know what is meant, it looks as though it says that "several powers are the sovereign's alone because she lives predominantly in the United Kingdom". One way to avoid this inversion of fact and reason, would be to rewrite the sentence (in the present lead) to read:

• "The Queen lives predominantly in the United Kingdom and, while several powers are the sovereign's alone, most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties in Canada are carried out by the Queen's representative, the governor general."

Qexigator (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Monarch's Title get explained

On 23 June 2013, I made fairly big edit revamping to inlcude a sub-section. The following is the text of my sub-section. Messianical reverted it without any discssion here. I don't know how to retrieve the text with the formatting. The main point of the new sub-section was to explain how a distinct "Queen of Canada" came about. It was very well referenced too. I think this sort of thing should be explained in the article. Tonnes of other stuff is. This is central important stuff. Any support for me? Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Extract: Distinct Canadian Monarchy emerges

By the end of the First World War, the increased fortitude of Canadian nationalism inspired the country's leaders to push for greater independence from the King in his British Council. An increasingly unique Canadian monarchy began to emerge, firstly through the Statute of Westminster, which was granted Royal Assent in 1931.[264][265] Only five years later, Canada had three successive kings in the space of one year, with the death of George V, the accession and abdication of Edward VIII, and his replacement by George VI. However there was still no "King of Canada" at this point in time.[266] The monarch's title was the same everywhere she reigned and was "By the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith"

George VI became in 1939 the first reigning monarch to tour the country (though previous kings had done so before their accession). As the ease of travel increased, visits by the sovereign and other Royal Family members became more frequent.

Elizabeth II became the reigning monarch on 6 February 1952. Initially she reigned under the traditional title of the Monarch. Then something remarkable happened. On 28 May 1953, by a prerogative act of the Sovereign, Elizabeth II adopted a unique Style and Title with respect to her distinct office as Sovereign in Canada. This act was one of royal perogative.[267] It was not done by way of Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was done with the assent of the Canadian parliament given through the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953.[268]

The nature of the Sovereign had evolved. She now had an entirely distinct personality with respect to Canada. She was "Queen of Canada", her royal title being "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". For the first time ever, Canada was no longer implicitly described as a "British dominion beyond the Sea" in the Sovereign's title.[269] The contemporary monarchy of Canada had finally come into being. The title reflected Canada's status as a sovereign realm, not a British dominion. Moreover, the title now implicitly described Canada as a "realm" rather than as a dominion because it refers to "other Realms".

My edit summary was fairly explanatory. Also, see Title and style of the Canadian monarch. This article is already too long. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Frenchmalawi in that it is important information, especially from an historical evolution perspective. However, as Mies states, this information is already covered in detail within the appropriate locations, is readily available as a link below the section headings, and its addition to this article would be counterproductive to its role in providing a concise summary with links to more in-depth information as required. trackratte (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with Miesianiacal: too much detail for here. However, the edit does bring out this point: "The nature of the Sovereign had evolved. She now had an entirely distinct personality with respect to Canada. She was "Queen of Canada"..." a little more clearly than the current text so maybe a sentence or two along those lines could be usefully added. DeCausa (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the emergence of the legal personality of the monarch of Canada is covered in the history section already: "By the end of the First World War, the increased fortitude of Canadian nationalism inspired the country's leaders to push for greater independence from the King in his British Council, resulting in the creation of the uniquely Canadian monarchy through the Statute of Westminster..." Elizabeth II was only the first monarch to be titled "Queen of Canada". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had read that, and it was with that that I was making a comparison. My point was that the sentence I quoted seem to me to better express the nature of the evolution, as well as rounding it off with "Queen of Canada". DeCausa (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not know why we would use that source, it appears to contain a number of controversial views. The Statute of Westminister 1931 did not make the Crown divisible, it was always divisible but was not recognized as such until 1982. Hence it is controversial to say that the Queen only holds 16 offices of Queen, because it neglects British Overseas Territories and Canadian and Australian provinces and states. The article implies that an amendment to the Succession Act requires provincial approval, but the Canadian government, just as in Australia, has determined that no approval is required. If we want to include these views then we should also include the views of the English courts and the Canadian government. TFD (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you're saying. There are plenty of sources affirming that the Crown was legally "divided" by the Statute of Westminster; George V, Edward VIII, and George VI were kings of Canada, apart from being kings of the United Kingdom (regard much of the reasoning behind the 1939 royal tour).

Succession is something altogether different. But, again, that section is well sourced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

See Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark (Lords of Appeal 2005) which confirmed Lord Denning's 1982 decision on the divisibility of the Crown. This case confirmed that the Queen of the UK and the queen of Gibraltar were separate persons. The 1982 case, which had been brought in order to prevent "patriation" of the Canadian constitution held that the Queen of the United Kingdom named in 19th century Canadian treaties with Indians was not the same person as the Queen in right of the UK. As Denning wrote, "Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question." If their opinion is wrong, can you please provide a reliable source that explains the correct view. TFD (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say Denning's opinion was wrong; I didn't even mention it. But, really, it doesn't disagree with anything I've said; it outlines the reality I've said other sources affirm predates the reign of Elizabeth II. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel roundly beaten on this. Too much consensus to argue.

I don't agree, in principle, with any of you. If there is to be a History section, it shouldn't be misleading, inaccurate and miss crucial details.

But, if there is to be no History section, and instead a link to the other article, fine. I'd agree with that. How about we do that. Remove the "potted" history section altogether. Don't duplicate (imperfectly) materials and just have a link to the history article.

Any way, I feel roundly defeated so I will leave you guys in peace and your article as is. I wont bother with it any more.

Best wishes. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Summary style: "Potted history" is exactly what we're supposed to have here. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Miesianical, you said, "There are plenty of sources affirming that the Crown was legally "divided" by the Statute of Westminster." But the Lords in ex parte Quark said, "(9) But it is now clear, whatever may once have been thought, that the Crown is not one and indivisible. The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." Notice that the Queen is queen of each and every territory where an administration has been established, in this case she is queen of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. So the Canadian crown was "divided" by the establishment of a Canadian government, not on the Statute of Westminster. If you have a source for your claim, then please provide it. TFD (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: How should the Canadian sovereign's title be described in the lead?

1. For Canada, the current monarch is titled Queen of Canada (French: Reine du Canada)....
2. For Canada, the current monarch is titled 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....

Note that the first title omits "United Kingdom".

TFD (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support 2 See Colin Coates (2006). Majesty in Canada: Essays on the Role of Royalty. Dundurn. p. 143.

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."[1]

See also the "Royal Style and Titles Act" in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 c. R-12.

"The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: 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."[2]

Every other Commonwealth realm except Grenada has changed the title to remove the United Kingdom from the title, and Canadian sources sometimes use the title "Queen of Canada," although "the Queen" is the most usual term used. In constitutional law, her position is queen (lower case) of Canada and of each of the ten Canadian provinces.

TFD (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support 2 1, but with this caveat: While we may each be fairly clear about this in our own minds, are we using - meaning - intending - understanding "title" in the same way here? And what could an unsuspecting reader be expected to make of it? Is "Queen" in "Queen of Canada" unambiguously a "title" in a context when a formally prescribed title (in long or short form) would be expected? Based on nothing more or better than such knowledge as I have, and on my opinion and belief, my view is that in the context of this article we need not, and should not unless we must, write of the usage "Queen" of Canada as a title, unless sufficiently sourced by proponents, and so far that seemed to have been lacking. I note that the article Title has a table which includes Queen as "Common in larger sovereign states". Not conclusive, but some indication if further supported. Wiktionary offers: "1_A prefix (honorific) or suffix (post-nominal) added to a person's name to signify either veneration, official position or a professional or academic qualification. 2_(law) Legal right to ownership of a property; a deed or other certificate proving this. ...". Qexigator20:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC) - revised Qexigator (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Support 1: It's not necessary or appropriate to go into deail about the sovereign's title in the lead, which is intended to summarise this article, which is itself an overview page on the Canadian monarchy; the monarch's title by law, among other related subjects, is covered at Title and style of the Canadian monarch, which is currently piped from the words "Queen of Canada" in the lead. The wording in the lead here "For Canada, the current monarch is officially titled Queen of Canada (French: Reine du Canada)" was in place for years without incident. Regardless of whether or not the word "official" stays or goes, the prhase "the current monarch is titled Queen of Canada" is accurate, as affirmed by various sources:

Academic:

• p.68: "[S]pecifically as Queen of Canada, a title formally bestowed on the Queen by the Canadian Parliament in 1952."
• p.47: "Elizabeth II became Canada's Head of State as Queen of Canada..."
• [3]: "In the early 1950s, the title of Queen of Canada was created."
• [4]: "Before her Coronation she assumed the separate title 'Queen of Canada'."
• p.45: "...by which time she would also have assumed the official title of Queen of Canada."
• p.145: "Parliament assented to the Queen's title 'Queen of Canada' in 1953..."
• p.54: "[H]er title is Queen of Canada..."

And governmental:

• [5]: "Queen Elizabeth was the first... to bear the title Queen of Canada"
• [6]: "In 1953, a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon Elizabeth II the title of 'Queen of Canada'."
• [7]: "[A] Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally con­ferred upon her the title of Queen of Canada."

It is also embedded in law, in both the

• Citizenship Act: "I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada...", and
• Oaths of Allegiance Act: "I, ___, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada..."

As a title, Queen of Canada is also far more commonly used than the full, formal title 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. Further, use of the latter, longer title would require the French translation to be amended to the also much longer Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not found the academic or governmental sources convincing on the point at issue here. The usage Queen of Canada by officials, commentators and others, and by the Queen herself, is not in doubt, any more than in any realm she can be, and frequently is, referred to as "the Queen" or as "the Queen of (...that realm...)". It is whether it is apt for the lead to be needlessly calling this the monarch's title that is in question. The reasons advanced by Mies. in support of 1. appear to me to argue in support of 2. Mentioning the title, long or other, is unnecessary detail for the lead, particularly because it is contentious and has so much citation. But I am persuaded by the forms prescribed by statute for the oaths of allegiance: to me, that is decisive in support of 1., provided that these are used for the citations (possibly with some explanatory annotation), whether this passage is retained in the lead, or (preferably) moved into the body. Qexigator (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

MIESIANIACAL provides a link to a government website that says, "In 1953, a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon Elizabeth II the title of 'Queen of Canada'." But the actual act, which is quoted above says, "The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: 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."[8] Other secondary sources confirm this. If some secondary sources incorrectly report what a primary source says, and other sources correctly report it, then we must go with what the law actually says. TFD (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Style and Titles as prescribed in the Act is legal prose bestowing more than a single title: "establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles", note that it does not say "establishing for Canada the following title", but "Style and Titles". There is confusion here on what constitutes an official title, and what constitutes legal style and titles. The official title as used by all of the pertinent political, official, and non-political actors, is the Queen of Canada. If a reader wants more details (including the full legal style and titles), then they can simply click on the wiki link already provided for more information on this specific subject. This article is a general overview, and does not need to get into detail with the full style and titles of the Queen of Canada. Trackratte (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

See Twomey, Anne. The Chameleon Crown, Federation Press, 2006, p. 107. "Despite its earlier insistence on describing the Queen as "Queen of Canada", the Canadians opted for a title referring 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". In the debate on the Bill, the Canadian Prime Minister told his House of Commons on 3 February 1953:

"Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom and because the people of Canada are happy to recognize as their sovereign the person who is sovereign of the United Kingdom. It is not a separate office... it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our sovereign ...""[9]

If this is no longer true could you please reference the law or order in council that changed it.

TFD (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote provided by Prime Minister St. Laurent dating from 1953 was an expression of the common understanding of the time, that of an indivisible, or only semi-divisible Crown. To rely on such a sentiment today however, is to ignore the continued evolution of Canadian Constitutional affairs. Since that time, the Canadian constitution has continued along a path of increasinging independence, culminating in the Constituion Act of 1982. Subsequently, today, contrary to St. Laurent's understaning at the time, the Queen of Canada is a separate office. Such a change in an official title does not require a law or order in council. Legal title and official title are not necessarily one and the same. For example, I think most would agree that the title of Prime Minister of Canada is quite official, even though it is not legally so, or any more of a legal title than Chief Minister or First Minister. As for your request for legal references there is Sue v. Hill [1999] which states that "in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada", as well as [2003] ALRS 2 stating "the difficulty arose because of a lack of clear understanding of the difference between the Queen’s position as Queen of Canada and Queen of the United Kingdom. It would be as inappropriate for the Prime Minister of Canada to advise the Queen of the United Kingdom (on any matter), as it would be for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to advise the Queen of Canada". As well, there is 2008 FC 69, with "The role of the Queen in relation to Canada is succinctly described in the Oaths of allegiance and citizenship as the Queen of Canada". As you can see, the assertion that the Queen of Canada, as an office, is inextricably linked to the office of the Queen of the United Kingdom is no longer true. The legal prose describing the Style and Titles of the Canadian Monarch is not the official title, but the legal style and titles which were passed under a now superceded constitutional order. The assumption that the Queen of Canada is an official title is a fact, and cannot be reasonably debated. This is not a debate about title, but one of stylistic or editorial preference. In the lead to a general article on the Monarchy of Canada, do we use the full legal phrase from a Canadian Act passed in 1953, or do we use the much simpler and more readily recognised official title, reflecting current legal and official usage? Trackratte (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The divisibility of the Crown was decided in an EWCA case in 1982, although New Zealand had already changed the sovereign's title to "Queen of New Zealand" in the Royal Titles Act 1974. However none of this has relevance to the sovereign's title in Canada, because it is determined by parliament. It may be that they picked the wrong title and perhaps we can petition them to change it, but this is not the place to begin that process. TFD (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

First, no one was discussing New Zealand. I offered legal cititions describing the Queen of Canada from a variety of commonwealth sources, which has absolute relevance. Second, "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" is not a title. '...of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Her other Realms and Territories...' is a descriptive style. Queen is a title, Head of the Commonwealth is a title, and Defender of the Faith is a title. Taken collectively, they are the legal style and titles of the Canadian monarch. Thus, legally, the title of 'Queen' is just as valid as the title of 'Defender of the Faith' in Canada, although 'Defender of the Faith', while legal, has no official grounding in Canadian constitutional practice. The Act does not specifically give the title of 'Queen of X', but merely 'Queen' (in addition to the two other titles) in order to reflect the then constitutional realities. Subsequently, Queen of Canada finds its legal grounding in the Acts' bestowing of the title of 'Queen', and its official grounding through constitional principle and legal practice. Even a cursory study of Canadian constitutional law will show you that written laws are often and easily superceded by constitional principle. While I am approaching the subject from the vantage point of what is official, and not from what is purely legal, the Act, contemporary legal cases and articles, as well as current official usage and practice, all point to the same conclusion. This leads me to state once again that this is a stylistic debate, and not a factual one. Trackratte (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is about what the monarch is titled, not the constitutional role. Hence people in Ontario do not call the governor-general the "Governor-General of Ontario", we do not say that the American colonists rebelled against the King of America, etc. I do not know what you mean by "written laws are often and easily superceded by constitional principle." Laws remain in force until repealed or found to be in violation of the constitution. But the Canadian Constitution clearly refers to the "Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as Canadian sovereigns. TFD (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring your strawman arguments, you raise a valid point of confusion for many people with regards to aspects of the written Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of Canada illustrates this point in [1998] 2 SCR 217, stating "The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading. It is necessary to make a more profound investigation of the underlying principles animating the whole of the Constitution..." which includes both written and unwritten aspects, as well as constitutional convention (such as responsible government as one example). Thus, the title of the monarch as outlined in the Constition Act of 1867, while still remaining legal, has no relevance on the current official title of the Canadian Monarch. In any event, I think we are delving into more depth here than required, and we'll see what stylistic consensus we can eventually come to. Trackratte (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The title of the monarch was dictated by the UK Titles Acts which as imperial legislation were part of the Canadian constitution. However the 1953 agreement allowed the Canadian parliament to change the title, which they did. The argument that the constitution must be read in light of previous practice does not work. There was no constitutional practice of referring to the monarch as the "Queen of Canada", in fact the monarch was referred to as "by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith." TFD (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be pause enough in this interesting duologue to permit other comment. Style or fact? Those are not entirely separable in this matter. I don't think the somewhat amorphous or credal notion of the indivisibility or divisibility of the Crown should be used in the article as if it turned on the question of "Queen" as title. Talking of titles, Twomey's book is certainly well-named The Chameleon Crown. It is the variously changing usage and associated sentiment and political inclinations, from context to context and time to time, which colour the discussion here, and among Canadians who have taken sufficient interest in such things (exemplified, for instance, by an expression of the common understanding of the time, that of an indivisible, or only semi-divisible Crown). It is this which should be reflected in the article, and soapboxing (even of the gentler kind) avoided. But that should be done as concisely as can be, referencing details in other linking articles and avoiding cluttering the lead with an issue which, important in itself, is not the main point of the article. The wording of the oaths of allegiance is legal and prose but simple enough for the immediate understanding of anyone capable of speaking the language, and leaves little room for quibbling (but the theory and practice of allegiance is another matter). Gladstone, on the UK prime ministerial office, remarked "Nowhere is there a man who has so much power with so little to show for it in the way of formal title or prerogative". Words such as prime minister, queen and king signify a particular function in a given written or unwritten constitution: does a word become a title when spoken before a monarch's name or when, like a book, written with an initial capital before the person's name? Is "Queen Mother" to be considered a title without constitutional function, as it were "Emeritus"? Was she "Queen Mother" in Canada? Questions of style or fact? While I can see TFD's reasoning, I can accept that the Queen of Canada is an official title is a fact due to the oaths of allegiance prescribed for Canada. That tips it for me, and lets the point be settled free from commentator's or editor's personal but speculative reasoning, superseding (sic) my earlier support for 2. Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Titles such as "The Queen Mother" are bestowed by the sovereign. The sovereign's title otoh was bestowed by parliament, although since 1953, the sovereign has the authority to choose her own title in the UK and overseas territories. Notably she has chosen to use the same title in all these places. TFD (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This RfC seems to have turned into nothing more than a continuation of the same argument that took place in the preceeding section. That said, I still fail to see what the issue now is: the lead presently says the monarch is titled Queen of Canada and enough reliable sources have been found to support that fact. I think TFD's rationale behind his want is anything but rational; "King of America"? "Governor General of Ontario"? Comments from 1953? Questioning the divisibility of the Crown? Extinct titles of British monarchs? Of what relevance is any of that? Does he think stating the monarch is titled Queen of Canada is some ploy to hide the full title and style set out in law?

Clearly both 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 and Queen of Canada can be found in acts of the Canadian parliament. But, again, we don't need to go into detail about all this here, especially not in the lead! Some very basic summary is all that's required. So, if TFD inisists on giving some reference to the long title and style in the lead of the article, we could perhaps consider the following:

"For Canada, the current monarch is titled Queen of Canada (French: Reine du Canada), an abbreviated form of her full Canadian style and title",

or

"For Canada, the current monarch is titled Queen of Canada (French: Reine du Canada), derived from her full Canadian style and title",

or

"For Canada, the current monarch holds a unique Canadian title and style, though the shorter title Queen of Canada (French: Reine du Canada) is most often used",

or

"For Canada, the current monarch holds a unique Canadian title and style",

or some variation thereof. But, for god's sake, we have to keep it brief. This article is already immense. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually the shorter title Queen is most often used. TFD (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The doctrine of the divisibility of the Crown holds that, ""Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question". (Denning, 1982) So George III was king of America, but did not use that title and neither do we. The lieutenant-governor of Ontario is lieutenant to the governor-general, yet the gg is not called gg of Ontario. TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

To meet TFD's last point (about "shorter title"), would it be acceptable to put "more" often for "most" to read:

"For Canada, the current monarch holds a unique Canadian title and style, though the shorter title Queen of Canada (French: Reine du Canada) is more often used",

--Afterthought, concerning current usage of "title" (not mere waffle): noting that in the Title article a list of "Some job titles of members of the legislature and executive used as titles " includes: Representative, Senator, Speaker, President, Councillor, it could be argued that in the case of Elizabeth her gender-specific job titles include Queen of Canada as the title for whatever that job is according to the constitution of Canada (likewise, other realms), as well as the gender neutral job title "Head of the Commonwealth"; but these do not easily fit into the ISCO classification, which includes legislators (such as senators) under the main heading Managers: do the monarch's vestigial functions in connection with Royal Assent and appointing chief officers of government bring her into this class as queen regnant, and as Head of the Commonwealth with all its sovereign law-making bodies? Per Wiktionary: job title - A specific designation of a post within an organization, normally associated with a job description that details the tasks and responsibilities that go with it. Qexigator (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be getting somewhat out of hand, and I sincerely hope it's just me who's being obtuse, but my interpretation of TFD's last comment, excluding the Denning quote, is nonsensical gibberish. With reference to the wide variety of reputable sources (Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court, legal papers, laws, government publications, etc) and the discussions already had, the fact that the Queen of Canada is the Canadian Monarch's official title in Canada is no longer a matter of debate. Even the long style and titles, is not, in itself a title as I previously explained, but a descriptive style along with multiple different titles (and is generally reserved for only the most formal of writings or occasions, and is subsequently unsuitable for a Wikipedia lead). Also, in the sentence itself, the part "For Canada" seems to me to be redundant, as this is obviously an article about Canada, and second the phrase doesn't seem to logically flow from the previous one. I would suggest something along the lines of:

"The current Canadian Monarch has been, since 6 February 1952, Queen Elizabeth II. Although the person of the sovereign is equally shared with fifteen other independent countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, each country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct. As a result, the current monarch is officially titled as the Queen of Canada (piped to full style and titles article), and in this capacity she, her consort, and other members of the Canadian Royal Family undertake public and private functions domestically and abroad as representatives of the Canadian state." Trackratte (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that unlike all other Commonwealth realms, her title still includes "Kingdom of the United Kingdom." It is not "nonsensical gibberish". In "R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs" (2005) the lords determined that the Queen was head of state or queen of each overseas territory (formerly called "colony"), in this case the South Georgia Sandwich Islands, which has no permanent population.[10] But the titles act and official documents follow the title established in the UK Titles Act. The American colonies followed the same procedure, hence there was no "King of America", although George III exercised kingship over America. TFD (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Show me a credible reference that states that the Queen of Canada's title includes "Kingdom of the United Kingdom". Unless of course you're simply mistakenly referring to the Royal Style as per the Royal Style and Titles Act, in which case it's irrelevant to the title in question. Once again, we're conflating two different things. It's the Royal Style and Titles Act, not the Royal Title Act. The Royal Style, and the Royal Titles (plural) are not one and the same. In case I haven't been clear, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories" is not a title (it's a royal style), where Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, and Defender of the Faith certainly are. Of these three titles, only one is applicable as an official and uniquely Canadian title, as Head of the Commonwealth is not Canadian but international, and Defender of the Faith has no official relevance within Canada. Therefore the only applicable legal title suitable for official use within a uniquely Canadian context is that of Queen. Just as the official title of any Canadian prime minister is the Prime Minister of Canada, so to is the official title of any Canadian queen as the Queen of Canada. The difference being that the official title of Prime Minister of Canada, while official, has no legal basis, whereas the title of the Queen of Canada does. In addition, an official title does not have to reflect a legal act, or have any legal basis once so ever in order to be official. Unless of course you mean to say that the title of Prime Minister of Canada is not official, in which case it's your definition of 'official' that is the crux of the issue, and nothing else. Trackratte (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some people are really overthinking this - creating a problem that doesn't exist. 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State.' http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=3 That's from the Government of Canada's own official website. This discussion is pedantic in the extreme.Gazzster (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur in every point wth Track.'s last. Qexigator (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion, which has included a pretty thorough review of how "title" is used in connection with persons having constitutional offices or functions, shows, to my mind (reasons given above), that the only change needed is a note referring to the statutory oaths[11] (which had been mentioned by Mies). Qexigator (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC) and 00:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already commented on this above (because this didn't seem to be the place to talk about the note). The lead is not the place for a note or any more citations. Either would go where the title is mentioned in the article; in the 'International and domestic aspects' section. However, given that there's an article specifically on the monarch's title and styles, detail should go there. As I said above, the place of the title in the Oaths of Allegiance and Citizenship isn't yet covered at Title and style of the Canadian monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, your fast bowling has left me well and truly stumped. Who knows if there's another player to do as you require. There is much in the lead that should be moved elsewhere. The addition of a needed note is a trifle. Qexigator (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I need to repeat myself. I suggest you have a read through WP:LEAD, WP:LENGTH, and WP:SPLIT, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to repeat yourself. Qexigator (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the references from the sentence in question, as it needlessly cluttered the lead for something that is really a straight forward and non-contentious issue. If an editor takes issue with it anytime in the future, they can simply refer to this talk. I've also re-inserted the word official (status-quo) and made some minor changes to better flow from the previous sentence. Trackratte (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well played,Track., on and to the ball. (Sotto voce: should that M be l.c.?) Qexigator (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I moved the references to Title and style of the Canadian monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support 1. The second one does seem a little biased. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support 1: As a foreigner (US citizen), number one would be mine (and probably most of my countrymen's) choice for clarity, especially in the lede. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 10:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

the existence of a Canadian Royal Family

The article says, "Still, the existence of a Canadian Royal Family is contested, mostly by individuals in Canada's republican movement, but also by former Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia Iona Campagnolo." Here is a link to the source. This is strange wording. No one doubts the existence of the Royal family. There is a problem too with sourcing information about republicanism to an interview. TFD (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording doesn't convey that anyone doubts the existence of the Royal Family; it says they contest the existence of a Canadian royal family. The source doesn't support the information about republicanism, it supports Campagnolo's comments about there being no Canadian royal family: "While we have a monarch, we don't really have a royal family." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

First the source does not says republicans question the existence of the "Canadian Royal Family." My understanding is that they wish to eliminate the monarchy from the Canadian constitution. Campagnolo does not explain what she means by her comments but certainly does not advocate republicanism. Why are you using vague comments from this source anyway? TFD (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I just wrote that the source does not support the information about republicanism or republicans (as you now put it).

Campagnolo's words are unambiguous. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think they are unambiguous, then you could you please explain what they mean. TFD (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, they question the construct or notion of a Canadian Royal Family, as opposed to referring directly to the very real British Royal Family. RicJac (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Both are constructs; a royal family is a construct. Campagnolo simply says she believes Canada doesn't "really have" one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Arms

Reverted to status quo (no arms due to adm decision not to allow the official Arms on this article). I'm not too sure what the general consensus will be, but I don't think that the particular depiction of the Arms just added should be part of this article.

1. This particular image has been discussed on a variety of pages before, and every time it was added it was taken out, with the consensus being that it should not be used on the English Wiki due to its being a generally horrible depiction (although this may have changed, I believe Fry1989 was spearheading its removal).
2. I don't see how this image's inclusion in the article adds anything of value, if not actually taking away value due to its being misleading. Does having the Arms add anything to the article? If they do, then the argument should be made that that the fair-use allowed for the Canada article be extended to this one. If this depiction is in fact necessary, then it should be no problem providing rationale for fair-use for the official Arms within this article. If such a rationalisation cannot be made for the Arms, then I fail to see why we should then include a lesser, misleading version in their stead.
3. It is still not clear that these non-official Arms even qualify as fair-use. The Canadian Crown Copyright office (email in deletion request) maintains that the 1994 and 1957 Arms are under Crown Copyright. COM:DW states "do not upload works derived from other copyrighted works onto Commons", etc etc. trackratte (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not the satus-quo; it was implemented only a few days ago; a coat of arms has, on the other hand, been there for years.

It was determined the file was to be kept at Commons; it thus is regarded, still and so far, as free. There's no consensus anywhere not to use this image.

It certiainly is not the most attractive depiction of the arms, but there's nothing erroneous about it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Arms should be part of this page (I strongly disagree with the Admin's decision to restrict fair-use so severely). Not, however, a derivative created according to some random individual's "artistic interpretation" on what the monarchs arms could look like. If the Arms (official depiction) belong on this page, then the Arms (official depiction) should be there. If they don't, then they shouldn't. Never mind the "do not upload works derived from other copyrighted works" clause, or the fact that people use Wikipedia as a reference for factual information and not to see someone's personal artistic interpretations. trackratte (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

-As the "Monarch of Canada" is the "embodiment of the state" the same fair use should be allowed here, if it is decided that we need the arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 03:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Common sense should tell even our admin editors that the main page about the a topic should have the official symbols. To put it simply many are not aware of why we are here,,, that is to educate. -- Moxy (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Added comment

Canada is not a monarchy. I have found this article and realized that it classifies Canada as a monarchy. According to www.thefreedictionary.com, a monarchy requires the monarch to "govern" or "rule" the nation, the same information is given by this site under "Monarchy"; however, Canada does not give the monarch any such powers. The monarch is just a figurehead. The government of Canada is more of a parliamentary democracy, as it has a parliament and is a democratically ran government (which is supported by thefreedictionary.com and Wikipedia under the search of parliamentary democracy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digimaster002 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

According to your reference, "A state ruled or headed by a monarch." Canada is a monarchy. It is headed by a monarch.

The Crown in Right of Canada in French

Excuse me. What is The Crown in Right of Canada in French? Komitsuki (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

per Monarchy in Quebec "the Crown within Quebec's jurisdiction is referred to as the Crown in Right of Quebec (French: couronne du chef du Québec), Her Majesty in Right of Quebec (French: Sa Majesté du chef du Québec), or the Queen in Right of Quebec (French: la reine du chef du Québec)." Qexigator (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

+ per Monarchy of Canada[12]: "... Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (French: Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada),..." Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Komitsuki (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

But I suppose there's no literal translation of The Crown in Right of Canada into French in practice. Komitsuki (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The literal translation of The Crown in right of Canada is La Couronne du chef du Canada. The French word chef is the modern form Old French chief: "leader, ruler, head". The English word right, in the sense here, comes from Old Norse, meaning "to rule, to lead straight, to put right". So They are literally the same, they both mean "the ruling Crown of Canada". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

...and chief English: Etymology From Middle English, from Old French chief (“leader”), from Late Latin capum (“head”) (from which also captain, chieftain), from Latin caput (“head”) (English cap (“head covering”)), from Proto-Indo-European *kauput- (English head). ...Old French: 1.Alternative form of chief.[13] See also here[14] and here[15]. The latter mentions 'Indian chief'[16], as in 'Chief George'[17], 'Aboriginal peoples in Canada'[18], and see Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 and 'Aboriginal title,Canada'[19] --Qexigator (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source for this The English word right, in the sense here, comes from Old Norse, meaning "to rule, to lead straight, to put right" comment? It's because I believe it would be worth putting this source in the article. Komitsuki (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just look up the etymology of the word, and don't stop with the first entry, you already did that with "chief"/"chef".

The literal french translation is "Couronne en droit du Quebec", not "Couronne du chef" which has absolutely nothing to do with the word right and is an absolutely horrible translation. 199.180.97.156 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind etymology or "literal" translation. Both "in right of" and "du chef de" are legal expressions and each is the correct translation of the other. If it's Canadian usage, we should go with that. Cp for similar equivalences Collins-Robert French-English English-French Dictionary (2nd edn 1987), French "chef"2(b). Wikiain (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the "official government translations" the term "Crown in Right of" translates as "Couronne du chef de/du", whereas the term "the Crown in the right of the Province of" translates as "la Couronne aux droits de la province de/du". --NotWillyWonka (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, NotWillyWonka, are you looking here and, if so, at which document? Wikiain (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Not there. I was looking at the "Translation Bureau" or "Bureau de la traduction" - This for example: here, it's all about context. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Both appear to be used if a google search is a guide. Does anyone know what "in right of means?" It could be an archaic use and possibly from a Middle English translation of Norman French. TFD (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

From the government website on crown copyright: "© Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada" (http://pch.gc.ca/fra/1386347961669/1386353065978). I could have sworn that I've seen more literal translations (La Reine en droit du Canada) but that might be either my mind playing tricks on me or BBB-level CAF officers writing things. Ajraddatz (Talk) 07:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The history seems to involve a double fudge:

FUDGE (1). At least by the 1930s, when the big British colonies were beginning to assert themselves as equal partners of the mother country, the question arose of whether there was still one imperial crown or whether it was now "divided" among the mother country and the dominions. Fine minds were wracked over the idea of "divisibility of the Crown" and the very idea of "the Crown" acquired a chameleon-like character: Anne Twomey, The Chameleon Crown (2006). The matter was fudged by speaking of the monarch "in right of" the UK, Canada and so on. This phrase may also have been in use already, as it still is, to distinguish "the Crown" in Canada and Australia as a component of federal and of either provincial or state law. The key issue on that level was whether a statute would "bind the Crown in right of ..."; e.g. could a provincial or state law tax federal property? The expression "in right of" is several centuries old, possibly found at least as far back as the 10th century, although as an expression in private law. Thus: "1655 ... He possessed fair lands in Anjou and Maine; by Match in right of Queen Elianor his Wife" and "1745 ... The Abbot of St. Augustine in Canterbury, in Right of his Abbatie, had Cuneum Monetæ, Allowance of Mintage and Coinage of Money" (Oxford English Dictionary online, emphases added). Possibly, then, "in right of" has always been chameleon-like, referring to different kinds of relation according to context. One needn't expect the common law to be consistent.

FUDGE (2). How, then, to translate "in right of" into French, given that in France no question of "divisibility of the Crown" had arisen? Recourse seems to have been had, again, to private law: e.g. du chef de sa femme, in his wife's right (or, if you like, in right of his wife); cp Collins-Robert French-English English-French Dictionary (2nd edn 1987), French "chef"2(b). Then some writers, either not seeing this option or not being satisfied with it, have preferred aux droits de, literally (I attempt) "with the rights of" (thank you, NotWillyWonka). I doubt that there would be a conceptual difference between "in right of Canada" and "in right of (the province of) Quebec", so one could say in French "du chef du Canada" and "du chef de Québec" or "aux droits du Canada" and "aux droits de Québec". But du chef de seems to be preferred. Wikiain (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that "in right of" here means the same thing as in "in right of the wife". "in Right of his Abbatie" merely means that the archbishop had certain rights because he was also an abbot. And while in legal theory, the Crown was indivisible, in practice it was not. So any idea what "in right of" means or when it arose? Incidentally, google translate uses "chef" to translate in queen in right of and "droit" to translate husband in right of. Latin is "regina in ius". TFD (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to "in jure uxoris": another level of translation! I would have hardly a clue about the abbot, given especially that he might have been a corporation sole and in addition (to my recollection of a book somewhere) a church itself could also have legal personality. For theory/practice about the Crown, please see Twomey's excellent book - her central contention is that the practice was not a consistent application of any theory. That is why I'm talking about fudging. For when "in right of" arose, I searched the Oxford English Dictionary in its current, online edition and quoted two of its examples. Let's stay away from Google Translator: I find it very unreliable. Wikiain (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

None of the dictionary definitions I could find say what the Crown "in right of" means. Note Canada and the provinces unlike the U.S. and states do not have legal personality. The Queen in right of is the legal personality. TFD (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Each jurisdiction has a legal "personality" and each is distinct, that is why "The State of Alabama" vs "The Crown in Right of Ontario" would be correct.

Google translate should only be used as a starting point sparingly - as it does not take into account context, grammar, colloquialisms, etc. but try telling that to some "bilingual" editors, J'ai eu mon éducation francophone au Québec, en français langue maternelle, and was raised with both languages "side by side". --NotWillyWonka (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I use Google Translate as a start, just to save time, when writing to someone in French or in German. But, as you say, it is risky. Writing in a hurry, I caught just in time its translation into German of "Peter Gay". Salut! Wikiain (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There is Google search too, which shows both translations used, but "chef" is more common. The problem is that no one has found a definition in English of the phrase "in right of", although we all know what "the Queen in right of x" means. TFD (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that the French equivalent of English phrases, especially where tradition is somehow concerned, are not always the same or even similar. For example, the name of my rank in English is "Acting Sub-Lieutenant", but the literal translation of the French rank is "Ship's Ensign 2nd Class". Two completely different things, yet referring to the same rank. I'd imagine that such discrepancies would be expected elsewhere as well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed they are, lieutenant / "le-tenant" / "lef-tenant" / "loo-tenant" - OK, "OF-1": Naval officer ranks. But we seem to be running out of steam. Wikiain (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ship's ensign second class is the equivalent rank in the French navy. In the U.S. it is ensign. It is a good analogy. In some cases terms are translated literally, in others an equivalent term may be used. TFD (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede

It's a summary. Detail as to what the monarch alone can do, the monarch or the governor general can do, or only the governor general alone can do does not belong there. Also inappropriate are claims that imply only the governor general can summon and dismiss parliament, call elections, and appoint governments. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal[20] wishes to make this copy edit [21] an issue for discussion.[22]. (For 'prevoius' read 'prevoius', for 'degreade' read 'degrade').

We agree this is part of the lead/lede. In my view, that is no excuse for poor prose or unclear and possibly inaccurate writing.

He wishes to retain the slangy per instead of better prose.

He thinks responsibilities of the monarch and/or governor general makes sense, but I do not.

He does not claim it makes better sense than responsibilities of the governor general (acting in the name of the monarch) include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual, by the Queen herself or the governor general, are required ...

He has not explained the purport of monarch and/or governor general, by reference to the article content or otherwise. Qexigator (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

See what I wrote above. You're attempting to be specific in a lede, but only half doing the job. Between the monarch and the governor general, who can do what is a complicated matter and the lede isn't the place to cover it; summarise. There's also no need to be repetitious. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I missed it. But no, your reasons are not convincing for the several reasons I gave above.

Poor wording needs revision not repeated undo Your apparent assumption that the postition of a piece of text in the lead gives an excuse for preferring opacity and degrading style is not acceptable. If you had come new to the article and found my wording, I cannot believe you or anyone else would have changed it to what you have put in its place by your undo. I would be particularly interested to have your explanation of the purport of monarch and/or governor general, by reference to the article content or otherwise. Your complaint that my wording is too specific there is unfounded; it does a good job as it is, in a lead-like way, unlike your undo which is a poor botch needing to be edited out.Qexigator (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree poor wording needs revision. But, replacing poor wording with other poor wording isn't any improvement; especially inaccurate or misleading poor wording. And I don't see any poor wording there now, anyway.

Your desired composition is indeed too specific, as well as half-done and misleading. Aside from unnecessarily repeating "governor general", it doesn't relay proper information (stating only the governor general has responsibilities as set by the constitution and only the governor general can appoint a government or dissolve parliament). Stating solely what the governor general can do gives just part of the picture. To complete the picture requires adding information on what the monarch alone and the monarch or governor general can do. Adding all that detail into the lede contravenes WP:LEDE. "[T]he monarch and/or the governor general" imparts that sometimes one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both can carry out the Crown's constitutional responsibilities, including X, Y, and Z. The detail of who can do/does what is covered in the article proper, which adhere's to the guidelines on writing ledes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not your points of criticism are wholly or partly justified (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is not admitted) my wording was an attempt to improve on the existing undoubted botch, and it was open to you to improve by tweak or a complete rewrite. Instead of being over-censorious of another's work, if you can do better, go ahead, but the article deserves something better than what is there now. My view is that mere argy-bargy is seldom helpful in the work of improving articles. Qexigator (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you think of the method by which information is presented, at least the information presented is correct. There's no need to rewrite that part of the lede; it's an accurate and succinct summary. What, exactly, is the "botch"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have stated above why its a poorly written botch, and it is one part of this article which needs to be better written. I remain particularly interested to have your explanation of the purport of those words in the existing text which you favour, "monarch and/or governor general", by reference to the article content or otherwise. There is no need to answer in a hurry. A considered and constructive reply will be more suited to this work than one that is overhastily reactive. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I "explained the purport of monarch and/or governor general". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this better? "By the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of (depending on the circumstance) the monarch, governor general, or either include..." The bracketed "acting in the name of the monarch" is removed so as to not have so many bracketed words so close together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, getting away from 'and/or' is certainly an improvement on the existing, and funnily enough I had made a similar (unposted) draft some time earlier. It would be better still if it did not wrongly seem to hint that the monarch and the governor general are responsible in the same way, which may be well enough understood by those that know, but not by all who see it. That was what I wanted to avoid; and I don't think 'functions' or 'duties' would do either, or some circumlocution or archaic phrase. What you have now done I feel would be acceptable, but a small point: would the 'of' be better after '(depending on the circumstance)'? So, please go ahead. Qexigator (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

But...Given that the British Monarchy website mentions the Canadian Queen's duties[23]; and that the Governor General's website page is headed Constitutional Duties,[24] and includes images of him reading the speech from the throne and on giving the royal assent, I would opt for that instead of responsibilities. Also, the BM webpage 'the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors' includes this; '"Perhaps the principal role of The Queen’s representatives, beyond constitutional duties, is to promote identity and unity."[25] But I do not see anything in the article which explicitly supports "By the Canadian constitution, the duties (depending on the circumstance) of the monarch, the governor general, or either include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments." Those duties are the governor general's: when has the monarch ever exercised them or could be expected to? Unless it is in the main body, it should not be in the lead, and the sentence could be:

"By the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities duties of the monarch and/or governor general, acting in the name of the monarch, include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments."

From the end of the first paragraph, that would follow on well, distinguishing for the reader the vice-regal position of the governor general in connection with the federal parliament from the position of the lieutenant governors. Qexigator (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The content of the sentence is based on the constitution—its written and conventional aspects. I've already explained that it doesn't go into who does what specifically or who does what more often than the other because that's too much detail for the lede. The sentence is not incongruous with the content of the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you seem to have been too hasty: my question is not about overburdening the lead with detail. I am as well aware of that as you. You seem to disregard my last comment, which needs to be properly answered if your latest edit[26] is to stand. To repeat: I do not see anything in the article which explicitly supports "By the Canadian constitution, the duties (depending on the circumstance) of the monarch, the governor general, or either include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments." Those duties are the governor general's: when has the monarch ever exercised them or could be expected to? Unless it is in the main body, it should not be in the lead. Qexigator (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the "Federal constitutional role" section again. Keep in mind what the word "crown" can mean. Who actually exercises the powers that may be exercised by either the monarch or governor general does not impact the fact that either may exercise them. Who has exercised each power and when? Not a project I'm going to invest my time in; it would take way too long to complete. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the part of the body you consider supports the lead, by its general reference to the Crown. The website linked in the infobox puts it well:[27] In today's constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada's Head of State. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada. In Canada’s system of government, the power to govern is vested in the Crown but is entrusted to the government to exercise on behalf and in the interest of the people. The Crown reminds the government of the day that the source of the power to govern rests elsewhere and that it is only given to them for a limited duration. This means that to simplify the lead in the manner customary to Wikipedia we should now have:

The powers and duties of the Crown of Canada include the summoning and dismissing of parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

Qexigator (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

All I said was keep in mind what "the Crown" reads when reading parts of the article. The term "the monarch" is also used.

I think it's better to give notion of the fact some powers can be exercised by the monarch alone, some by the governor general alone, and some by either; i.e. it's not just that either representative of the Crown can exercise any power. You objected to some perceived disconnect between the article body and the lede. Now that you don't see it anymore, what's your current objection with the sentence you approved of yesterday? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but of the two mine (with the Crown) is the one that is actually supported by article content. Lacking anything in the current article, or something outside it which can be inserted, that version should now go in, or if preferred this: "The duties of the governor general, acting in the name of the monarch, include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments." That is certainly found in the Constitution cited later on. This latter version, as before said, would follow on well from the end of the first paragraph, distinguishing for the reader the vice-regal position of the governor general in connection with the federal parliament from the position of the lieutenant governors. That is not to say that some brief statement, related to the article, mentioning the Queen should not also be in the lead, if you can devise something suitable. Qexigator (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The version that's there now is supported by the article content. Your suggestion is falsely limited. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but No not false, and No, you have failed to show where your version is expanded in detail anywhere in the article (as is expected in the Wikipedia manner) after being asked, nay, coaxed, more than once. Please do so now or it will leave us in no doubt that your point is unsustainable, and rests on your personal opinion about what you would like to see there. I note that you decline to offer a brief statement, related to the article, mentioning the Queen, and that you are not contending that either of the two following errs either factually or due to insufficiency in the main body:

• The powers and duties of the Crown of Canada include the summoning and dismissing of parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.
• The duties of the governor general, acting in the name of the monarch, include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

Start the dispute resolution process, then. We're only going to repeat ourselves from here on. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A proposed re-wording for the lead's 2nd paragraph

After the comments made in the course of discussion in this section and on this page, I am inclined to see the following version as the one to adopt, subject to any reasoned comment from others:

• Included in the powers and duties of the Crown of Canada are those of the governor general, acting in the name of the monarch, for the summoning and dismissing of parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

This version would follow on well from the end of the first paragraph, distinguishing for the reader the vice-regal position of the governor general in connection with the federal parliament from the position of the lieutenant governors Qexigator (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Governor General's role is already summarized (And the LGs for that) and mentioned in the previous paragraph, why are we re-stating and making the lede more wordy and over specific? It's a lede, a "synopsis" of the article, the details are expanded upon in the article. Most of the second paragraph does not need to be in the lede, a simple: "Some of the constitutional responsibilities of the Monarchy are: dismissing parliament, calling elections, appointing governments, and granting Royal Assent to bills." would sum up the whole paragraph. Put that in the first paragraph just before the statement about the GG and LG, remove the second, and split the first so it's not so "cluttered" and on we go. Everything else is way too much detail for a lede section. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I happily agree with NotWillyWonka's reasoning, and if the simplification were adopted, it would (as I understand it) involve putting one sentence in place of the whole second paragraph. Overlaying that one sentence on the first two sentences of the current version looks like this:

Some of the constitutional responsibilities of the Monarchy are: By the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of (depending on the circumstance) the monarch, governor general, or either include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, appointing governments, and granting Royal Assent to bills.Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual, are required to enact laws, letters patent, and orders in council.

Removing the remainder of the current paragraph would clear away some clutter, giving the lead the more synoptic character which it should have.

Qexigator (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't touch at all on what the governor general or the monarch do. The second paragraph does. The second paragraph summarises the entire "Federal constitutional role" section, according to WP:LEDE. A one sentence paragraph does not; see WP:LEADLENGTH. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd proposed re-wording (for the lead's 2nd paragraph)

In view of the above discussion, and given the present version of the article as recently revised, there seems to be no reason against accepting the following clarification (overlaid on the present version):

longer version

By the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of the sovereign and/ powers of the Crown are exercised by the monarch or governor general include, including summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

It could be shortened to read simply:

shorter version

The powers of the Crown are exercised by the monarch or governor general, including summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

In itself, that is a bald statement but factually correct, and sufficient for the lead, given than the details are in the main body. Qexigator (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

How is that a clarification? It isn't entirely wrong (as there's no power that's exercisable by the governor general and the monarch simultaneously; it's either or), but, it implies that every element of the Royal Prerogative can be exercised by either the monarch or governor general, which isn't true. Some is exercisable only by the monarch (e.g. creating honours, appointing governors general, appointing additional senators), some only by the governor general (e.g. appointing privy councilors, appointing supreme court justices, summoning parliament), and some by either (issuing royal proclamations, dissolving parliament, granting Royal Assent). It's still unclear what it now is about the current wording that you object to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's heplful. If I understand it aright, it means: Some of the powers of the Crown are exerciseable by the monarch and not by governor general: these are, or include, creating honours, appointing governors general, and appointing additional senators. Other powers of the Crown are exerciseable by the governor general, but not the monarch, including appointing privy councillors, appointing supreme court justices, summoning parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Other powers which are exerciseable by either the monarch or the governor general, namely, issuing royal proclamations, dissolving parliament, and gving or withholding royal assent to parliamentary bills, would be exercised by one but not the other of them on any specific occasion. One way to put all that into a simple comprehensive statement would be:

The powers of the Crown are exercised by the monarch or the governor general.

Anything more than that cannot avoid seeming to say (depending on pov) too little or too much. So the question is: Why does the current version select 'summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments', cast in that awkward 'and/or' form, which tends to opacity more than clarity? If examples are needed there, it would be better to have at least one of each, thus:

Some of the powers of the Crown are exercisable by the monarch (such as appointing governors general), others by the governor general (such as calling parliamentary elections), and some others by either of them (such as gving or withholding royal assent to parliamentary bills). Reference Article VI of the Letters Patent, 1947[28]]]

To my mind, that makes what this is about more apparent to the reader than the present version. But all that is needed would be Some of the powers of the Crown are exercisable by the monarch, some by the governor general, and some by either of them. Reference Letters Patent, 1947[29]]]</ref> Qexigator (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC) +11:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Gone ahead with longer version, but could be revised to the shorter. Qexigator (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)