Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

"continually" in "Federal and provincial aspects"

The section 'Federal and provincial aspects' includes an opaque sentence which, perhaps in an attempt to paraphrase or compress, conflates or confuses certain distinct concepts: the Crown, continuity, section 9 of the Constitution Act, and the constitution including all the practices and conventions not set forth explicitly in the Act or other positive law. The sentence is:

The Crown, continually vested by section 9 of the constitution with the executive government and authority for the whole of Canada, thus links the various governments into a federal state....[[1]]

Unhappily, that so lacks precision that it is quite hard to discern what it was intended to mean. It stems from a recent edit of 23:06, 14 February. The Act itself reads thus:

"III. EXECUTIVE POWER

Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen: section 9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Application of Provisions referring to Governor General:section 10. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated." (caps as copy-pasted from source)[2]

At a guess, what the edit means to convey to the reader would be better said thus:

Under section 9 of the Constitution Act, the executive government and authority for the whole of Canada has always been held by the Crown, thus linking the various governments into a federal state..."

Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and revised. Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you added the S.9 stuff in there. I merely tried to incorporate it, rather than delete it, in a way that doesn't impart inaccurate information. S.9 doesn't link the 11 "sub-crowns", as your edit implied. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, s.9 as well as other sections, was part of the continuing process, so let's settle for "always".[3] --Qexigator (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, S.9 mentions the continuance of executive authority. But, that's not how the Canadian Crown is unitary throughout all 11 jurisdictions of the federation. They're not the same thing. The only thing that's related between S.9 and the single Crown is the fact S.9 only mentions "the Queen"; one monarch over Canada, not 11 (or, in 1867, five). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What "two associated but separate matters"?

Mies: Your above comments and your latest undo[4] still fail to make clear what in your view are the "two associated but separate matters", which, to my mind, are certainly not coming across clearly as you have now left it. I have been at some pains to remove some of the obscurities that were in the article as I found it. Over a period of time, such obscurities occur fairly frequently in this sort of article with multiple editors, more or less skilled or knowledgeble, sometimes relying on inadequate or conflicting sources; and describing the workings of the so-called Westminster model of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government is not all that simple in general or in its particular development in any given realm. Please explain, but as before said, be not overhasty; try and see it not from the way your mind is working but how a reasonably well-informed reader of the article might be led to understand it. First of all, are you proposing that the federal Canadian monarchy is not one in which the Crown has always "been unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country...", that is from the origin of the constitution uniting federally the then several parts all the way continuously to the present? Secondly, if the Crown has always been unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country, what is the "other but separate matter" which you are seeking to establish by the way you have left the text of the article? Qexigator (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Crown is today unitary over and in all jurisdictions. S.9 makes no mention of that fact. S.9 also says nothing about the Crown having been unitary in and over all jurisdictions prior to 1 July 1867 (the possibility of such before any federation existed being another matter). S.9 speaks only of executive authority and it continuing to be vested in the monarch. Executive authority continuing to be vested in the monarch ≠ one crown in all 11 jurisdictions of the Canadian federation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

By your reply, I must take it that you are not proposing otherwise than that the federal Canadian monarchy is one in which the Crown has always "been unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country", that is from the 1867 origin of the constitution which first united federally under the Crown the then several parts all the way continuously to the present day. I see nothing in the article stating some later event from which the Crown has become unitary. Given the content of the rest of the section, and that there is nothing in the lead or the rest of the article which is to the effect that the Canadian monarchy has not always been a federal one in which Crown has been unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country, or that it became unitary at some later time, and given that the Canadian monarchy and Crown are co-aeval, there is no reason left to oppose: "The Canadian monarchy has always been a federal one in which the Crown is unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country...". Qexigator (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Canadian monarchy has always been a federal one in which the Crown is unitary..." gives the impression there was a federal monarchy of Canada before 1867, which there wasn't. Your wording would have to be "The Canadian monarchy has since 1867 been a federal one in which the Crown is unitary..." But, that could be read as saying there was a Canadian monarchy before 1867 that wasn't a federal one, which there wasn't; there was a monarchy in each of the British colonies in the Canadas. Given the article states "The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism... being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal and each provincial government", it seems fairly obvious the single Crown that unifies the federation has been around as long as the federation and vice-versa; one could not exist without the other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There was of course a governor-general of British North America. TFD (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If an unlikely misreading of those words is thought to be problematic, then, looking with an equally critical eye at the lead, we have a problem with the third paragraph, which, being the lead, makes it (not a pun) more at risk of misleading, requiring some addition thus:

The historical roots of the Canadian monarchy date back to approximately the turn of the 16th century, 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 unitary monarchy of today's federal Canadian monarchy, which is sometimes colloquially referred to as the Maple Crown.

As I understand it, while acknowledging that the Canadian Crown emerged as 'an independent entity from that of the British Crown due to the Statute of Westminster 1931', as stated in the linked article List of Canadian monarchs, there is no doubt that the Canadian monarchy and Crown date from the 1867 act. Qexigator (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the lede could possibly be read as saying there was a federal monarchy before 1867, since the word "always" isn't used. The lede doesn't make any references to when "shifts" in the monarchy happened (French > British, British > Canadian, in disparate colonies > federated), which is fine for a summarising lede. The detail happens in the article body (which is what we seem to be wrestling with here). That said, the "unitary monarchy of today's federal" part is clunky and repetitious. It should be "eventually the legally distinct, federal Canadian monarchy"; possibly "legally distinct, federal Canadian monarchy of today".

If it's clear the Canadian monarchy dates from 1867, why the need to add "one in which the Crown has always been" to the "Federal and provincial aspects" section? If you think there's some chance a reader might think the federal structure of the present monarch emerged after 1867, then what's needed to clarify is "Since Confederation, the Canadian monarchy has been one in which the Crown is..." Or something like that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If I read aright, that would let these revisions be made:

LEAD, add words in italics: Monarchical governance thenceforth evolved under a continuous succession of French and British sovereigns, and eventually the legally distinct, federal Canadian monarchy of today, which is sometimes colloquially referred to as the Maple Crown.
FED. & PROV.add words in italics ~~The Canadian monarchy is a federal~~ Since Confederation, the Canadian monarchy has been one in which the Crown is unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country....

To my mind, the insertion of those few words would satisfy the concern about this point which has been discussed above. Qexigator (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the alteration to the lede. But, I have about the second suggestion above the same concern as I did earlier about the "has since 1867" addition I wrote about above: It suggests there was a not federated Canadian monarchy before Confederation. Something safer would be "Since its creation", or "establishment", or "foundation in 1867", or "at Confederation, the Canadian monarchy has been..."

Going a step farther, the whole beginning of that section could be revised to read: "Canada's monarchy was established at Confederation, with, according to Section 9 of the Constitution Act 1867, '[t]he Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada... declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.' The Canadian monarchy is a federal one..." It's crucial to the rest of the section that the "federal" part remain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to agree with your comment about the beginning of that section. It's important for the article as a whole to craft (sic) satisfactory wording there. Here is another way of putting the same thing: "Canada's monarchy was established at Confederation, when its executive government and authority were declared (in section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867) "to continue and be vested in the Queen". The Canadian monarchy is a federal one...", if that does not miss a nuance you feel should be there. May I leave it to you to do the necessary? Qexigator (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That works. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Canada (and its monarchy) existed prior to Confederation

The date of 1867 is problematic, as we know that Canada existed prior to Confederation with the Colony of Canada (France), Colony of Canada (GB), Upper/Lower Canada, Province of Canada, and then finally the Dominion of Canada. Furthermore, the first Canadian Constitution Act was passed with the Constitutional Act 1791. Official sources state that "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France and England in the 15th and 16th centuries" (1400s and 1500s with Henry VII listed as first) Government of Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia lists Henry VII as first [5]. The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust states that "There have been thirty-three monarchs of Canada, from nine royal houses, since 1497", and that "The Canadian Monarchy therefore did not begin in 1867" [6]. Finally, there are several sources stating that there have been 33 sovereigns of Canada since 1497 (sources available at the sovereigns of Canada wiki page), a fact which clearly does not jive with the 1867 start of the monarchy date with Queen Victoria listed as the first sovereign to reign over Canada. I propose that the date be changed to 1497 and the first sovereign be changed to Henry VII, in line with the sources. A note can always be added to provide any needed clarification or explain any potential incongruities. trackratte (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This page is about the monarchy of Canada, though; clearly the institution that's at the heart of the Canadian confederation and its eleven governments. None of that existed before 1867. The lineage of monarchs is covered in the history section (as well as summarised in the lede). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this article to be about any "Monarchy of the Confederation of Canada", or "Monarchy of Canada 1867 to present", but to be about the Monarchy of Canada full-stop. The institution of "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France and England in the 15th and 16th centuries" (Government of Canada), and there have been 33 sovereigns of Canada (sources too numerous to list). From what I'm reading, this article is clearly about the institution at the heart of the Canadian constitution and national being, both of which pre-date Confederation by hundreds of years. Let's not forget that Confederation wasn't a sudden change, but was one of many stops along the path of Canada's evolution. Canada was still a colony of Great Britain after Confederation took place after all. trackratte (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect, that's a straw man argument. The article is about the institution that's at the heart of the Canadian confederation and its eleven governments. It says so right from the top: "The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism and its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal and each provincial government." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yas want more confusion? see List of Canadian monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it, this article, and others like it, are about the current incarnation of the entity in question. The current Canada is from 1867 onward. Anything before that is a different country. Any article that does differently IMHO is not correct. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We should remove the "formation" field from the info-box. Clearly the monarchy was not formed in 1867. Nor was Canada, unlike the U.S. or Australia, a new state. TFD (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the monarchy that "is the core of both Canada's federalism and its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal and each provincial government", i.e. the present federal monarchy, was formed in 1867. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, formed in 1867 and given that the article's first line links to Canada a country in North America consisting of ten provinces and three territories, what is the problem? Perhaps it would help if the hatnote read: "This article is about the monarchy of >present-day< Canada". See also List of Canadian monarchs [7] --Qexigator (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The 1867 act merged the provinces of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the Queen's office was unaffected. TFD (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Queen's office was entirely restructured. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In what way? TFD (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Qex, you'll see I made a new hatnote that's pretty well exactly what you proposed there at 18:50, 9 February 2015. However, I think it's somewhat problematic in that it says this is the article about an institution, but leads readers to find information about a line of monarchs; the two aren't the same thing. There is no corresponding article that covers the monarchy in the Canadas prior to 1867. I don't think we should use that hatnote at all, nor alter the top one by adding "present-day", which leads readers to expect the "For... see..." part will lead them to an article on the monarchy in past-day Canada, which, of course, doesn't exist. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1867, should be the starting mark for this article and the 'List of Canadian monarchs' article. Up until Confederation, Canada was a number of British colonies & before that French colonies. As a result, before 1867, they were French monarchs & British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The titles may be near ambiguously about the same monarchy, but the articles are clearly about different entities: List of Canadian monarchs begins The lines of monarchs who reigned over some part or all of present-day Canada begins approximately at the turn of the 16th century. Monarchy of Canada begins The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Canada's colonial status was unaffected by confederation. And it is not as if as some had hoped that the Queen had chosen one of her sons to be the new king. TFD (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mies and Qex, I see now what you mean regarding the difference between the two article in terms of "what is now modern day Canada". However, one point, which I think TFD sort of brings up, is that Confederation was not the creation of a new country, since Canada does not really have a "founding" date. If we wish to discuss the modern purely Canadian monarchy, then perhaps 1931 should be selected as the date?

Another reason why I find the 1867 date to be a bit arbitrary, is that the Constitution Act of 1867, section 9, states "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen". Meaning that the executive and authoritive role of the monarchy within the British colony known as the Dominion of Canada was to continue in 1867. They did not create a new, Canadian monarchy in 1867, merely continued with the current monarchy and current sovereign. Which is another reason why I think we should either use the 1497 date, or the 1931 one. An argument could actually be used for 1952 as the date, since that was the first time the sovereign was actually crowned specifically as a Canadian sovereign, although I think the first usage of the term "King/Queen of Canada" dates to before 1867, and I've seen it written down in letters from 1901.

To sum up, arguments can be made for at least 5 different dates. However, the overwhelming amount of official, academic, and other sources use the 1497 date, and either say or list out 33 different sovereigns, with the Constitution Act 1867 saying that the role of the monarch was simply to continue. trackratte (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

1497 is an odd date because Nfld was not claimed by the Queen until 1583. Also, Nfld joined Canada, If the Turks and Caicos subsequently join Canada, would we say that Canada has had monarchs since 1492? TFD (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that the infobox shows 1867 as the date of formation (of present day Canada), and the topline of the article is The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism and its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal and each provincial government, there can be no other date than 1867, regardless of colonial status before, dominion status then and later full independent sovereignty, all sufficiently explained in the article for any reader to see and understand. Qexigator (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In 1867, three colonies were merged, and they continued both as the Dominion of Canada, and two districts and two colonies continued as provinces of the Dominion. It differs from Australia where a new government was created. TFD (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no federation prior to 1867. Confederation created a federal monarchy. A collection of colonies directly under Westminster is not the same as a collection of provinces and a federal government equal in union under Westminster. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there were provinces prior to 1867, the provinces of upper and lower Canada were not two separate colonies but provinces within the same colony. The Canadian colonial government simply became the Federal Government with two more provinces, and they used the same buildings, the same rules and procedures, and it was the same people in both governments. 1867 is the birth of the Federal Government, not of the nation, and not of the country, and as the Constitution Act 1867 states, the Monarchy continued unaffected. trackratte (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, okay, one of the colonies was called a province. But, there was still no federation, no federal monarchy. The Province of Canada wasn't a federation; Canada East and Canada West (Upper and Lower Canada ceased to exist in 1841) didn't have their own governments/parliaments; they were both governed by the one government/parliament in the Province of Canada. The federal government/parliament was indeed created (the institution, not the buildings) in 1867 to govern the federal jurisdiction of the newly created federation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The previous form of colonial government in British North America was decisively changed when the federation and the Parliament of Canada were created under the act of 1867. The facts are not in doubt, the article's verbal formulation may be due for some clarification. Would it suffice simply to insert "a federal state" in the first sentence thus: "The monarchy of Canada, a federal state, is the core of both Canada's federalism and ..." ? Qexigator (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Qex, I think the problem here is that we are combining or conflating two distinct concepts here, the federal government and the Canadian monarchy. The "monarchy of Canada" is not a "federal state". What happened in 1867 was the formation of a federal level of government, the renaming of the provinces of upper and lower Canada to Ontario and Quebec, and the incorporation of the colonies of NB and NS into the colony of Canada. However, the monarchy was not established in 1867. The constitution itself says that the monarchy continued, not that a new one was established. trackratte (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What the constitution says is that sovereignty continued to be vested in the Queen. That is separate to both the state she reigned over and the way her power was exercised in it. The same queen reigned before and after 1 July 1867, but, what she reigned over and the structures through which her power was exercised changed. One could even say it changed again in 1931, when the distinct monarchy of Canada, separate from any other monarchy, came to be. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The federal Crown was not "created" in 1867. Instead the crowns of three provinces were merged and continued in the Crown of the Dominion of Canada. The merged Crown assumed the rights and responsibilities of the provincial crowns, just as happened when the crowns of Scotland and England merged. It is unlike Australia and the U.S. where a new government was created that had no precedent, did not automatically assume any rights or obligations, and was truly new. If one claims the Canadian crown was created in 1867, kindly provide a source.

Incidentally, if we follow Miesianiacal's opinion that the Crown of Canada became separate from the UK crown in 1931 then no crown could have been created in 1867. However, while the English Court of Appeal disagreed in 1982 on when the Crown became divided, the issue was settled by the House of Lords in 2005.

"[I]t is perfectly clear that the question whether the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown is to be found in right or respect of the United Kingdom, or of other governments within those parts of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the ultimate sovereign, has nothing whatever to do with the question whether those governments are wholly independent or not. The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence. 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. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867."

TFD (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the debate, but for those not familiar with UK case law TFD is quoting from ex parte Indian Association of Alberta (1982 CA), as quoted in ex parte Quark Fishing (2005 HL, with all the excitement of Patagonian toothfish) at para 15. Wikiain (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ex parte Indian Association of Alberta is the UK Court of Appeal case where it was settled that the Crown of Canada was separate from the Crown of the United Kingdom, while before courts had said the Crown was indivisible. Many sources quoted the opinion of Denning that the severance occured in 1931 but in ex parte Quark the House of Lords sided with the view that the Crown became separate upon establishment of a colony. The relative importance of the person who takes a case to court is irrelevant to whether the judgment is conclusive. In Roe v. Wade for example one of the parties was known by a pseudonym. I do not see why we should place obiter dictum in a Court of Appeal case over the unanimous decision of a House of Lords case. (At the time appeals from the Court of Appeal went to the House of Lords until it was replaced by the Supreme Court.) TFD (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

1867 and after

Some of the information above may have gone astray from having regard to the need for this, and any other article connected with the topic, to be consistent with the 1867 act, cited in the article.

The act was for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith, and which was expressed to be for enabling

the three provinces to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom, and
on the Establishment of the Union, for

the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, and

the Nature of the Executive Government therein to be declared.

and provision for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts of British North America;

and that the act

enabled Queen Victoria to declare by proclamation the three provinces to form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada such that the three provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name, and
prescribed the division of this newly constituted federal union of Canada into four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, etc.

By section 9 The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada was declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. Under sections 17 and 19 there was to be one Parliament for the newly constituted Union, that was to be called together not later than Six Months after the Union. Section 91 provided for the enactment of legislation for the newly constituted union of Canada to be by the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons. The act provided for the Governor General in the Queen’s Name to summon senators and to call together the House of Commons.

Editors will also be aware that after 1867, British Columbia, originally politically constituted as a pair of British colonies, joined the "Canadian Confederation" on July 20, 1871, per (History of British Columbia).

On the face of it, and whatever secondary sources may choose to comment, it looks as though the words of the act were carefully drafted, can be taken to mean what they say, and have been duly executed by those responsible. Qexigator (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"federally united" is curious phrasing, because that is not what happened, the Province of Canada for example was merged with the two other provinces. Experts have questioned whether the country could be called a federation at all, since the powers provided to provincial governments was extremely limited and residual powers remained with the central government. TFD (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Royal Family

I see no reason in going with Canadian Royal Family in this article. Showing it as Royal Family makes more sense. Afterall, what other royal family would we be suggesting in this article, if not the Canadian one. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a better explanation than the concealing edit summary "tweak". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Futhermore, I've removed Canadian from the section heading & opening sentence, as this article is about the Canadian monarchy. By having Canadian Royal Family, we're suggesting that readers would assume British, otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I restored "Canadian" to the opening sentence of that section. The section does discuss the emergence of both the term and the concept of a "Canadian royal family".

The section was supposed to be a stand-alone article and was for some time. It still should be, to help reduce the size of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"...Canadian Royal Family is shared..."

Another point of detail on this section: While the heading and main text may now be as they should be, the Note states The Canadian Royal Family is shared with other countries which seems unlikely. Yes, the realms have one and the same person for monarch, and members of the family participate in the public service of each of them, but would it be acceptable to state The Australian Royal Family is shared with Canada, the United Kingdom and some other countries? Do Canadians have a particular position on this, or is the same position found in the other realms? The Note at the top states For information on the other countries which share the same person as monarch, see Commonwealth realm, which seems more accurate. Qexigator (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian Royal Family, Australian Royal Family, British Royal Family etc etc are not shared. They just happen to have the same members. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Since the article is about the "Monarchy of Canada" it is redundant to repeat Canadian in sections. Also, I do not know why anyone would confuse the Canadian royal family with the one in the UK since, as MIesianical continually reminds us, the Queen is equally queen in all her realms and is represented that way in reliable sources. And why single out the UK, when whe is equally Queen of Tuvalu and her other realms? TFD (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed revision Noting the above comments, and given that a panel listing 'Royal Family of the Commonwealth realms' is at 'Commonwealth realm', would the following be acceptabe for the section hatnote?

See Commonwealth realm § Royal family for information on the other countries which have the same person as monarch, and her Royal Family, as does Canada.

Qexigator (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just go with Royal Family, we don't need to mention the 15 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've made some changes. I confess though, that they might be too precise & possibly makes something difficult, which is really simple. It's the single/plural nature of the Commonwealth realms setup. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

TBH, it's odd to see members of the Canadian Royal Family having predominately British titles & belonging to a British royal house ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Now, that's funny :) GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Top hatnote, rmv 'share'? And now, further to above and current version of section hatnote, it seems more neutral to put 'have' instead of 'share' in top hatnote. Qexigator (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I am late to the game, but I have no issues with references to the Canadian Royal Family. It's worth emphasizing, since the family resides in the U.K. Am okay with replace "share" with "have" in the hatnote, as per Qexigator.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Share makes it more clear the arrangement is voluntary. "Have" doesn't differentiate between a colonial relationship and one of a willful personal union. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that we should express, if possible, the wilfulness on the part of the several realms, but not sure 'shared' does it better than 'have', since neither the monarchy nor the person of the monarch is 'shared' in any normally understood sense, such as sharing a racehorse or a yacht or a farm or a family business. Is the Governor General shared with the provinces? Do we normally speak/write of siblings sharing the same father/mother? They may share their own property, and inherit their parents' property in equal or unequal shares. But do we speak of persons who are members of a sports club sharing their membership? Citizens by birth of a country may have the same allegiance as naturalised citizens from another country, but when is it said, for example, that the Queen of Canada is shared with Australia, or the Queen of Australia is shared with Canada? Is this meant in the sense that countries which are members of the Commonwealth share Elizabeth as Head of the Commonwealth? That looks like SYN or OR. The Commonwealth of Nations article informs readers that its member countries have shared values, shared sporting and cultural heritage, shared prosperity, shared history of British presence, shared constitutional histories, and share many links outside government.... It may be an inference that for those members that are realms, as part of their shared history of British presence or shared constitutional histories, they have both a monarchical form of government and the same line of succession to their respective Crowns. But in any case, that has not come about as 'personal union' of the kind that is known of earlier European monarchies, by right of dynastic inheritance or marriage, or by treaty, such as King of the Netherlands and Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Qexigator (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're confused about the fact 16 countries share one person as their respective monarch. The hatnote makes no mention of the Head of the Commonwealth, governors-general, values, or any other red herring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No confusion on my part. Noted that you have not responded to any of the points made, presumably because there is none, and none is produced by external internet search. The main point is, of course, about the way 'shared' is used in other contexts, showing that its use in the hatnote is not, as you proposed above, making more clear that the arrangement is voluntary on the part of Canada or the other realms. Why would 'have' be more likely than 'shared' to lead a Canadian reader, or one from any other realm or any other country, of the Commonwealth or not, to suppose continuation of a colonial status? Why is 'sharing' one and the same person as monarch while 'having' a distinct local Crown, more wilful than 'having' the same person and a local Crown? In my view, the latter is both better English (in any of its varieties), less likely to be confused with other meanings, and better signifies independent sovereignty. Further, the former could induce a reader to associate the monarch of 16 realms with the political concept of power-sharing of some kind, or to suppose that the monarch is able to share one government's confidences with any of the others. In today's everyday parlance, share is perhaps most frequently used for disseminating by internet, and in the context of the article could be taken to signify that the governments or citizens of the realms are habitually 'sharing' news or opinions about their own monarch with the governments or citizens of the other realms that have the same person as monarch. Qexigator (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

When I said your "points" were red herrings, that was me responding to them. Since the hatnote doesn't mention any of the random things you raised, the confusion about context you're worried about: it isn't there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comment seems once more to be missing the point, in an exercise of false reasoning about red herrings: 1_The hatnote refers to 'other countries which share the same person as monarch', that is the countries listed in Commonwealth realms. 2_ That is not in accordance with the apt and normal use of shared found elsewhere. 3_As it happens, the article on Commonwealth of Nations exemplifies the apt and normal use. Your comments confirm that your suggestion that "shared" is clearer is not well-founded. At least two other comments above oppose 'shared'. Qexigator (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You're still just making stuff up. The word "shared" applies perfectly, by definition, in this context and the context is unambiguous.

"While they may share Elizabeth II, the sixteen Commonwealth monarchies are as independent and distinct as their coats of arms."[8]

"16 nations in The Commonwealth share Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State, although each of these nations are governed separately."[9]

"The Commonwealth realms all share the Queen as their monarch, though each has its own independent government."[10]

"And it is particularly true of the Commonwealth realms, the 16 nations who share Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state."[11]

"Furthermore, through an analysis of the Commonwealth Realms, and their shared Head of State..."[12]

There's nothing wrong with it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding with those links where 'share' has been used, but they can be seen to illustrate that encyclopedically 'share' is better avoided in the hatnote. I see the last link is dated 2010, and is A thesis submitted to Auckland University of Technology in fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). The abstract is internally inconsistent, in that having made a clear statement about the development of the independence of the several realms, such that the monarch is seen not to be shared, it then adopts the term 'share', in a way which we must surmise was regarded as academically acceptable, and perhaps encouraged, in the institution to which its author submitted it, which may show some lack of rigour in respect of the use of English in connection with a discipline which would not ordinarily be thought of as within the concept 'technology'. But this may be due to the expressed purpose of the thesis, to pioneer 'institutional theory to examine the ramifications of sharing a head of state'. Unfortunately, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt when seeing this error about the Crown: 'Upon close inspection, it appears that the differences between the Commonwealth Realms are not in their relationship with the broad structure (the crown) they share, but in many smaller details'. That fundamental misconception about the Crown, further elaborated as the thesis proceeds, may be explained by the author's approach indicated by: 'Perceptions of the shared structure clearly recreate that structure in a continuous feedback loop; a cycle of perception, modification, and operation. This feedback loop is probably the most significant ramification of sharing a head of state to be found within the shared structure as it exists at present. The loop has the capacity both to reinforce the structure's strengths, and to further its limitations...the shared structure, as it presently exists, is a complex and organic structure which is constantly evolving'. The work may, however, be seen as a valiant attempt to explain the unusual state of affairs connecting the one person with the several, independent, Crowns. Figure 1 is interesting, where B 'illustrates the common components of the inter-realm perspective', and is represented by an image of the crown which the Queen is accustomed to wear at a state opening of the UK Parliament: it is part of the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom which are not in a literal sense regarded as 'shared' among the realms. But your comments again fail to make a reasoned case for retaining shared, or claiming that there is 'consensus' for retaining it, while this page shows support for removing it. Your comment falsely states that my reasoning makes stuff up. Nothing has been made up. Your suggestion that ' "shared" applies perfectly, by definition' is certainly 'made up' without basis in reason or otherwise, given that there are various uses of 'share' as mentioned in my above comments, which are unsuited to the 16 several monarchies whose separate independence and sovereignty are based on not sharing the one Crown, but each being considered as having its own Crown, while the one person, the present Queen, participates in each and every one of them. Qexigator (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For all you write, I don't see a reasonable argument to use "have". (For goodness sake, the hatnote doesn't even include the word "crown", a shared one or otherwise; it says clearly it is one person who is shared, which is demonstrably true; see above and Commonwealth realm: "They are united only in voluntary sharing of... the Queen herself.") At this point, I suggest you take the next step in the dispute resolution process, if you want to continue at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet another instance of a reply making a non-point while dodging the point in question: reasoned objection to the use of the word share, having regard to nearer and farther instances exemplifying that it is not suited, encyclopedically, to the Queen, monarchy or Crown of the several realms. Whether that is straw-man-ing or clutching at a straw hardly matters. Given that your comments have no better editing point to make than a dubious claim of 'consensus', I note the Archives include:

One Crown or Several?[13]
Summary of Constitutional Law regarding the Monarchy in Canada (Statute of Westminster, and O'Donohue v Canada 2003)[14]
Different kinds of crowns[15]
To speak in terms of a personal union is perhaps to use out-worn terminology, and to miss the significance of a development sui generis in constitutional law. Possibly the real contrast cannot be described more precisely than as one between a body of communities whose relations are "unitary" and a body whose relations are, in a phrase of Sir Harrison Moore's, "given over to severalness." Be that as it may, the contention of the critics above-mentioned is vigorously and cogently denied." [16]
Canada and the UK share the same line of succession...[17]
...very narrow definitions not shared by the sources...[18]
...all Commonwealth countries shared the same title for their monarch...[19]

Qexigator (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I won't repeat myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Noted that you have nothing to add. Admittedly, (sources permitting) it could make better sense to use shared in respect of the states and the Commonwealth of Australia under their constitution[20], and possibly of the provinces and federal state of Canada under that country's constitution, comparable, some might suppose, with the provinces or bishoprics of the Roman Catholic Church sharing the Pope as supreme pontiff, and with the various parts of the Roman Empire under the emperors, before and after Byzantium became the seat of the imperial court. Given that some editors here have become habituated to such a use in respect of Australia and Canada, both of which countries are also members of the Commonwealth which comprises both realms and republics that share, as above mentioned, certain political and cultural traditions originating in the British Isles, and having Queen Elizabeth as the Head, it will be understandable, if misguided, that some editors may be reluctant to acknowledge that the concept of a shared monarch could be seen to derogate from the independent and sovereign status of the realms, while feeling it enhances a sense of solidarity and cultural loyalty as distinct from allegiance according to law. Qexigator (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote doesn't say "shared monarch", or any variation thereof, either.

Since you've (finally) accepted there's nothing new to add to this, why have you not taken my earlier advice to seek dispute resolution? Why didn't you when I suggested it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The top hatnote under discussion is: For information on the other countries which share the same person as monarch, see Commonwealth realm.[21]. I had at first expected that a change from the concept of sharing would be readily acceptable. I remain certain that it would be better. None of your comments convince me otherwise, and if others support it, I would too. Perhaps we can leave it there. Qexigator (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now changed to having. Top hatnote share stems from NSW, Australia, 09:32, 25 October 2008 [22], last contribution January 2009.[23] --Qexigator (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

And it has been undone as there was no consensus supporting it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)