Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another reason to keep the article would be because Canada is still nominally a monarchy Queen Elizabeth is still nominally the monarch of Canada,at least according to Wikipedia's article about Canada, and if there is not an article about the Canadian royal family separate from the article about the British royal family then Elizabeth being listed as Canada's head of state on Wikipedia's page on Canada might cause readers to think that Canada is still nominally under British sovereignty when it is not, it is merely in personal union with the United Kingdom, i.e., Queen Elizabeth is still nominally the monarch of both the United Kingdom and of Canada, but separately and with two separate crowns and the two kingdoms are both completely independent of each other.

FDR 9:09 PM, May 22 2006 (UTC)

Also User:HOTR|Homey said that the royal has no legal or constitutional role in Canada, which would mean that Canada is not still nominally a monarchy. But according to wikipedia's article on Canada, Canada is still nominally a monarchy and Queen Elizabeth is still nominally the monarch of Canada. FDR 9:14 PM, May 22 2006 (UTC)

No, Homey said the royal family has no legal or constitutional status in Canada, which is true. The "Canadian monarchy," in so much as it exists as an independent legal entitity, is entirely concentrated in Queen Elizabeth II, as "Queen of Canada." She is the only member of the British Royal Family with a distinct title or role relating to Canada. user:J.J. 9:58, May 22 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is what I meant. The Queen has a legal and constitutional role in Canada, her family does not. There is no civil list in Canada. Homey 00:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this article:Canadian Royal Family, the Canadian federal government keeps a list of the Canadian monarch's family members, which would mean that she is not the only member of the royal family who has anything to do with Canada. FDR MyTalk May 23 11:17 AM 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. The Canadian federal government probably keeps lists of all sorts of things, on all sorts of people. I doubt that that could be construed as meaning the British Royal family is somehow 'Canadian'. When the imperial British Crown was divided (Canada adopted the Statute of Westminister in 1947) that was all that was divided, not the entire British Royal Family! --Lholden 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone else here who agrees with me that Wikipedia should keep this page. FDR 9:17 PM May 22 2006 (UTC)

Four points:

  • The article contains cited references which explicitly refer to the "Canadian Royal Family" - namely the Governor General of Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage, a book on Canadian constitutional law, and the Queen herself.
  • The Monarchy in Canada article has recently been edited down from a previously excessive size, including creating new branch articles where related information has been placed. It would be contrary to this effort to merge the info from Canadian Royal Family back into the Monarchy in Canada article.
  • "It's silly," "it's foolish," "ridiculous," etc., are not valid reasons for deletion - simplistic comments like these demonstrate that no real thought has gone into the voter's consideration, and accuracy is not determined by popular vote.
If that is the case, then the information should be merged with the British Royal Family article. The information on the Canadian page is essentially the same as that on the British page --Lholden 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Approximately 2/3 of the opening section, and both the Duties and funding and Awards sections are not included in British Royal Family. Further, merging information on the Canadian Royal Family into British Royal Family contradicts the point that as Canada and the UK are two separate kingdoms, so too is the royal family for Canada technically separate from the royal family for the UK, despite their symmetry. This is alluded to in the Canadian Royal Family article, and has been well explained already elsewhere. The information could be put into Monarchy in Canada, but that article is already excessively long. It's Wikipedia policy to break vast articles down into smaller branch articles, not to add more information to what are already behemoths. --gbambino 21:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No, there is no symmetry between the families: they are one in the same family. Only the Crowns of Canada and the UK are 'techically' distinct, not the family of the shared monarch. Your only relevant reference is the quote by HMQ; which in itself cannot prove that a separate royal family 'technically' exists. Moreover, since the Commonwealth Realms are supposed to be in some sort of personal union (which in my view, and Sir Geoffrey Palmers, is a nonsense) it would seem very strange indeed that each realm could be seen as having its own Royal family. --Lholden 04:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If the Crowns and the Monarchs are separate, then the families are technically separate as well. Consider the fact that if the UK altered its line of succession, and Canada did not, the two countries would have different monarchs, therefore asymmetrical Royal Families, thereby demonstrating clearly that though they are indeed now identical, they are still separate. Further, I'm surprised you think the Queen is wrong - perhaps you should write Buckingham Palace to inform her. But, I'm sure that if you read the article properly you'll note that there's more than one source stating there's a Canadian Royal Family, or that members of the Royal Family owe allegiance to the Canadian Monarch, which is clearly separate from the British Monarch, despite being the same person. --gbambino 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say the Queen was wrong; I simply said that the quote cannot prove that a separate Canadian Royal Family exists. FYI, I have read the article, and I cannot see how any of the other quotes prove a separate Royal Family exists. Moreover, my disagreement was with the argument that the Commonwealth Realms are in some sort of personal union. --Lholden 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If the Queen states she is a member of the Canadian Royal Family, how can this not be evidence that one exists? Further, the Office of the Governor General of Canada makes explicit reference to a Canadian Royal Family, and the Department of Canadian Heritage has a section entitled "Royal Family" within their specific "Canadian Monarchy" website. All that, plus the assertion by Peter Noonan in his book on Canadian constitutional law that members of the Royal Family owe allegiance to the Sovereign of Canada separately from that which they give to the Sovereign of the UK, is clear evidence of the existence of a Canadian Royal Family (not to mention the fact that Canada has the power to break symmetry with the UK and have a royal family that is physically, not just legally or conceptually, distinct from the UK's). Moreover, the definition of a personal union seems to be "a political union of two or more entities that, internationally, are considered separate states, but through established law, share the same head of state." That would seem, to me, at least, to be the relationship between Canada and the other Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, both myself and Sir Geoffrey Palmer would disagree with that definition... it is rather self-serving for the Commonwealth Realms argument. It does seem strange that, as a monarchist, you would argue that Canada has a separate Royal Family. The whole point of a personal union, even on the above definition, is that it is a union of Crowns under one royal family. The fact that Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand for that matter could break this symmetry makes no difference. Suffice to say that the assertion that members of the Royal Family owe allegiance to the Queen as Queen of Canada was probably meant to be read as meaning that the members of the Royal Family do not simply owe allegiance to the Queen as Queen of the United Kingdom; because per the Balfour Declaration of 1926, all the Commonwealth Realms are politically equal. That in itself does not prove that there is a separate Canadian Royal Family, neither does a Canadian monarchy website. What's more, most of the articles content is simply repeated information that is being needlessly replicated; this is simply to back your POV that somehow the British Royal Family are indeed maple leaf Canadians. --Lholden 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why the website of a department of the Canadian government is to be ignored. Also, please read a little further down on this talk page where I've stated that there was indeed repetition in the Canadian Royal Family article, so I went to some relative effort to clean up Monarchy in Canada so that information on the Canadian Royal Family could be included there, and thus admitted that there may now no longer be a reason to keep a separate article.
As a monarchist I understand that there currently is one group of people who make up a royal family, related to one woman who is a Monarch, but I also comprehend that today each Realm is a completely sovereign kingdom, distinct from all the others. This means that each is a monarchy in itself, each a kingdom, and that within any Commonwealth Realm besides the UK the Royal Family cannot be called British - that would be akin to saying the Belgian Royal Family is Thai.
The evidence can't be so easily dismissed. If the Office of the Governor General of Canada, and the Queen of Canada herself (who's speeches are written as a collaboration between herself, the government of Canada, and her Palace advisors) make reference specifically to the Canadian Royal Family, then something called the Canadian Royal Family must exist.
So, seeing as I'm dealing with concrete evidence here, I think you should hold your POV assertions at bay. --gbambino 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is really about whether the 'Canadian Royal Family' actually exists, and if so, whether it deserves its own article given the fact that the information is essentially same as that of the British Royal Family. As for your 'concrete' facts; these are simply conveniently amalgamated snippets of information brought together to serve your purpose of showing that their is indeed a Canadian Royal Family, which implies (inter alia) that the Candian Monarchy is indeed a Canadian institution.
The Canadian Monarchy website makes no mention of the Canadian Royal Family [1], just the 'Royal Family'; it seems strange that if the Canadian Royal Family actually exits that this government website wouldn't mention it. The fact that they list the members of the Royal Family doesn't mean that a Canadian Royal Family exists. Furthermore, a search of the Governor-General of New Zealand's website [2] and their Australian counterpart [3] doesn't bring up any references to a "New Zealand Royal Family" or an "Australian Royal Family" (there is a Maori Royal Family, but that doesn't count :-). Further, our own Ministry of Culture and Heritage [4] doesn't make any mention of a New Zealand Royal Family.
As I said above, the only thing close to showing that a Canadian Royal Family exists is your quote from HMQ, which I wager has been taken out of context. Aside from that, HM may have only been referring to herself for all that we know, that is not clear from the quote. Furthermore, despite what monarchists might think, the Queen's speeches are not statement of policy unless the speech is the Speech from the Throne. Consider the absurdity of it: You're saying that the Queen created a whole new 'symmetrical' entity by making a speech to a sub-national body of Canada. The Queen cannot create a separate Royal Family without legal recourse. Should Canada change the Act of Settlement unilaterally this maybe the case, but otherwise it is not. --Lholden 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said any such things. And read the full speech, if you think the quote is taken out of context. Instead of sliding around with all sorts of theories, deal with the evidence presented (and all of it too - you clearly haven't dug too deeply if you think the quote from the Queen is the only place where the words "Canadian Royal Family" appear). --gbambino 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I have read the speech, and it is indeed taken out of context - "Royal Family" is capitalised, rather than "royal family". This is not simply semantics, it is a fairly intentional mis-quote (take, for example, the difference between 'Republican' and 'republican' - fairly important). It doesn't prove that the Canadian Royal Family exists.
I am dealing with the "facts" upon which this article is based, the "facts" which you stress are to be the only basis for discussion of this article. I have looked into your sources and found precious little evidence of what you are claiming. The only other place you come close is here, where the quote by HMQ is repeated. --Lholden 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd also be curious to know if Gavin believes we should get cracking on articles about the Jamaican Royal Family and the Papua New Guinean Royal Family and all the rest. And hell, why not a Order of Succession to the Throne of the Bahamas while we're at it.J.J. 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Has Her Majesty decreed to her subjects said those families exist J.J.?? --Lholden 03:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This is NOT a vote. --Strothra 20:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • None of the Royals have Canadian nationality
  • None of the Royals have any Canadian titles (except the Queen)
  • None of the Royals reside in Canada
  • The list of the "Canadian Royal Family" on the Department of Canadian Heritage website obviously has never been updated in recent years. Astrotrain 18:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
How does this dispute the evidence presented? --gbambino 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

90% of the article is stuff that's been said elsewhere. Only the "Duties and funding" part appears to be distinct, and even then most of it is just a collection of anecdotes trying to prove that the Queen thinks of herself as Canadian in some way. I haven't heard a strong justification for why a single royal family needs, (if we are to follow the argument to its logical conclusion) 16 distinct articles for every country the Queen rules. It is simply a monarchist propaganda piece, it's not violating any sort of NPOV to state that, the fact is quite obvious. Only a partisan Canadian monarchist would see the need for such an article, since it exists only to say "hey look, the royal family is Canadian." user:J.J. 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true that there was some repetition, however, at that point, Monarchy in Canada was an immense article in the process of being edited down through the creation of new branch articles to hold more detailed information. It seemed antithetic to that effort to fill in information about the Royal Family. However, I've since moved a huge chunk of the History section of Monarchy in Canada to it's own article, thereby clearing space for information on the Canadian Royal Family. That info has been moved from Canadian Royal Family to Monarchy in Canada, thereby eliminating most of the repeated information, and really, the need for the article.
However, J.J., until you can refute the evidence which points to a Canadian Royal Family, your "monarchist propaganda" claims really are just POV assertions which you hope will help get factual information that runs counter to your republican beliefs subverted. I trust that saner minds will prevail. --gbambino 15:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to note here that the Monarchy in Canada article is still, despite having a large part of it removed to a subsidiary article, 59 KB long. Perhaps keeping the separate article Canadian Royal Family would be of use after all. --gbambino 19:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My advice to you would be to put the large chart of monarchs somewhere else, and possibly move the content of the crown and the First Nations to a new article. I am sure one could also scale back a few of your paragraphs which seem to be a bit excessively detailed, and really do overplay the relevance of the monarchy in contemporary Canada. user:J.J.