Talk:Monarchy in Canada/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Rouleau....again

Can I now ask why the Rouleau ruling is mentioned in "Constitutional Monarchy in Canada?" What purpose is it serving? --gbambino 20:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You objected to it being in monarchist arguments so I moved it. The purpose it serves is as one of the features of the monarchy in Canada. Homey 20:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The Rouleau decision was to dismiss a petition, so there is no sense in which it can add anything new to the article, unless there is a legal scholar or other unbiased authority that can be cited which suggests otherwise. Quotations out of context are not suitable. Peter Grey 20:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Its presence in "Monarchist Arguments" was objectionable because you were trying to use it to counter what you say monarchists say, when, in fact, the extra quotations I added (and you attempted to delete) actually showed that Rouleau contradicts your claims and affirms what you say monarchists say. But ultimately it served no purpose there, the ruling is neither a republican nor a monarchist argument and added nothing new. Now that it's in "Constitutional Monarchy in Canada" it still serves no purpose, it still adds nothing that isn't already covered in the article. --gbambino 21:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Homey 21:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

While I concded that gbambino's additions are unnecessary I see no where else in the article where it is established that "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries" is a "constitutional principle."Homey 21:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • It's the very first bullet point under 'Constitutional Monarchy in Canada'. Peter Grey 21:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"I concded that gbambino's additions are unnecessary" Oh, they're necessary to eliminate the message you're trying to convey by conveniently leaving them out. But that doesn't negate my point that ultimately the ruling really means nothing to the article. --gbambino 21:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"It's the very first bullet point under 'Constitutional Monarchy in Canada'"

Which is where Rouleau's quote now resides, appropriately enough. Gbambino's extraneous additions about Rouleau saying Crown of Canada once and King and Queen of Canada another time should not be included as they are irrelevent to the bullet point. Homey 01:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious you are including quotes out of context in hopes they will render the article more confusing, not less. You have yet to identify any new information the ruling provides, or cite any source as to its interpretation. Peter Grey 02:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm providing no interpretation, the quotation is supporting the point being made in the paragraph within which it appears. Homey 03:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I provide no interpretation either. The quotations regarding the King and Queen of Canada and the Crown of Canada should remain as they are just as relevant as any regarding the "British Crown". Or... are you upset that they contradict the message you're trying to subtly (but in reality not so subtly) convey by pulling your carefully selected quotes out of context?
All the quotations, however, are unnecessary, they serve no uselful purpose. --gbambino 15:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • supporting the point means there is no new information. Redundancy weakens the article, it does not improve it. Peter Grey 15:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Before mediation, you promoted your personal, and highly biased, interpretation of Rouleau's decision, where you attempted to indicate that Rouleau had identified the Crown as subject to the UK Parliament (clearly impossible as such a statement would be beyond the authority of a Canadian court of law), rather than the obvious understanding that he meant the shared Crown. Since mediation began, you have instead inserted quotations, out of context and in clear contradiction to the intent of the decision, in the hope that readers will be confused. This is not good faith editing, it is a NPOV violation. You have merely adopted a more subtle tactic for the duration of mediation. Peter Grey 15:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Andy admitted his purpose for inserting the out of context quotations at Talk:Commonwealth Realm:

"Any of the quotations in regards to the 'British Crown'... put into doubt the contention that there is a Canadian Crown or that it is equal to the British Crown." Andy 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Also:

"The quote makes clear that Commonwealth Realms, or at least Canada, are under the "British Crown" despite popular mythology that we are not." Andy 05:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

So here we have admission that the purpose behind pulling quotes out of context is to convey the original research that there has been some sort of monarchist conspiracy theory for the past 70+ years to brainwash the world into thinking that the Crown operates separately and equally in each Realm, when it apparently doesn't. Andy is trying to convince readers that Canada is not an independent country, and is subservient to the British government due to his theory that there is no equality amongst the Commonwealth Realms. As no constitutional expert, lawyer, judge, scholar, publication, or even republican group supports this theory, not only is it not good faith editing, a NPOV violation, but is, without doubt, original research. --gbambino 15:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino: a) I don't recall the mediator ever speaking of an NPOV violation or original research. They are your invention as is your monarchist conspiracy theory. Indeed, it seems that you latched on to Peter Grey's use of the phrase "original research" in the same manner as you latched on to his use of the word "metaphor" ie with no actual understanding of the concepts.

b) read the bullet point- the quotation relates to it very well contextually and factually. The fact that you don't like the quotation is not a good reason not to use it.

c) if you read what is actually said you'll see

Please relate your comments to the actual contents of the article, not to your interpretations and speculations. Homey 17:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is the bullet point in question. What, precisely, is your objection? Where is the "original research" or POV? Be specific and relate your answer only to what appears in the bullet point and not to arguments made previously in talk:

  • Although Queen Elizabeth II is also monarch of the United Kingdom and several other Commonwealth countries, each nation - including Canada - is sovereign and independent of the others. The identity of the sovereign is determined by the conditions set out in the Act of Settlement. Under the Statute of Westminster, 1931, Canada has a common monarchy with Britain and the other Commonwealth Realms and cannot change the rules of succession without the unanimous consent of the other realms, unless Canada explicitly leaves the shared monarchy relationship by means of a constitutional amendment. Justice Rouleau, in a 2003 court ruling (see below) asserted that "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries" is a "constitutional principle." As a result of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 the dominions acquired the right to be considered equal to Britain rather than subordinate; an agreement that had the result of, in theory, a shared Crown that operates independently in each realm rather than a unitary British Crown under which all the dominions were subordinate. The subsequent Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 was the first indication of this shift in law, further elaborated in the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

Homey 17:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"supporting the point means there is no new information"

A well written essay will support assertion with evidence. The quotation provides evidence for the assertion made in the previous sentence. Homey 18:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Andy is trying to convince readers that Canada is not an independent country, and is subservient to the British government due to his theory that there is no equality amongst the Commonwealth Realms."

Cite a passage from the article that supports your claim. Homey 18:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • The only information from the Rouleau decision that is remotely new is the designation of the Act of Settlement as S.52 Constitutional legislation. If you think the assertion (which, except for yourself, has gone completely unchallenged for 70 years) requires support, I will look up some better quotes from my constitutional law textbook. Peter Grey 18:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The content is this: quotations out of context. Taking quotations out of context causes confusion about their meaning. After failing to blatantly assert your POV, you are now taking the more covert route of leaving these disjointed quotations for others to form their own opinions on, in the hopes they will misinterpret the words "British Crown" the same way you do, and then believe the whole "Canada is subservient to the British government" 'original research' you've been pushing. It's obvious that people cannot form proper opinions about a subject unless given the full and accurate framework that goes with it. Therefore quotations out of context are not acceptable and should be removed. The ruling and interpretations are already dealt with at O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003. --gbambino 18:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Cite a passage from the article that supports your claim." I don't have to. You've already made your resoning behind your drive to include the quotes clear:

"Any of the quotations in regards to the 'British Crown'... put into doubt the contention that there is a Canadian Crown or that it is equal to the British Crown." Andy 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Also:

"The quote makes clear that Commonwealth Realms, or at least Canada, are under the "British Crown" despite popular mythology that we are not." Andy 05:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are original research and POV, meaning your edits are against Wikipedia's good faith policy. --gbambino 18:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not that you "don't have to" it's that you cannot cite a passage from the article to support your contention.Homey 18:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Then you do not object to a wording more consistent with the style and exposition of the article, and preserving chronological order, such as:

  • Although Queen Elizabeth II is also monarch of the United Kingdom and several other Commonwealth countries, each nation - including Canada - is sovereign and independent of the others. The identity of the sovereign is determined by the conditions set out in the Act of Settlement. As a result of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 the dominions, including Canada, acquired the right to be considered equal to Britain rather than subordinate, resulting in a shared Crown that operates independently in each realm rather than a unitary British Crown under which all the dominions were subordinate. The subsequent Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 was the first indication of this shift in law, further elaborated in the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and reaffirmed in court decisions as recently as 2003 [1] and 2005 [2].
  • Under the Statute of Westminster, 1931, Canada has a common monarchy with Britain and the other Commonwealth Realms and cannot change the rules of succession without the unanimous consent of the other realms, unless Canada explicitly leaves the shared monarchy relationship by means of a constitutional amendment. Peter Grey 19:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Your comments are original research and POV, meaning your edits are against Wikipedia's good faith policy. --gbambino

My comments were made in the Talk page, gbambino, not in the article. Do you actually have a clue what you are talking about when you talk about NPOV and original research? These concepts apply to the content of articles only not to what people say in Talk pages.

The Rouleau quotations are not out of context. They just don't fit your particular interpretation and you have to torture them to try to make them fit. I'm sorry gbambino but neither you nor Peter are constitutional scholars and it is not for you to decide whether or not Rouleau is wrong or whether or not Rouleau really means what he says. You are not an authority so stop pretending that you are. You have failed to show that the line is either NPOV or "original research". It is in context, it explains the relationship between Crown and Commonwealth in a Canadian context, it is relevent to the bullet point and lends evidence to the assertion made in the bullet point. Just because you don't like the fact that Rouleau says "British" and would prefer it if he had fit your POV by saying "Canadian" is not sufficient reason for censoring the quotation. And I'm sorry, gbambino, but what you tried to add does not "contextualise" the quote as your additions have nothing to do with the bullet point and are, in any case, irrelevent.

And Peter, as you know, judical rulings trump interpretations written by law professors so even if you find a quotation by a legal scholar that better fits your POV it should not displace a quotation from a judicial ruling. Homey 19:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • whether or not Rouleau really means what he says That pretty much sums up the debate, doesn't it? Peter Grey 19:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you don't like the quotation or indeed much of what Rouleau wrote so you and gbambino are trying to rationalise it away by assuming he didn't really mean what he said and therefore you want to remove it or finesse it away. Now *that* is POV.

  • You have that backwards. I have no problem with the decision, the decision supports the mainstream interpretation. The only part supporting your claim is the one quote, and even then only when out of context. I'm not convinced you've even read the decision. Peter Grey 19:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I read the decision. Remember, you misunderstood his reference to the 1982 amending formula thinking that it might refer to any change in the succession, even one agreed upon by all the realms and I corrected you.

So what is your problem with the quotation, Peter, and what context would you put it in? Make a proposal. And can you persuade gbambino to stay out of this? I'm getting tired of dealing with his rantings and his habit of picking up a word from you like "original research" or "metaphor" and reciting it like some sort of mantra without any sort of understanding.Homey 19:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

However, unless you can find a ruling by a more senior court that contradicts Rouleau I'm afraid you'll just have to live with his quotation as it represents the highest court ruling in Canada on the question to date - even if you don't like it. He's a judge; you're just a monarchist, I'm afraid his word trumps yours.Homey 19:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • the question What is the question you claim the decision addresses? This is where the lack of context is artificially creating point of view. Peter Grey 19:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
"My comments were made in the Talk page, gbambino, not in the article."
We all know you've failed to push your POV directly in the articles, but do you honestly believe that edits supported by POV and 'original research' are acceptable? I think not.
"The quotations are not out of context. They just don't fit your particular interpretation and you have to torture them to try to make them fit. I'm sorry gbambino but you are not a constitutional scholar and it is not for you to decide whether or not Rouleau is wrong or whether or not Rouleau really means what he says. You are not an authority so stop pretending that you are."
Thank you, Andy, for admitting that you have carefully chosen particular quotations from Rouleau's ruling only to support your interpretation of it, and wish to ignore those that don't. You are also not a constitutional scholar, nor an expert, so it is not up to you to decide what Rouleau means either (though, so far every constitutional scholar supports what Peter and I say, and you've provided absolutely, umm... oh yes, nothing to support your theories). So, if you truly want others to make up their own minds, let them read the entire ruling instead of your personal selections.
As for this article, the quotations add nothing new and are out of context, which will cause confusion. --gbambino 19:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ggbambino, the conclusion you are making does not flow from the quotation you are using. Homey 19:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The talk page is not a random chat room - people are trying to determine what is encyclopedic content. If you merely want to express your personal mythology, there are other outlets for that sort of thing. Peter Grey 19:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"What is the question you claim the decision addresses? This is where the lack of context is artificially creating point of view." Exactly.
Andy, I repeat: if you truly want others to make up their own minds, let them read the entire ruling instead of your personal selections. Is that acceptable to you? --gbambino 19:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
you misunderstood his reference to the 1982 amending formula thinking that it might refer to any change in the succession, even one agreed upon by all the realms and I corrected you If true, provide reference. Peter Grey 19:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ironically, Canada could authorize the UK Parliament to change the succession with an Act of the Dominon Parliament, but it would require (according to Rouleau) a section 41 Constitutional amendment in order to take effect in Canada. Peter Grey 19:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
If the UK changed the succession and Canada wanted to follow suit, it would still need a s.41 amendment in order to be recognized by Canadian courts of law. Peter Grey 21:50, 15 July 2005
Now, Peter has interpreted part of Rouleau's ruling... "Such changes would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982." ...as meaning that the rules of succession in Canada can only be changed through a constitutional amendment even if the other realms change theres.
Well, hold on a second, let's look at the whole paragraph " Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession, whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would be contrary to the commitment given in the Statute of Westminster, would break symmetry and breach the principle of union under the British Crown set out in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Such changes would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982."
Well, I see that as meaning that a constitutional amendment is needed for unilateral changes to the rules of succession, not that one is needed for a non-unilateral change. I think a very strong argument can be made that any change by Britain in the rules of succession would automatically apply to Canada by virtue of what the current constitution of Canada says. Andy 01:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Andy, I repeat: if you truly want others to make up their own minds, let them read the entire ruling instead of your personal selections. Is that acceptable to you?

Do you have any practical suggestions to make?Homey 19:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Let people form opinions by reading the entire ruling instead of from your personal selections from it. Is that a little too difficult for you to understand? Can you answer my question? --gbambino 19:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Is that a little too difficult for you to understand?"

I'm afraid it is. What are you actually proposing for the article? Homey 20:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And gbambino, you realise that by accusing me of "not editing in good faith" you are violating the guideline you are actually linking to which is Wikipedia:Assume good faith? "Assume good faith" means you shouldn't go around accusing people of editing in bad faith as that causes things to detiorate. I'm glad you're linking to policies and guidelines but it might do you better to actually read them first.Homey 20:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is that we have assumed good faith. By constantly changing the subject whenever the discussion goes against you, by restarting debates already resolved, and by attempting to obscure knowledge rather than clarify it, and by deliberate errors of fact, you have demonstrated a lack of it. Peter Grey 23:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

From your avoidance of the question we can take it that you do wish to create confusion, purposefully create questions where there are none, by allowing people to only read the Rouleau quotations which you have carefully selected based on their importance to your POV and 'original research'. Of course, you have already admitted that earlier when stating that the quotations you chose support your 'original research' that the Commonwealth Realms are not equal, and Canada is subordinate to the British Parliament. I do believe that's rather manipulative and misleading, not to mention that it demonstrates a bit of a control problem... What am I proposing? Remove the quotations-- they add nothing new and their lack of context causes confusion to readers. Leave Rouleau at O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003. Whether or not interpretations should be included there is another matter, however. --gbambino 20:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"From your avoidance of the question we can take it that you do wish to create confusion, purposefully create questions where there are none,"

Please don't make ridiculous assertions. I wasn't avoiding the question - you were (deliberately?) unclear about what you were proposing. You didn't say, initially, you wanted to remove the quotation, you said you wanted people to read the entire ruling which implied pasting the entire ruling into the article, hence my request that you come up with something practical.

You are proposing censoring the article. A hyperlink to the ruling and/or a link to the article on the ruling would be appropriate. Removing the quotation is not appropriate. Homey 20:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I propose no such thing. Links to O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003 are appropriate where appropriate -- perhaps in relation to the Act of Settlement, or CCR. A link to the ruling itself can be provided at O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003, if not done already. However, Rouleau's ruling raises no questions about the Crown over the Realms, in Canada, or puts Canada's sovereignty into question, so it need not be mentioned every time the word "Crown" comes up along with "Canada" or "Realm."
The quotations remain out of their context and therefore are misleading and confusing. They are not appropriate here, nor at Commonwealth Realm. --gbambino 20:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You are proposing removing a quotation you don't like - that's censorship. Now tell me, how are readers interested in the first bullet point supposed to know that it might be a good idea for them to read Rouleau if you are removing the quotation? After all, you claim you want people to read the entire ruling but your proposal would make it less likely that they would be aware the ruling exists. Homey 20:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You claim the quotations are out of context (but provide no evidence of this) but your only alternative is having readers read the entire court ruling. By your logic we can't have any quotations anywhere in wikipedia since they are all out of context (ie not in their original source document). Homey 20:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • "I wasn't avoiding the question - you were (deliberately?) unclear about what you were proposing." It was a legitimate question about whether or not you felt it right that people should form opinions about something based on only bits and pieces selected by someone with a strong bias. You completely avoided it.
  • "You are proposing removing a quotation you don't like - that's censorship." Perhaps we can look at it this way: you're proposing keeping a particular quotation because it serves your bias - that's manipulation to support your POV. I am not offended by Rouleau's ruling, what is offensive is your exploitation of it to suit your own ends.
  • "How are readers interested in the first bullet point supposed to know that it might be a good idea for them to read Rouleau if you are removing the quotation." Why on earth do they need to specifically read Rouleau? It does not mention anything that readers couldn't get from a clearer and easier to read source, and does not cause any questions to be raised about the Crown, Canada's independence, or its relationship to the UK.
  • "You claim the quotations are out of context (but provide no evidence of this)" Are you serious? Perhaps you're unaware of what "out of context" means.
  • "By your logic we can't have any quotations anywhere in wikipedia since they are all out of context (ie not in their original source document)." Ridiculous. You've admitted you specifically chose those quotations because out of thier context they support your POV and 'original research'. You've conveniently omitted those (and deleted those) that don't because they provide more information and create a clearer picture about what Rouleau's point was -- and it actually goes against what you're trying to assert.
The quotations cause confusion, not benefit. --gbambino 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a very strong argument can be made that any change by Britain in the rules of succession would automatically apply to Canada by virtue of what the current constitution of Canada says. Completely false. What the Constitution of Canada says is: No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law. The reverse situation, which is what you actually alluded to, is of course governed by parliamentary supremacy. Peter Grey 23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter, even if you disagree with me on the effect of the 1867 preamble, the fact remains that your assertion that Rouleau was saying a constitutional amendment for a change to the succession would be necessary even if there was consensus among the realms is incorrect. He was only speaking of the need for a constitutional amendment in the case of a unilateral change in the succession by Canada.

gbambino wrote: "Why on earth do they need to specifically read Rouleau?" Hey, it was you who was asking me wheter I think people should read the entire decision. I guess you were being disingenuous when you asked that your previous question. In any case, as I said, I'm fine with having a hyperlink following the quotation so that readers can peruse the entire judgement - that is how we do things on wikipedia. Removing a quotation so that people will read an entire document is a bizarre, illogical and counterproductive solution and I see that not even Peter has endorsed it so given that you have no support for your proposal I will disregard it henceforth.Homey 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There has been an attempt by the MLC and to some extent by the Department of Canadian Heritage to rebrand the monarchy and remove any reference to it being at all British. While there are political motives behind this the fact remains that constitutionally and legally it is not at all incorrect to refer to the Crown in Canada as the "British Crown". Moreover, in the context of the Crown under which the various Commonwealth realms are united it is pefectly correct to refer to this as the "British Crown" a) in order to distinguish from, say, the Danish Crown b) because there is no such thing as the "Commonwealth Crown.".

I'm sorry if the quotation is not consistent with the rebranding attempt but it is correct and yes, in context notwithstanding Gbambino's unique belief that something can only be in context if the entire document from which it is taken is included. Homey 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem very puzzled by the fact that Justice Rouleau addressed O'Donohue's complaints and not your own fictional constitutional crisis. Rouleau considered unilateral change in the succession by Canada because that was what the petition was about. He did not invalidate the fundamentals of the 1982 Consitution. He also wrote in his decision: "The constitutional scheme of our democratic government consists of four branches: the Crown, the legislative body, the executive and the courts." So I guess the article needs to spell out that the British Crown is a branch of the Canadian government. Maybe we're not in a relationship of equals after all! Obviously, we'll need to include that quote or people might incorrectly assume that the United Kingdom is a sovereign nation. Peter Grey 16:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter, Rouleau never said that a constitutional amendment was necessary to change the succession in the manner outlined in the Statute of Westminster. That was your misinterpretation. He was only speaking of the hypothetical need for a constitutional amendment if Canada were to change the succession unilaterally.Homey 16:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter, any case before the courts will deal either with a specific incident or complaint involving an aggrieved party and/or with jurisdictional matters. The specific focus of Rouleau's ruling was the O'Donohue complaint regarding the constitutionality of the Act of Settlement prohibition on Catholics assuming the throne. However, the ruling had to deal with the jurisdictional question regarding the Act of Settlement and therefore on the relationship between the Crown, the Commonwealth Realms and Canada. It is that relationship that the quotation is in refernce to and that is relevent to the bullet point. Homey 16:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page

I protected the page per HOTR. Try to come up with some consensus on the contentious issues. If you can't, I would suggest a Request for comment or for mediation. --Woohookitty 01:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Actual arguments

I've been trying to follow the arguments on this discussion page in order to offer an unbiassed opinion, but am unable to figure out the pith and substance of the dispute. Would it help if each of the disputants were to summarize their position in a short paragraph and allow other users to comment? HistoryBA 23:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter Grey:

Gbambino:

  • AndyL/Homey has taken an Ontario court ruling by Justice Rouleau (O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003 1) and has mistakenly interpreted the judge's references to the shared "British Crown" as meaning the Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament.
  • He is thus stating that Canada (along with the other Commonwealth Realms) is not an independent and equal country under the Crown, but is subservient to the UK Parliament.
  • This is in opposition to the Balfour Declaration, 1926, the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Constitution of Canada, as well as Constitutional Committee reports from Australia, court rulings from Australia, and the words of constitutional experts such as Canadian Senator Eugene Forsey, Richard Toporoski, and Dr. Michael Jackson, as well as Prime Minister St. Laurent, Vincent Massey, and many others.
  • To back himself up Andy/Homey has pulled only certain quotations of Rouleau out of their context so as to ignore the judge's own assertions about the "sharing" of the Crown, the "symmetrical" relationship amongst the Realms, and the control Canada holds over the Crown in Right of Canada and the line of succession to it.
  • He continues to state that these quotations must remain in the article so as to now imply, rather than specifically state, that there is some question about Canada's sovereignty. Andy/Homey has expressly admitted that these quotations were chosen so as to support his personal theories, and thus their retention is only for the purpose of deliberately causing confusion.
  • He is using POV and original research to support his edits. --gbambino 00:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
What you argue I am arguing is not reflected in the bullet point being discussed therefore your points are irrelevent. There is no reference, whatsoever, to the British Parliament or its jurisdiction in the bullet point.Homey 16:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There has been an attempt by the MLC and to some extent by the Department of Canadian Heritage to rebrand the monarchy and remove any reference to it being at all British. While there are political motives behind this the fact remains that constitutionally and legally it is not at all incorrect to refer to the Crown in Canada as the "British Crown". Moreover, in the context of the Crown under which the various Commonwealth realms are united it is pefectly correct to refer to this as the "British Crown" a) in order to distinguish from, say, the Danish Crown b) because there is no such thing as the "Commonwealth Crown.".

I'm sorry if the quotation is not consistent with the rebranding attempt but it is correct and yes, in context notwithstanding Gbambino's unique belief that something can only be in context if the entire document from which it is taken is included.

In short, I'm arguing that Peter and gbambino are allowing their POVs to drive their desire to remove a quotation from a legal judgement because the language used refers to the Crown as "British". As monarchists, they feel this is not desriable as it may reenforce public perceptions that the head of state is not Canadian.

Gbambino has been unable to prove that the quotation is out of context. Indeed, when directly challenged to prove his claim or to refute any of the content of the bullet point he response in ways that redefine the meaning of words like "context" and "content" or suggest he doesn't know what these terms mean (ie he discusses everything *but* the actual content of the bullet point in contention). Peter Grey seems to concede that the quote is relevent but derides it as unnecessary or superfluous even though it is from a judicial ruling and provides evidence for the point being asserted in the bullet point. Again, I suspect he does not want the quote there simply because he feels the reference to the "British Crown" is contrary to the view promoted by Canadian monarchists even though it is perfectly correct (as he, himself, has conceded elsewhere when he stated that in Canadian law there is no such term as "Canadian Crown" or "Crown of Canada). As such his argument for not including the quotation is disingenuous. Homey 15:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is the actual content of the bullet point in question. As you'll see if you read it, virtually all of gbambino's points have nothing to do with the acutal content of the article.

  • Although Queen Elizabeth II is also monarch of the United Kingdom and several other Commonwealth countries, each nation - including Canada - is sovereign and independent of the others. The identity of the sovereign is determined by the conditions set out in the Act of Settlement. Under the Statute of Westminster, 1931, Canada has a common monarchy with Britain and the other Commonwealth Realms and cannot change the rules of succession without the unanimous consent of the other realms, unless Canada explicitly leaves the shared monarchy relationship by means of a constitutional amendment. Justice Rouleau, in a 2003 court ruling (see below) asserted that "Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries" is a "constitutional principle." As a result of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 the dominions acquired the right to be considered equal to Britain rather than subordinate; an agreement that had the result of, in theory, a shared Crown that operates independently in each realm rather than a unitary British Crown under which all the dominions were subordinate. The subsequent Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 was the first indication of this shift in law, further elaborated in the Statute of Westminster, 1931
Andy, explain to us why you are so adamant to keep your personally chosen (aka out of context) quotations (not just in the first bullet point, but also in "Republican Arguments" here, and at Commonwealth Realm) when there are other sources which would illustrate the points in the articles just the same, but without the harder to read technical legalese? Your answer should keep in mind your earlier assertions:
"Any of the quotations in regards to the 'British Crown'... put into doubt the contention that there is a Canadian Crown or that it is equal to the British Crown." Andy 02:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Also:
"The quote makes clear that Commonwealth Realms, or at least Canada, are under the "British Crown" despite popular mythology that we are not." Andy 05:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
You claim you want to provide illustration to clarify, yet, your words above imply you want to create doubt and confusion. Which is really true? --gbambino 16:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino, why can't you tell me what is actually incorrect about the bullet point? As for "creating doubt and confusion" the fact remains that we are under the British Crown, there are numerous sources for this and Rouleau himself says it explicitly. Why do you want to hide that fact?Homey 16:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Didn't answer the question. Again. --gbambino 16:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Where have you answered mine?Homey 17:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The very first line of the whole article is: "Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm..." What constructive purpose can the quotation possibly serve? Peter Grey 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Peter, is it true to say that Canada is under the "British Crown"? Homey 16:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • he stated that in Canadian law there is no such term as "Canadian Crown": Yet another example of the distortion from quotations out of context. Try reading personal union. Peter Grey 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Peter, is there such a term as "Canadian Crown" or "Crown of Canada" in law?Homey 16:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There is the legal term 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Right of Canada.' This term means the Queen of Canada subject to Canadian law and has absolutely nothing to do with the Queen of the UK or UK law. So in that sense Canada is not under the British Crown. It just happens to have a Queen who wears the British Crown as well.

Andy/Homey's assertions

  • "There has been an attempt by the MLC and to some extent by the Department of Canadian Heritage to rebrand the monarchy and remove any reference to it being at all British." Nobody, including the MLC or Canadian Heritage, has been attempting to cover up any "Britishness" associated with the Monarchy -- this is part of Andy's conspiracy theory that I alluded to earlier. What Andy/Homey is attempting to do with his out of context Rouleau quotes is deny that the Crown/Monarchy is an institution shared equally by all 16 Commonwealth Realms. What the MLC, and perhaps Canadian Heritage, promotes as Canadian is only the Crown in Right of Canada -- the Crown as it operates within the legal jurisdiction of Canada.
  • "and legally it is not at all incorrect to refer to the Crown in Canada as the "British Crown". Calling the Crown "British" for historical purposes, or due to the lack of a modern terminology for the shared Crown, is a matter of semantics, and does not affect constitutional reality that the "British Crown" as shared is not the same thing as the Crown within the legal jurisdiction of the UK.
  • "Gbambino's unique belief that something can only be in context if the entire document from which it is taken is included." Complete ignorance of my earlier statement: "You've admitted you specifically chose those quotations because out of their context they support your POV and 'original research'. You've conveniently omitted those (and deleted those) that don't because they provide more information and create a clearer picture about what Rouleau's point was -- and it actually goes against what you're trying to assert." Context does not necessarily mean the entire document, it means enough of the document to get the proper point across. Pieces chosen by a strongly biased individual do not constitute proper context.
  • "he discusses everything *but* the actual content of the bullet point in contention." Ignoring your actions earlier and elsewhere does not provide you with justification.
  • "Peter Grey seems to concede that the quote is relevent." Unfounded.
  • "I suspect he does not want the quote there simply because he feels the reference to the "British Crown" is contrary to the view promoted by Canadian monarchists even though it is perfectly correct (as he, himself, has conceded elsewhere when he stated that in Canadian law there is no such term as "Canadian Crown" or "Crown of Canada)." What Peter asserted was that the "British Crown" as shared by the Realms is not the same thing as the Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK government. This is accepted by Canadian monarchists as reality, but is not their creation! As well, there is no such legal term as "Canadian Crown," but the words "Crown in Right of Canada" and "Crown of Canada" are included in legal documents.
(And Andy, it's relevant, not relevent. That's the second time too. Only mentioning that as vocabulary and spelling seem to be sensitive topics for you.) --gbambino 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "There has been an attempt by the MLC and to some extent by the Department of Canadian Heritage to rebrand the monarchy and remove any reference to it being at all British." Nobody, including the MLC or Canadian Heritage, has been attempting to cover up any "Britishness" associated with the Monarchy -- - the Crown as it operates within the legal jurisdiction of Canada.
Then why do you object to any reference to the "British Crown"?
  • "and legally it is not at all incorrect to refer to the Crown in Canada as the "British Crown". Calling the Crown "British" for historical purposes, or due to the lack of a modern terminology for the shared Crown, is a matter of semantics, and does not affect constitutional reality that the "British Crown" as shared is not the same thing as the Crown within the legal jurisdiction of the UK.
It's not only a historical matter, though, it's a current matter. The Constitution Act, 1867 was never amended and numerous constitutional theorists in Canada refer to the "British Crown" as does Rouleau. Legally and constitutionally we are under the "British Crown" even if that contradicts current rebranding effors. And is "British Crown" not the Crown under which the Commonwealth realms exist?
  • "Gbambino's unique belief that something can only be in context if the entire document from which it is taken is included." Complete ignorance of my earlier statement: "You've admitted you specifically chose those quotations because out of their context they support your POV and 'original research'. You've conveniently omitted those (and deleted those) that don't because they provide more information and create a clearer picture about what Rouleau's point was -- and it actually goes against what you're trying to assert." Context does not necessarily mean the entire document, it means enough of the document to get the proper point across. Pieces chosen by a strongly biased individual do not constitute proper context.
In critical thinking, arguments based on someone else's motivation are dismissed as fallacious. We need to deal with the content of the article itself and what is actually said in the article rather than debate ulterior motives.
  • "he discusses everything *but* the actual content of the bullet point in contention." Ignoring your actions earlier and elsewhere does not provide you with justification.
Ignoring the actual content of the article negates your argument.
  • "Peter Grey seems to concede that the quote is relevent." Unfounded.
I think Peter can speak for himself.
  • "I suspect he does not want the quote there simply because he feels the reference to the "British Crown" is contrary to the view promoted by Canadian monarchists even though it is perfectly correct (as he, himself, has conceded elsewhere when he stated that in Canadian law there is no such term as "Canadian Crown" or "Crown of Canada)." What Peter asserted was that the "British Crown" as shared by the Realms is not the same thing as the Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK government. This is accepted by Canadian monarchists as reality, but is not their creation! As well, there is no such legal term as "Canadian Crown," but the words "Crown in Right of Canada" and "Crown of Canada" are included in legal documents.
That question is not touched upon in the quotation or by its context in the bullet point. All it says is that Canada and the other Commonwealth realms are under the British crown and it echoes the preamble of the 1867 constitution which asserts
there is no such legal term as "Canadian Crown," but the words "Crown in Right of Canada" and "Crown of Canada" are included in legal documents.
And there are bullet points dealing with the Crown in Right of Canada.
(And Andy, it's relevant, not relevent.
I stand corrected.

Homey 16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino, on your own talk page you concede that the entity in question is the "British Crown". You do so in a cicumlocutious manner by saying:

"The Crown over the Commonwealth Realms, AKA the British Crown by default"

Of course, there is not such legal or constitutional phrase as "The Crown of the Commonwealth Realms", the current term remains "The British Crown" (even though you concede this grudgingly by saying it's "by default") yet you object to the use of the phrase "British Crown" in anything but an historical sense in the article. Why? When you concede that it is the correct term why are you trying to hide it?Homey 17:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It would seem, in my view, that Gbambino was suggesting that while the Crown in Right of Canada is a separate entity, Canada has opted (of its own accord) to continue to concur in the succession practices of the Monarchy in Canada in keeping with the practices of the Monarchy of the United Kingdom—Canada maintains its own succession legislation, outside of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Paradokuso 08:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Modest attempt to restore sanity

Let's simply keep the quotation and also include a point similar to the following, copied from Commonwealth Realm: The Monarchy is thus no longer an exclusively British institution, although it may often be called British for historical reasons and for convenience. Peter Grey 17:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (As an aside, the quotation should go at the end of the bullet point so it's in chronological order 1926-1927-1931-2003. Peter Grey 17:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC))

I'm fine with that. Homey 17:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems silly to have to include a phrase to counteract the confusion simply so a quote, which doesn't add anything and isn't even the most illustrative or finely worded, can be included. And Andy's motives behind the inclusion of this quote are still, admittedly, in bad faith. I'm also concerned that this will set a precedent from which Andy will go from article to article inserting Rouleau quotes to try and counter legal reality (remember, Commonwealth Realm hasn't been settled yet), and they will all have to be followed by some phrase to disambiguate. Are we prepared to do this? --gbambino 17:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Of course it's silly. But at least it's progress of sorts. Peter Grey 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

More on the meaning of 'Crown'

Gbambino, you've already conceded in your talk page that the phrase "British Crown" is perfectly correct (even if "by default") so stop playing games. Homey 17:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"And Andy's motives behind the inclusion of this quote are still, admittedly, in bad faith."

Don't make things up. I've not "admitted" any bad faith and the charge is not only nonsense, it's a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith and read it. Homey 17:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Correct, but confusing without proper explanation. You've been playing games all along by focusing only on the specific words "British Crown" to assert that Canada has no sovereignty as our government is controlled by the UK Parliament. You've purposefully ignored the legal and expert sources (including Rouleau) which explain the "British Crown" as shared is different to the Crown within the jurisdiction of the UK parliament, and that no law in the UK, including succession laws, has any effect in Canada.

This is an encyclopaedia where facts should be explained as clearly as possible, not where republican fantasies should be allowed to run rampant.

If you're willing to accept that the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster, the Canada Act, and the Constitution Act grant Canada full sovereignty and independence; that the Statute of Westminster grants equality to all the Realms; that the Crown within Canada is a separate legal entity to the Crown within the UK, and that this means alterations to the UK line of succession do not have effect on the line in Canada, then I think we can proceed. --gbambino 18:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that we will have the same monarch as Britain. This is quoted by Rouleau in his ruling. Therefore, it is not at all clear that legally and constitutionally "alterations to the UK line of succession do not have effect on the line in Canada" indeed, both Rouleau and the Constitution Act suggest the opposite though we would need a further legal ruling on the question to be clear. I'm sorry, I'm not willing to suspend disbelief for you. But I don't know why this is such a big deal for you as I haven't put this in any of the articles. Homey

"focusing only on the specific words "British Crown" to assert that Canada has no sovereignty as our government is controlled by the UK Parliament."

Where have I said this? I have said that the preamble to the 1867 Constitution means that the UK parliament has jurisdiction over the succession but that's not the same as saying "our government is controlled by the UK Parliament" that is your distortion.Homey 18:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Stating you purposefully chose specific quotes out of their proper context to back up your POV and 'original research' is indeed admitting you acted in bad faith. --gbambino 18:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

1)I did not state that. I was commenting as to why you and Peter Grey object to the Rouleau quotation - you are assuming a motivation. 2) what of your admitting that the "British Crown" is the correct term to use to describe the Crown that reigns over your Commonwealth realms yet attempting at the same time to block any use of the phrase. Is that an act of good faith?

Again, do you concede that "British Crown" is a perfectly acceptable legal term? I've asked this question several times yet you refuse to answer it despite your post to your own talk page. Homey 18:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Let's not start arguing about the arguments we've had on talk pages about arguments over the article. Peter Grey 18:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Then you're leaving Gbambino nothing to talk about as 90% of his "arguments" deal with things said in talk pages (or his distortions thereof) rather than the actual content of the article which seems to be a topic he is entirely unable or unwilling to discuss. Homey 18:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay then, let's proceed with Peter's proposal. Though, with caution. Andy, what you now say you've limited to talk pages you have indeed tried to push into articles previously. For the time being, it's gone, but just because this one Rouleau quote is being included does not give you the excuse to go pushing your bizzarre personal theories into articles again. --gbambino 18:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino, don't try to defend the pathetic irrelevency of 90% of your arguments. I'm disgusted by your dishonest and disingenuous tactics and I'm not going to engage in you any further. I have less respect for you know than I did a week ago and I didn't think that was possible. Homey 18:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm heartbroken. Truly. --gbambino 18:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to need to throw myself in here. Her Majesty Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada outright—even if the United Kingdom were to cease their recognition of the Queen as their monarch, it would not have any effect on Her Majesty as our Queen, or the line to succeed her, provided that the Queen's Privy Council for Canada would continue to proclaim monarchs to the Canadian Crown in keeping with our own succession legislation. It has been established that the consent of our Parliament of Canada is required to maintain the unity between the Crowns of the Commonwealth Realms—our Realms just happen to have continued to agree on the line of succession to this day. Paradokuso 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

gbambino

It's ironic that gbambino accuses me of quoting Rouleau out of context when he does precisely that to me.

Several times now, gbambino has posted this quotation:

"Any of the quotations in regards to the "British Crown" ... put into doubt the contention that there is a Canadian Crown or that it is equal to the British Crown."

while omitting what follows:

"I'm sorry Peter but you are letting your POV interfere with a fair presentation of the facts. If you want to be a fair editor then you can't filter out information because you think it might be misunderstood. Indeed, I don't think you are capable of being editing fairly or independently of your deeply seated POV."[3]

Looking at the whole paragraph, it's clear I'm commenting on what I think is Peter's motivation for opposing the Rouleau quotation. Gbambino acts in "bad faith" by excising the second part of my comment so that he can imply that the first setence refers to my motivation rather than Peter's.

Gbambino, you should be ashamed of yourself. Homey 18:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The second quote gbambino uses: ""The quote makes clear that Commonwealth Realms, or at least Canada, are under the "British Crown" despite popular mythology that we are not."

This is in response to the question:

"Can you explain what you think the quote adds to the article? What idea it conveys that isn't already stated at least once?"

I stand by what I said. The quotation does make clear that we are under the "British Crown" despite mythology (or what I refer to as "rebranding") that the Crown is entirely Canadian. It does add that to the article and I'm sorry if that is in contradiction to your efforts to deny the British nature of the crown but to use this statement to argue that I am acting in "bad faith" is ridiculous or at the very least a logical fallacy. So I'm sorry gbambino, your "bad faith" charge is not only not proven, it was, if I may say so, made in bad faith.Homey 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

My comments

I realize that I'm coming somewhat late to this discussion (reading through the talk page took a fair bit of time ...), and that the main issue may now be resolved to the satisfaction of most parties. Nonetheless, I'll offer my opinions in the event that this dispute flares up again.

I have never doubted that the monarchy in Canada is essentially "British"; whether, to what extent, and in what sense it is also "Canadian" strikes me as a more obscure legal point, not likely to be decided in any definitive sense unless the issue is brought before the Supreme Court of Canada, or explicitly determined by the Canadian parliament.

As there is no definitive legal statement on this point, our attention should therefore turn to precedent:

The oft-cited Royal Styles and Titles Act of 1953 lists Elizabeth's official title as "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". From my perspective, this sets a strong precedent in favour of the monarch of Canada holding his/her title by virtue of being monarch of the United Kingdom. An objection could be raised that this Act required the approval of the Canadian parliament to come into force, or that it is not binding upon future decisions relating to the monarchy -- but this is beside the point of the present discussion.

Judge Rouleau's ruling may be not entirely definitive, but it draws upon the same basic interpretation -- as does St. Laurent's quote from 1953.

As to the article page: I have no strong objection to the wording of the current edit, although I wonder if this "British precedent" could be made clearer in an earlier section.

I've also moved a sentence, hopefully without changing its basic meaning. CJCurrie 05:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


The fact that the Royal Styles and Titles Act, 1953 still contains the words "United Kingdom" may affect perceptions about the "nationality" of the Monarchy, at least in regards to Canada. If Canada followed the example of almost every other Realm and removed the words "United Kingdom" from the Queen's title (as the Act discussed is one of Canadian Parliament, not the UK), then perceptions might shift slightly. However, the wording of the Royal Styles and Titles Act doesn't affect the constitutional reality that the Monarchy is symmetrically shared, and legally is as equally "Canadian" as it is "British" or "Australian," or that the Monarch of Canada is chosen by sovereign Canadian constitutional law, not British law.

Rouleau's ruling has no effect on either existing constitutional law, nor do I see it as altering any cultural perceptions of the Crown's "nationality" (save for those who desperately want it to).

I'm content with the wording as it is now, and there should be no mention of any "British precedent" unless it is in regards to cultural perceptions and republicans trying to enhance it for political reasons (though, this is now being somewhat dealt with at Commonwealth Realm. --gbambino 15:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear:

  • Perception as British, or actually being British? "British" in the sense of the United Kingdom, or something more general? Or "British" the way British Columbia is British? Peter Grey 16:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant "British" in the sense of "pertaining to the nation of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland)". The British monarch was Canada's head of state before the British Empire formally came into being in 1857, and remained Canada's head of state during the period of the British Empire. Notwithstanding a technical change in this relationship after the creation of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the actual royal line is unchanged -- and the leader of this line remains first and foremost the monarch of Great Britain. (While I can understand the logic of monarchists in arguing for a "Canadian crown", their case seems rather tenuous -- resting upon a questionable definition of previous statutes, and unsupported by any clear legal finding or judgement ... or even by precedent.)
    • Notwithstanding this, I notice that you've recently used the phrase "Commonwealth-British" the Commonwealth Realm talk page (in distinction from the phrase "UK-British"). Perhaps this phrase could lead the way to an acceptable compromise. Elizabeth II reigns as Queen of Canada by virtue of her position as leader of the British Commonwealth of Nations -- and this, in turn, is a position which she holds by virtue of her standing as the Queen of Britain. Therefore, if you wish to refer to the Queen as holding domain in Canada by virtue of her position as the head of the British Commonwealth, I would not object. CJCurrie 03:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"The British monarch was Canada's head of state before the British Empire formally came into being in 1857, and remained Canada's head of state during the period of the British Empire." This is a little misleading, as Canada was not a state at that time, but a colony and then Dominion of the United Kingdom, unlike the situation today where the country is a completely sovereign nation, and thus a proper state. [gbambino]

  • I never claimed otherwise. My point was that the British monarch has served as Canada's nominal head of state through a variety of constitutional changes -- and that the line remains unchanged, notwithstanding Balfour and Westminster. CJCurrie 18:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"...the leader of this line remains first and foremost the monarch of Great Britain" Again, in what sense? On what grounds can one say the Queen is "first and foremost" the Queen of the United Kingdom over her role as Queen of Jamaica, or Queen of New Zealand? Again, legally, absolutely not. But culturally? Open to speculation. [gbambino]

  • Elizabeth II is first and foremost the monarch of the United Kingdom, in common parlance and historical precedent. Her other titles flow, at least historically, from Britain's position as leader of the Commonwealth of Nations. CJCurrie 18:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Elizabeth II reigns as Queen of Canada by virtue of her position as leader of the British Commonwealth of Nations-- and this, in turn, is a position which she holds by virtue of her standing as the Queen of Britain." Not at all. Elizabeth II reigns as Queen of Canada purely and absolutely by Canadian constitutional law. As well, she is not the head of the Commonwealth of Nations because she is the UK monarch, but because the nations of the Commonwealth decided she should be (thus, Charles will not automatically take his mother's place as head of the Commonwealth simply because he takes her place as Sovereign of the UK). --gbambino 18:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps not automatically, but he will certainly assume the role *by extension of* his place as Sovereign of the UK. CJCurrie 18:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct that for the vast majority of the Monarchy's history the institution has been primarily associated with what we now know as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and those long-standing associations (centuries long) can't be shaken off in a matter of decades. However, attitudes and perceptions change, and this is why I stated that though many still perceive the Monarchy as a fundamentally British institution, a good number also, once realising the current constitutional situations, see it as evolving into a multi-national one. It's open to interpretation-- though I think more so now than ever previously. [gbambino]
    • Many for some. Not for most, I would think. And while advocates of the "Maple Crown" have the right to promote their beliefs, I don't think they have any real legal standing. CJCurrie 03:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
As for Charles becoming head of the Commonwealth of Nations by extension of becoming Sovereign of the UK, perhaps. But as I understand it, it is really up to the member states to decide who becomes the head of the organization upon the demise of the Queen. Maybe they will 'elect' Charles by default, but perhaps not. None-the-less, whatever happens in terms of that position will have no effect on him becoming King of Canada. --gbambino 21:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you're mistaken on the latter point. If the head of the British Commonwealth is the same for all nations, and the rules of succession cannot be changed except by the agreement of all nations, then logically the head of the British Commonwealth must be the monarch of Canada (see below). (And, as I understand it, the established rules of succession would mandate the choice of the next leader -- there wouldn't be an "election" at all.) CJCurrie 03:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you're mistaking the 16 Commonwealth Realms with the 53 states that form the Commonwealth of Nations. The head of the Commonwealth of Nations is, I believe, selected by the member-states of that organization. As for the Commonwealth Realms, the Sovereign is chosen by each individual state's constitutional law, only the Statute of Westminster sets out the convention that they should all agree on who it should be to maintain a unified Crown. The UK legally holds no superiority over the other 15 Realms. Thus the UK should not unilaterally alter its line of succession, and if it did, that new monarch would not automatically become Sovereign of Canada. --gbambino 16:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right -- I was using the phrase "Commonwealth of Nations" when "Commonwealth Realms" would have been the correct choice. Thanks for the correction. That said, the rest of your answer strikes me as a dodge. True, the rules of the game will obviously change if the UK changes its line of succession. If the UK *doesn't* change its line of succession, however, then the line of succession will remain the same in Britain as in the other Commonwealth nations -- and the monarch of Canada will hold this position by virtue of being the monarch of the British Commonwealth (which, in turn, he/she holds by virtue of being the leader of the historical British royal line).

role of Statute of Westminster

As for the Commonwealth Realms, the Sovereign is chosen by each individual state's constitutional law, only the Statute of Westminster sets out the convention that they should all agree on who it should be to maintain a unified Crown. This logic seems awfully close to "Any successor you like, as long as it's Charles". CJCurrie 21:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The relationship of the 16 Realms in regards to the Crown is a symmetrical, or equal one. Thus, who will be Sovereign really is decided by unanimous agreement by the Realms, and any future changes would necessitate their approval. This is why Tony Blair has stated that a removal of the bar on Catholics to the Throne will not be dealt with for some time to come as any changes will require the consent of the other Realms. If the UK did unilaterally alter the line of succession, the effect would be much the same as if Canada did -- a 'fracturing' of the Crown. This is why the Statute of Westminster (part of constitutional law in both countries) spells out the convention that neither nation should act unilaterally in terms of the Monarchy. --gbambino 22:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
in theory. Of course, the actions of the Irish Free State upon Edward VIII's abdication demonstrate that the preamble is not binding and a change in the succession can proceed even when approval by all the realms has not been obtained. Homey 22:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The preamble is indeed not legally binding, but it does create a convention central to the relationship of the Realms under the Crown. In the case of Ireland, it has been discussed already elsewhere that Ireland had indeed given their approval to the change in succession but the Irish Prime Minister had botched his end of the bargain by not getting legislation passed by the deadline set, thus leaving Ireland as the only Realm out of the loop, so to speak. The results of his irresponsibility were corrected the following day and George VI was recognised as King of Ireland. Thus, any Realm has it within their power to alter the line within their own jurisdiction without approval from the other Realms, but in doing so would breach the agreement set out by the Statute of Westminster and cause a 'fracturing' of the Crown. --gbambino 03:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is therefore simply a stated intent that consent of the realms be obtained. If that is inconvenient, it can simply be disregarded. (Which is basically what I've been saying all along). Homey 08:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a stated intent that has become a constitutional convention central to the relationship of the Realms under the unitary Crown. If it is inconvenient it cannot simply be disregarded, as Rouleau makes clear in his ruling. --gbambino 13:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the point needs to be stated more clearly (personally, I'm not sure it does), I would recommend using Richard Toporoski's expert opinion, which clearly and (more importantly) succinctly explains both the legal implications and potential political implications. (Peter Grey)
Oddly, when Toporoski addressed the question of a division in the crown in an article I cited in Talk:Commonwealth Realm,(which I think is what you are referring to) he didn't even mention the Statute of Westminster. I know he's the MLC's house theorist and everything but I'm a bit dubious about his thoroughness. Homey 22:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To be technically precise, I should rephrase: "the monarch of Canada cannot be otherwise than the head of the British Commonwealth". CJCurrie 03:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, the "British Commonwealth" is now the Commonwealth of Nations, and the head of that organization has nothing to do with the constitutional monarchy of the 16 Commonwealth Realms. The Sovereign of Canada can be whomever Canada decides, however Canada has agreed through the Statute of Westminster to have the same sovereign not only as the UK, but as all the other Commonwealth Realms. This is why the Ontario Justice Rouleau refers to the relationship between the Commonwealth Realms as one of "symmetry." --gbambino 16:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

nor do I see it as altering any cultural perceptions of the Crown's "nationality"

That would be because the broad cultural perception in Canada (and elsewhere) is that the Crown is British.

I'm content with the wording as it is now, and there should be no mention of any "British precedent" unless it is in regards to cultural perceptions

But it's not just cultural - it remains the "British Crown" legally and, of course, historically. Homey 17:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Crown is "historically" British? Yes, as much as the Indian government is "historically" British. As for it being legally British, you've tried this argument elsewhere and it has been exposed as hollow. --gbambino 18:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino and POV

Gbambino is again showing his POV by removing factual information that he doesn't like or thinks reflects badly on the monarchist position. Several times he has softened references to the fact that only Canada and Grenada retain royal titles for the Queen that list the UK prior to themselves. He softens this by changing the reference to merely retaining the UK in their royal titles. Given that it is a fact that these two countries also list the UK prior to themselves there is no justifiable reason for Gbambino's edit aside from his political agenda. If he does not stop this behaviour I will ask for this article to be protected again and will open an RFC on Gbambino. Homey 20:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, ask for the article to be protected and request an RFC. As there are clear and logical reasons for my edits (read below) I am not frightened by your hollow threats. However, if you're going to have a temper tantrum over the fact that some people wont stand idly by while you try to use Wikipedia as a means through which you can make the Monarchy in Canada seem as foreign as possible, I suspect the moderators would rather you did it in a corner at home rather than waste their time with it here. --gbambino 21:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

UK first, second or whatever

The fact that the original 1953 Royal Styles and Titles Act passed in each Realm listed the Queen's position as Queen of the United Kingdom prior to her position as Queen of (relevant Realm) is already established in the sentence: "When a new Royal Style and Titles Act was passed at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, it explicitly identified the Queen's role in the United Kingdom and her role in Canada separately, with her role as Queen of the United Kingdom listed before her role as Queen of Canada."

It is then explained that only the UK, Canada and Grenada currently retain the 1953 Act: "Although most other Commonwealth Realms have since removed any explicit reference to the United Kingdom in their versions of Elizabeth II's title, Canada retains its original 1953 Act. As of 2005, other than the United Kingdom, Grenada is the only other Realm to do the same."

Thus, if it is already clear that the 1953 Act lists the Queen's role as Queen of the UK prior to her role as Queen of Canada or Grenada, and it is made clear that only Canada and Grenada retain the 1953 Act, then it naturally follows that Canada and Grenada are the only two to list Queen of the UK prior to Queen of Canada or Grenada. To state they remain the only two to list Queen of the UK prior to Queen of Canada or Grenada is both repetitious and a statement of the obvious. --gbambino 21:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


I've rewritten the section in order to make it more succinct (thus addressing your stated concern) while also making it less oblique (which was my concern with your wording. Homey 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the article is now protected please indicate here if my working is acceptable. If not suggest another wording, here on the talk page. Homey 21:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just protected the article (apparently seconds after your rewording, I didn't notice it), but if you both agree on this compromise, it can be unprotected just as quickly. BTW, edit wars are a Bad Thing. Dmcdevit·t 21:41, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, what you've done is fine by me. It achieves the same effect as I thought my edits did, perhaps better. --gbambino 21:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected :) sheesh! (and you might want to archive this talk page). Dmcdevit·t 21:49, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Homey 21:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

incomplete Monarchs of Canada list?

Not sure if this issue has already been raised but here goes...

The article states: A list of monarchs of New France, British North America and Canada:

I don't feel that this list is quite complete as there are several parts of Canada which were under British posession prior to 1763 (the earliest date given in the list for British monarchs). The date 1534 is given for the beginning of French rule, presumably dated to Cartier's claim, however Cabot's claim (on Newfoundland) is 1497. Also, Nova Scotia came under Scottish rule from 1621-1632(?), and more specifically, peninsular Nova Scotia came under permanent British rule beginning in 1713. Therefore I would say that English monarchs from 1497-1707 (date of the Act of Union) are needed, British monarchs 1707-present, as well as Scottish monarchs from 1621-1632(?), however I think these were from England's House of Stewart during this period(?).Plasma east 03:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right. I'll get to work on the section using a two-column table. Indefatigable 21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Henry VII to Mary I are missing. IP Address 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Title

The Queen's title is actually Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

In 1952 it was made clear that

  • each title in each realm uses the format "Queen of {name of country}". The official countryless version was "Queen of this realm";
  • The United Kingdom has not featured in the royal title outside the UK during the current queen's reign;
  • As the royal website makes clear, "Defender of the Faith" is only used in the UK.

It is depressing when something as basic as the royal title is shown in a monumentally wrong, made-up form in an encyclopædia article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. What's more depressing is when an editor arrogantly assumes he must be correct rather than check his facts. Please see the text of the Royal Style and Titles Act passed by the Canadian parliament and still in force:

Royal Style and Titles Act

CHAPTER R-12

An Act respecting the Royal Style and Titles

Preamble


WHEREAS the Prime Ministers and other representatives of Commonwealth countries assembled in London in the month of December, in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, considered the form of the Royal Style and Titles, and recognizing that the present form is not in accordance with present constitutional relations within the Commonwealth, concluded that, in the present stage of development of the Commonwealth relationship, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position that each member country should use for its own purposes a form suitable to its own particular circumstances but retaining a substantial element common to all;

AND WHEREAS the said representatives of all the Commonwealth countries concerned agreed to take such action as is necessary in each country to secure the appropriate constitutional approval for the changes now envisaged;

AND WHEREAS, in order to give effect to the aforesaid conclusions, it is desirable that the Parliament of Canada should assent to the issue of a Royal Proclamation establishing the Royal Style and Titles for Canada:

THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Short title


1. This Act may be cited as the Royal Style and Titles Act.

Assent to Royal Style and Titles


2. 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.

R.S., c. R-12, s. 1.

Homey 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Australia used to have "United Kingdom" and "Defender of the Faith" in their royal titles act as well, changing in the 1960s. Astrotrain 22:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


Actually, Australia's change in wording was during the ministry of Gough Whitlam in the 1970s. Canada's wording has never been changed. Grenada's title for the Queen also mentions the UK. Homey 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


"As the royal website makes clear, "Defender of the Faith" is only used in the UK."

Actually, the royal website says "The words 'Defender of the Faith' are also included in the styles and titles used by The Queen in Canada and New Zealand."[4] Homey 22:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The title referred to in the article (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 the correct title, and Homey's examples are accurate. However, it is the first time a monarch has been titled as Queen of Canada. The wording of the title is a list of three separate ones: Queen of the UK, Queen of Canada, and Queen of her other Realms and territories. The Canadian Heritage website specifically refers to this: "Following the untimely death of her father King George VI on February 6, 1952, The Princess Elizabeth acceded to the Throne as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and was separately proclaimed Queen of Canada." 1 As well at CBC: 2 And the Bank of Canada: 3 --gbambino 22:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Literally speaking, there is no such title as "Queen of Canada" however, the title for Elizabeth II does mean she is Canada's Queen. Anway, I think my edit referring to the mention of Canada is more correct but I concede it is a hair-splitting semantic argument. Homey 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Try reading the title you put in from the 1950s. It says unambiguously that she is Queen of Canada. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious! You wade in with yet another arrogantly dismissive post while completely evading the fact that you were absolutely wrong on the Queen's title in Canada, or that you were wrong in your assertions on "Defender of the Faith" or references to the UK elsewhere. Fear ÉIREANN, before you weigh in on this question don't you think you should first admit that you were wrong before and that moreoever, you compounded your error with your arrogant and pompous dismissal of what was actually a factual statement?Homey 23:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Try reading the title. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you capable of even a modicum of humility? Aren't you the least bit embarrassed about having said "It is depressing when something as basic as the royal title is shown in a monumentally wrong, made-up form in an encyclopædia article," when the title was actually correct until you changed it?Homey 23:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I had a wrong link to a draft bill that was not introduced. You however have been claiming for ages that there is no such title as "Queen of Canada". Explain then why the Act you quote explicitly creates it? It is rather strange that you continue to insist something that your own edit disproves. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm, you also asked me on my talk page: "Where on earth did you get that nonsensical version of the Queen's title for Canada?" despite the fact that I included a hyperlink to my source, the Department of Justice, which you evidently couldn't be bothered to click on. You also made false claims about the use of "Defender of the Faith" and references to the UK in the Queen's title. Was this the fault of your "wrong link" as well? Yet, you have yet to say "oops, I'm sorry, I was wrong". As to your offensive defence, I had stated before there is no such term as "Crown of Canada" and Peter Grey amongst others have backed me up. My reading of the Royal Style and Titles Act is that while it means there is a Queen of Canada (which is what I said earlier in my response to gbambino) there is no explicit title of "Queen of Canada" but clearly my interpretation differs from others, including the government which, as you pointed out, uses the term "Queen of Canada" in the citizenship oath so I'll concede that point. Homey 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


I'd say it's not really hair splitting, and the first time there's been a separately titled Queen of Canada is important, both symbolically and legally. If we edit out the parts of the list that don't matter to this discussion, we're left with: Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen. We can read this like we would any list, seeing three separate entities: United Kingdom, Canada, and other Realms and territories. So her one Canadian title calls her Queen of the UK, Queen of Canada, and Queen of her other Realms and territories. Can Heritage, the Bank of Canada, and the CBC (all govt. organizations) recognise and acknowledge this fact. --gbambino 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Representing Canada in visits to the United States

I believe that when Her Majesty visits the United States, she is usually doing so as Queen of Canada rather than Queen of the United Kingdom. I'm thinking of when she opened the St. Lawrence Seaway jointly with President Dwight Eisenhower. Also, I seem to remember seeing pictures of her at the funeral procession for President John F. Kennedy accompanied by the Canadian Red Ensign (then Canada's flag) rather than the Royal Union Flag/Union Jack. However, on their 2005 visit to the United States, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall did not explicitly represent Canada. I remember seeing them meeting with President George W. Bush accompanied by the Union Jack rather than the Canadian Flag.--MarshallStack 22:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

She has made visits as Queen of Canada and as Queen of the United Kingdom. When she visited in 1957, it was as Queen of Canada. When she visited in 1991, it was as Queen of the United Kingdom. I also don't think she came to Kennedy's funeral. The only foreign funeral she has gone to was that of King Baudouin of Belgium. --Ibagli 16:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Military

Do we have any evidence for the claims being made in regards to military unification? Homey 00:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if there was a genuine intention to reduce the visibility of the monarchy - it might be better described as an unfortunate side-effect. Peter Grey 20:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Read Larry Milberry's book Sixty Years: The RCAF and CF Air Command for the reactions of top Canadian brass to unification (particularly RCAF Air Marshals and RCN Admirals). Also read this report: [[5]]. An issue of the now-defunct magazine Esprit de Corps Canadian Military: Then & Now from September, 1991, has a lengthy article by W.B.S. Sutherland on the deleterious effect unification had on the Canadian military's connection with the Crown. I still have the issue (Vol. 1, Issue 4); I bought it in Windsor in late 1991.--MarshallStack 06:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The question is was there a deliberate effort to downplay the crown or was this a side-effect? Is there anything in Cabinet minutes, political memoirs etc that indicates a deliberate republican policy as was implied in the edit?Homey 14:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems the effect on the relationship between the Crown and military was a side-effect, although certainly a noteworthy one. The underlying purpose was more related to subordinating Canada to NATO and/or the US, but I'm not sure if that's verifiable. Peter Grey 17:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Monarchs

It's clear that a French line and a British line of monarchs ruled over different parts of Canada over the centuries. But when it comes to Elizabeth II we have to deal with the fact that the laws making her sovereign of Canada, the laws of succession outlining who inherits the Canadian throne, the laws titling her Queen of Canada, etc., are now all Canadian law, not British. That means a separate line of succession in Canada, even if it happens to be symmetrical to the UK's. (That each Realm now holds control over succession to its Crown was demonstrated in 1936 when all the Realms passed legislation allowing for George VI to accede to the throne except for Ireland who didn't pass their legislation until a day later - meaning that for one day Edward VIII remained King of Ireland while George VI became king of all the other countries.) So to say that the line of British monarchs still reigns over Canada is incorrect. --gbambino 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into the semantics of this again, but perhaps "Commonwealth line" would solve the problem. CJCurrie 23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering what exactly is wrong with "Canadian line" -- it is the line as laid out by Canadian constitutional law, effective in Canada only. What else could it possibly be called? "Commonwealth line," in my mind, doesn't work because a) not all Commonwealth countries share the Queen as head of state, and b) there is no one Commonwealth-wide, overreaching law that sets out the line of succession in every Realm; each Commonwealth Realm has its own laws, with no force or effect in any other Realm. I looked elsewhere on this page but couldn't find any previous debate about this topic. --gbambino 23:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not this topic specifically, but you'll probably remember that the question of a distinct "Canadian monarchy" has been raised before. I'm not going to repeat what I wrote at that time, but my objections remain applicable to this debate. CJCurrie 23:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, your personal objections aside, we have to deal with facts. Canada's line of succession is laid out in law which is separate to the UK's. What then do you call that line? --gbambino 23:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(i) My objections were factual, (ii) the "line" refers to more than simply the mechanism of succession.

What then do you call that line?

That would appear to be the question, wouldn't it? CJCurrie 23:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

a) is there any consensus among Canadian constitutional scholars that there is now a "Canadian" line in the monarchy. b) are there even any citable sources that make such a claim.

This seems to be a personal opinion extrapolated from the change in the royal title. I am unaware of any constitutional experts who claim that the change in the Royal Styles and Titles Act has created a new royal lineage (which is what "line" means) - let alone a consensus. In the absence of any citable sources (not original research but an actual source saying there is now a "Canadian line") the claim is POV and original research and does not belong here. Homey 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act and everything to do with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. And equally, in the absence of any citable sources, the claim that the line in Canada is still British is POV, original research, and does not belong here. --gbambino 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW - Judge Rouleau recognises and speaks about the laws governing succession in Canada as being separate to those in the UK in his O'Donohue ruling.
This isn't about trying to assert that the Monarchy is Canadian, but that the line (which is what the section in question is about) in Canada now is. Or, at least, it is no longer British. --gbambino 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Easy solution this time?

Could we add an asterix after Elizabeth within the "British line", and note the changed mechanism of succession in a footnote? CJCurrie 00:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tried a solution with "Shared line between Britain and Canada." Of course, the line is shared symmetrically with fifteen other countries, but "Shared line between Canada and other Commonwealth Realms" just seems too damn long. --gbambino 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Debate on Monarchy in Canada Section

I suggest moving this section as well as the polls into it's own linked section. The Monarchy in Canada page should focus on the institution itself, it's history and it's present nature , while the debate page can focus on the debate itself between stakeholders. There seems to be enough info in the debate section to merit its own seperate entry. WJRB 15:05, March 9th 2006

Cost of Crown

I deleted the statistic on the cost of the crown per Canadian with the explanation that this was POV; after all, we don't include this sort of statistic for other government expenditures. Gbambino reverted this edit without the courtesy of an explanation. My argument still stands. I realize that the statistic is factual, but I would also point out that in other articles we do not divide expenditures by the number of Canadians. What reason is there to do so, other than to make the point that the monarchy costs little, which is a POV judgement. What do others think? HistoryBA 21:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it a revert without explanation - as I'm sure others will note. However, if including what the cost was to each person in 2004 contradicts some Wikipedia policy, I'm happy to remove it. It just seemed like pertinent, and completely NPOV information that readers might find useful. --gbambino 21:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you will acknowledge that I explained that I thought the material was POV and that you reverted without explaining why you disagreed. Could I ask you for the source of the figure. Did you calculate it yourself? HistoryBA 21:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I explained where the number came from, hence it is not my POV, but sourced information. If you read the report linked in the article 1, I'm sure you'll see that page one states the population number comes from Statistics Canada's Demographic Statistics from October 2004, and the total expenditure on the Crown is calculated in detail through the following 11 pages. As the conclusion of the report states, the overall cost was approximately $49,000,000, or $1.53 per person. The UK government has also broken down the head of state expenditures in a similar fashion: 2 --gbambino 21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, I do not doubt that the information is factual. The question is whether including it here (when we don't include this sort of statistic on other pages dealing with government expenditures) is inherently POV. Would you support including a per capita statistic on any page that lists a figure on government expenditures? Furthermore, I am not sure what your point is on the UK government. Are you suggesting that the UK government does not have a POV? HistoryBA 23:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand how factual, cited information is POV. Who's point of view precicely is it? If there exists per capita numbers for other government expenditures, then I'd have no objection to their inclusion.
Bottom line is, without the per capita breakdown the section still gives a cost for the Crown, so it isn't 100% necessary to give a per person cost. But, the per person cost is a researched, documented, and published number, so I can't see how it's POV or inadmissable by Wikipedia standards.
Of course, others may have different opinons, or know something more than me on this matter. --gbambino 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is accurate, if it it relevant and if it is factual then it goes in. That is the rule on content. The content is accurate, relevant and factual. Therefore it belongs in the article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Though the information is accurate and factual, the Monarchy in Canada article has been a bit of a spring board for various points of view on the monarchy rather than delivering facts in context. If the Cost of the Crown is to be incorporated into the article it should be done in a historical context(compared to past costs), in context of privilages the monarch enjoys, or in context of the such events prompted the enquirey(if the monarchy debate is the context that prompted the enquirey it should be in another article on that debate), it should not be its own section. --WJRB 11:48, 21 March 2006

  • The cost of the monarchy comes up in republican criticisms. The cost should be cited in that context. So it could be considered ever so slightly point-of-view because there's a suggestion that supporting the head of state is an aberration. On the other hand, the money Canadians 'save' by having an absentee Head of State could be considered noteworthy. I guess it could work either way. Peter Grey 02:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Monarchy in Canada/archive2 has failed for the following reason:

(The page history shows constant editing and back and forth between opposing points of view, an obvious fail.)
  • Please sign your comments with ~~~~ Davodd 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Olaf I of Norway

I added some information regarding the Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, and it being the first North American colony settled by subjects of a non-indigenous king: Olaf I of Norway. As the kings of France who established other colonies in present day Canada are listed as Monarchs of Canada, would Olaf I count as well? The Norse colony only lasted three years, but would it technically still count? --gbambino 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it would depend on whether the colony was an entirely private venture of people who were ethnically Norse, or was a venture of the Norwegian (Icelandic?) government. Now, most colonization was neither strictly what we would now call public sector nor strictly private sector, but in the case of L'Anse aux Meadows, I'm not convinced the government in Norway even knew about it. I think at a minimum it would be necessary to establish that some official relationship existed. Peter Grey 17:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just found that Ericson was from Iceland during the period of the Icelandic Commonwealth, where the state had no head - and therefore no king. --gbambino 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Length

It strikes me that this article is far too long. Am I the only one who thinks so? HistoryBA 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried to edit down the text somewhat, especially in the history section, but the article does still seem to be overly long. --gbambino 19:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree I found it by mistake but found myself reading it all and I learnt lots about the monarchy in Canada that I did not know before. Please dont reduce it, this info is not really available anywhere else that I have seen.

Monarchs of Canada

Gbambino, who rules this page with an iron fist, wants the list of "monarchs of Canada" to include every King of England and France who have existed while any part of what later became "Canada" was colonized. If one is to make a list of "Monarchs of Canada" and not simply "Monarchs who have presided over the colonization of North America" it seems to me that the list must begin in 1867, when Canada became a country. There was no "Canada" in the 1500's, so it seems rather spurious to identify someone as being "monarch of Canada" for that time period. J.J. 21:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. Perhaps we should rename this page to Monarchy in British North America and create a new page for Monarchy in Canada? W00p 22:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As it clearly says, the list is "A list of monarchs of New France, British North America and Canada" (and, no, Iron Fist himself did not write that). The first one in the list, Francis I, established French colonies in Acadia and Canada (again, not written by yours truly). So, unless you want to deny the existence of the colonies and territories known as Canada ("The vast territories that were to be known as Acadia and Canada were..."), The Canadas, and the Province of Canada, I trust you'll reinstate the chart as it existed previously. If you really object to this, you'll have to push for the renaming of Canada under British Imperial Control (1764-1867), and a heavy editing of History of Canada, French Canadian, United Empire Loyalists, Province of Quebec (1763-1791), British North America, Quebec Act, Post-Confederation Canada (1867-1914), and so on, all of which often speak of "Canada" as existing in some form or another prior to 1867. --gbambino 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Legally though there was no Canada until 1867, and as such no Monarch of what is today recognized as Canada. Sure Canada existed in other forms before, but by that same token you could create a "Kings of the United States" page and throw George the Third on and such. It's technically true that there have been King's of what later became the United States of America, but it wouldn't really make any sense. If JJ really wanted to get bitchy he could just delete everything up until when Lizzie became Queen, since she's the first legal Queen of Canada if I recall correctly. Regardless, JJ's in the right here (as usual). --24.68.182.5 09:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Two republicans agreeing does not the right answer make. In fact, Anon., you've refused to address the point that various Wikipedia articles make reference to Canada existing in one form or another prior to 1867 (post 1867 is a moot debate - the country was considered a kingdom by the Fathers of Confederation despite still being a dominion of the British Crown). That means there were monarchs over territory known as Canada since the 1500s, though not necessarily over Canada as the modern nation we know today.
In fact, it's not only Wikipedia. Senator Serge Joyal, and the Senate itself, seems to think there were monarchs of Canada before Confederation, else wise, why would there be portraits of kings from before 1867 hanging in the Royal portrait gallery outside the Senate in Ottawa? Note this information from the Senate says "Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British, who have had a significant influence on our country's development." The list, from the same source, of Canadian monarchs begins with Francois I.
Also, this educational pamphlet from the Department of Canadian Heritage states: "Canada has long been a monarchy - under the kings of France in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, under the British Crown in the 18th and 19th centuries, and as a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward."
Personally, I'd rather go by the official sources than simply what John (J.J.) asserts. --gbambino 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a rather odd tendency to defer to authority rather than facts. The facts are quite clear: There was no "Canada" proper until 1867. Ergo there was no "Monarch" of Canada, King of Canada, Duke of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada, President of Canada, or anything else "of Canada" until Canada proper existed. Since you bring it up, I'm frankly not a fan of other historical writings that claim "Canada" existed prior to 1867 either, for example, those who claim that "Canada" fought the US in the 1812 War. It's revisionist history. There was Upper / Lowe Canada, and the United Province of Canada, but frankly I resent the implication that the history of those places is the history "of Canada" since they represented only a portion of what the country is today.

I have no problem with a list of "Monarchs of Canada," but if that title is to be used it seems revisionist to list a bunch of French and English monarchs who had nothing to do with the state of Canada as it exists today. The other guy makes a good point, one could just as easily make lengthy lists of "Monarchs of the United States" or "Monarchs of Ghana" etc with similar logic. But no one would consider such lists meaningful or factually accurate. J.J. 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually authorities are a good source of facts - it's why we cite sources at Wikipedia, and not just insert what we believe to be true, as seems to be your editing fashion, John. If you don't believe that the history of Canada extends beyond 1867, so be it - but your "facts" don't reflect what the majority (including experts, or "authorities") think to be true.
Nobody's claiming the previous monarchs are Canadians themselves, only that they were French and British kings and queens ruling and later reigning over land which was called Canada, and which evolved to become modern Canada. This isn't a radical observation, or "revisionist history" as you put it.
Of course we can't speak of monarchs of the United States because there was no such thing as the United States before that nation came into existence through rebellion - a violent break from the Crown. Canada, on the other hand, emerged from evolution, which, not coincidentally, happened under an unbroken reign of successive monarchs.
Whether or not you like authority, in the absence of any real claim against it, we have to stick to the available facts. If you can come up with a credible historian who claims that Canada's monarchical heritage begins only in 1867, well, we'll have to acknowledge that contradictory theory. If you can't, then we can't pretend that it exists. --gbambino 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Gavin said: "...why would there be portraits of kings from before 1867 hanging in the Royal portrait gallery outside the Senate in Ottawa?" You can't be serious; that doesn't even validate your next statement that the Kings / Queens were in "possession of what is now Canada". The operative words being "what is now". The article refers to the Canadian monarchy in the contemporary sense, (and I'm certain Gavin will be at pains to tell us that it is indeed now a Canadian Monarchy and not a British one) hence you cannot simply tack on all and sundry monarchs with some claim to what is now Canada. It is simply illogical. --Lholden 00:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. Republicans in New Zealand working with republicans in Canada - seems like Common Cause is at work!
Regardless, I'm sure you'll note that the article refers to the Monarchy in it's modern form and function in Canada, but that it also outlines the history of the Monarchy's development in and alongside the country. How, then, could anyone in their right mind possibly argue that an unbroken list of monarchs who ruled and reigned over Canada from its existence as colonies through to its modern nationhood does not belong in the History section of the article on Monarchy in Canada? --gbambino 18:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For a table of Canadian Heads of State, Henry VII and Francis I would certainly be out of place, but the table is simply describing Monarchs who have ruled over the territory which is now Canada. The creation of the Dominion of Canada was not a radical break in constitutional continuity the way the Rebellion in what is now the United States was. Canada's history has been largely characterized by gradual change. Francis I was king over the territory of Canada in one sense, Henry IV would have a much stronger claim as sovereign over Canada (there are statues of him to this day), and Elizabeth II was the only one to actually be crowned as Queen of Canada. Most English Canadians think of Canada as existing, in one evolving form or another, from the colonizing by the Loyalist diaspora. Then French Canadians laugh because actually half of Canada's history had already happened by then. Peter Grey 03:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter raises a good point here, many acts, treaties and statutes signed by monarchs long previous to 1867 still make up sections of Canada's modern Constitution, reflecting Canada's evolution under monarchy as opposed to the US's revolution against it. --gbambino 19:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Gavin - Regardless indeed: This isn't Common Cause at work, the article is objectively about the Monarchy in Canada. If you want to list every monarch who ruled over a crack of what now makes up Canada, then it should be part of an article on Canadian history, not the monarchy in Canada. I note that the British Monarchy is so divided. What Peter states adds nothing to your view, which IMHO is simply so the monarchists can say "look, we've got a really long history of monarchy in Canada" whilst a majority of Canadians - my relations included - scratch their heads in bemusement. --Lholden 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're extending an argument for no reason here. The table has been edited, and doesn't even exist in this article anymore. --gbambino 15:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

MLC & CCR

What's the point in reversing the order of the groups? It's sat the way it is for ages - the Monarchist League is older and larger than Citizens for a Republic, therefore it was put first. Is there some Wikipedia policy that I don't know of which states that organizations must be listed in alphabetical order? Or, is this an attempt at self promotion? --gbambino 23:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Water Ski & Wakeboard Canada

I've removed this organization from the examples given of Royal Patronage. I can't find any reference to patronage on their website and am assuming that this is vandalism. If not, the fact that they make no mention of patronage suggests that they don't consider it all that important and therefore perhaps is not the best of examples. Kscheffler 06:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism; the Canadian Waterski & Wakeboard Association is listed as one of the organizations of which HRH The Duke of Edinburgh is a patron at the Canadian Heritage website. However, you're right that the CWWA website doesn't mention the fact. --gbambino 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian spelling -ise -ize

Below is a list of Canadian style guides. In situations in which there is a difference between US & British spelling, none recommend -ise, several recommend -ize, some that do not recommend -ize use -ize (as in capitalize, authorize, organize) --JimWae 20:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In Canadian English, spelling "organize" with an "s" isn't a style choice; it's wrong. It's also frankly rather affected. Canadian English doesn't use British spellings — Canadian English uses Canadian spellings, some of which ("colour") are the same as the British spellings and others of which ("initialize") are the same as the American spellings. As this article is about the Queen of Canada and not the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Canadian spelling really should be used. Greyfedora 07:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This Article is Embarassing

"Defender of the Faith"? Please, what nonsense. I think the governor-general dropped that title the last time I looked at the Web site. Some empirical aspects of the monarchy would be useful; and much less of the anachronistic nonsense.--Lance6968 07:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Governor General could never have "dropped that title" as the Governor General never held that title. I think you'll have to have a slow and concentrated read of this article again, and hopefully it'll become clear that "Defender of the Faith" is part of the Queen's current title. If you feel it's anachronistic then please write to the Privy Council office and recommend that they alter the Royal Style and Titles Act. --gbambino 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

--Ggbroad 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)==(Note: here "British Crown" is the traditional reference to the Crown shared amongst the Realms, not the Crown in Right of the UK.)==

I have removed the above statement because it contradicts the actual quote. TharkunColl 23:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed this clause, because it is patently untrue, "which gives Canada an almost identical system of government as the UK and other Commonwealth Realms" TharkunColl 23:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed this as unsourced, "The Monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution, although it has often been called "British" since this time (in both legal and common language) for reasons historical, legal, and of convenience." TharkunColl 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this because it was never anything more than a proposal that was rejected, "(originally intended to be named the Kingdom of Canada)" TharkunColl 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is full of tendentious wishful thinking. It needs a great deal of pruning. TharkunColl 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Read through the discussions here to educate yourself on how the article came to be as it is now. Please don't cause disruption by selectively removing text that doesn't agree with your pro-British viewpoint. --gbambino 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Clever example of POV and Weasel Words

I realize that this is a quotation: "The Canadian Crown continues as a key element of our parliamentary democracy and an enduring symbol that represents all generations of Canadians and the best that is our country" and in one place it is cited as such. In another, it is not, and hence constitutes the clearest possible example of pov and the use of weasel words. Well, the end of it "represents...the best that is our country" certainly is. --Ggbroad 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat flattered you think it was clever on my part, but in reality it was just an error when I inserted the quoted block text here: [6]. Thanks for pointing it out, though. --G2bambino 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - it should have said "clear" rather than "clever". Not that it isn't clever. My mistake. And she's not my Queen. I didn't vote for her.--Ggbroad 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But she's your Queen, whether you like it or not; voting doesn't matter. Unless you live in the riding of Calgary Southwest and voted for Stephen Harper as your MP, you didn't vote for the Prime Minister either; but he's still your PM. --G2bambino 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I know and resent it every day (about that woman). But it's a Monty Python paraphrase.--Ggbroad 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How unfortunate for you. --G2bambino 18:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I know. Going about, feeling angry every time when I have to get a twenty from wallet, and there's that woman, staring back at me. (I met her once, for about eight seconds. She reminded me of my aunt Nancy, except that aunt Nancy doesn't claim to reign over me because of God.) It's not good. Stress kills. There are times where I feel like Winston Smith, y'know? That I should just give in and say, "okay, two and two is five" and be done with it and be happy. Anyway, sorry. Not meaning to disrupt the talk page for this quite fine article. Just feeling punchy today.--Ggbroad 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, not that it'll probably change your opinion on the matter, but it should at least be pointed out that EIIR has never claimed to reign over Canada because some god said she could. In the end it's the Constitution that makes her Queen of Canada. Whether the whole birth thing has to do with deities is another matter, but even if you consider that a valid point, she's then Queen of Canada through a partnership between god and our law-makers. I think the full divine right of kings ended sometime around the Magna Carta. --G2bambino 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously there is some point here that I have misunderstood, as I understand her to be styled: "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". Now if that's not a claim that God is somehow involved in the fact that she is our Queen, then I don't know what it is. I suppose at this point one could argue that, if you believe in God, he's somehow involved in every terrestrial matter, in which case that "by Grace of God" business is, at best, functionally redundant. But, again, I'm sure the misunderstanding is mine.--Ggbroad 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, it seems like our politicians do consider themselves in partnership with God when it comes to law-making; the preamble to the Charter is "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law," and the Queen didn't make up her own title, the "Grace of God" thing comes from the Royal Style and Titles Act - a Canadian law passed in 1953. --G2bambino 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but come now. It's not as though that phrase "by Grace of God" emerged intact from the minds of Canadian Parliamentarians in 1953. Clearly the suggestion that there is some kind of destinarian program involved in the selection of the monarch runs very deep: after all the name of the song (which I am just old enough to remember singing in Ontario classrooms) ain't "Parliamentary Procedure Save The Queen".--Ggbroad 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hah! No, but her title really is a matter for parliamentarians, not her alone, or even God itself. Perhaps I'm simply trying to say that God seems to still run very deep within more of our government than simply the Queen, and it's the politicians who put it there. Possibly as our government becomes more and more secular, the references to God will disappear, even from the Royal Title. --G2bambino 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This talk page is filled with objections to the POV of this article. Jonawiki 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Horrifying Compliance to Attribution in this Article

I randomly backtracked the closest footnote for a random assortment of statements in the article. The footnotes did NOT mention any of the following statements. And this was a cursory random sample. This is a joke.

Please provide the source for the following facts and assertions:

  • The Balfour Declaration of 1926 provided the dominions the right to be considered equal to Britain, rather than subordinate; an agreement that had the result of, in theory, a shared Crown that operates independently in each Realm rather than a unitary British Crown under which all the dominions were secondary.
  • In addition to the Queen's role in each of her Realms, the Canadian Monarch is also the nominal Head of the Commonwealth. Though this title does not imply any political power over member nations, and does not automatically belong to the monarch, only the shared monarch of the Commonwealth Realms has ever held this title.
  • Since the death of Queen Anne in 1714, the last monarch to head the British cabinet (when almost all of Canada was still French colonial territory), that the monarch "reigns" but does not "rule". In Canada, this has been true since the Treaty of Paris (1763) ended the reign of Canada's last absolute monarch, King Louis XV of France.
  • Succession to the throne is by male-preference primogeniture, and governed by the provisions of the Act of Settlement, as well as the English Bill of Rights. These documents, though originally passed by the Parliament of England, are now part of Canadian constitutional law, under control of the Canadian parliament only.
  • The Sovereign is deemed the "fount of justice," and is responsible for rendering justice for all subjects.
  • In Canada major public inquiries are called Royal Commissions, and are created by the Cabinet on behalf of the Monarch through a Royal Warrant.
  • The Royal Union Flag remains an official flag in Canada, though a distinctly Canadian flag was adopted in 1964 as the National Flag.
  • In 1977, Prince Charles visited Alberta to attend celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the treaty signing. During a subsequent visit by his mother in 1994, a modern demonstration of the relationship between the First Nations and the Crown was seen when the Dene community of the Northwest Territories presented a list of grievances over stalled land claim negotiations to Queen Elizabeth II, rather than to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, while the two were attending an Aboriginal Cultural Festival in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
  • Cities under Royal Charter are not subject to municipal Acts of parliament applied generally to other municipalities, and instead are governed by legislation applicable to each city individually.
  • To date, there has been little national debate about ending the Monarchy in Canada, in contrast to some other Commonwealth Realms where the issue has gained a relatively higher profile.
  • The Victoria Cross is the highest decoration in the Canadian honours system. Its motto "For Valour" was adopted on the recommendation of Queen Victoria

Of course, every time I place a fact or unreference tag, G2bambino just reverts it and then provides no explanation. Jonawiki 21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, God. Here we go again --G2bambino 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Please... indulge me... can you show me in each case where the information came from? I honestly can't find it in the closest footnote underneath. I would put a fact tag next to it but you'll just immediately revert it. Jonawiki 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You cannot be disruptive like this, especially by requiring sources for every clause of every sentence, especially when these things are very easy to very. Take a look at some featured articles and look at the level of sourcing that exemplifies the best work on Wikipedia. That should give you an idea of what's a reasonable level of sourcing. WilyD 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
But these statements are NOT easy to verify. Do YOU know where offhand to go verify them? No? THAT'S why I am asking for verification.
I agree with you per WP:ATT: "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed." Howeve, WP:ATT also says "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." No if's, and's or but's.
You can't hide behind 9,000 words and say it's too difficult to attribute everything you've written. If you don't bother to source it, then don't add it.
So are you going to verify these statements or not? Because I honestly can't find them in the footnotes you provided and I have no idea where to "verify" the statements myself to a reliable source. Jonawiki 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if I apply the google to Balfour Declaration I get the Wikipedia page on it - which is sourced to the sources you're asking for. The {{cite}} tag is designed for things you're unable to verify, not things you're unwilling to verify. WilyD 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What you say leads a silly situation. Why both sourcing anything that can be found in a Google search? Why not just get rid of half or more of the footnotes in the article right now? I'm sure I could verify all that stuff with a Google search, right?
I didn't know that WP:ATT says you don't have to source stuff if you can easily verify it yourself via Google. I thought the burden was on the editor to provide the source. Can you point me to the quote in WP:ATT that justifies your assertion? Jonawiki 22:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You know what's even funnier? I Googled Balfour Declaration of 1926, got to the Wiki article. Guess what? The Wiki article provides NO ATTRIBUTION FOR ANYTHING. Jonawiki 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Given that it (a) links to the declaration, and (b) you're looking for something that's more or less verbatim from the declaration, this statement is very easy to verify as false. WilyD 22:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Length, Neutrality, Attribution

This is a dispute about whether this article has appropriate length, neutrality and attribution. 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • This article is far too long, going into too much detail because of the vanity involved. Per WP:Size, articles generally should try to stay under 32 KB. This article is more than DOUBLE that at 73 KB. I feel the article is too filled with indiscriminate information and trivia.
  • It lacks NPOV, ghettoizing controversy and criticism to a separate article and asserting that Canadians don't have any strong feelings against the monarchy. Just read all the objections over NPOV on this talk page above and in the archives.
  • It lacks sufficient attribution. There's a huge amount of data, facts, figures, processes explained and opinions that cannot be tied back to the footnotes in the References section. Check out all the fact tags I placed throughout the article. Jonawiki 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Comments
  • The article is too long. I agree it lacks NPOV, it almost seems like trivia-laden brochureware or a long advertorial. I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to verifiability. If you can't back up a statement with a footnote, then don't put in the statement.71.167.229.158 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seems like a rather one-sided debate to me, but I'll agree that the article's length is rather unwieldy. Certain section may be able to split off into sister articles now. Though, I'm not sure why User:Jonawiki complains about the length of the article, while simultaneously complaining that "Debate on the Monarchy" has been "ghettoised" to another sister article. --G2bambino 18:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note G2bambino is one of the editors previously involved in dispute. Jonawiki 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, no I'm not. --G2bambino 20:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You're not one of the editors on this page above disputing the lack of neutrality of the article?
Above where? --G2bambino 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Jonawiki 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You dispute the length issue above at Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Monarchs_of_Canada. You dispute neutrality and length above at Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#This_Article_is_Embarassing. You dispute neutrality at Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Clever_example_of_POV_and_Weasel_Words. You've done several hundred edits to this article. And then you comment here like you're a disinterested 3rd party providing a comment and not one of the editors involved in the dispute that caused this RfC to be generated in the first place? Jonawiki 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, those debates are long closed. There has been no debate over content between me and you. --G2bambino 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You have always been fine with the article's neutrality, length and attribution. I am not. You are one of the disputing editors. You have made several hundred edits to this article. You are not a disinterested 3rd party. The point of the RfC process is to bring in disinterested 3rd parties to get an outside opinion. You're not an outside opinion and you shouldn't try to come off as one. Jonawiki 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You are simply here to create a conflict where none previously existed. --G2bambino 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is too long, though that's not really a reasonable basis for a dispute. Find some part that can make a reasonable daughter and away you go ... WilyD 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is a little long, could definitely use the splitting off of one or two daughter articles. General level of sourcing looks fine - it might be a little weak for featured article status, but it's pretty good. As for complaints about the POV - I don't see any strong evidence anything particular schenanigans are taking place - Contraversy and Criticism of a subject should never form more than a small fraction of the article. A sort of example might be Creationism which is maybe 5-10% Creationism sucks and 90%-95% This is what creationism is and that's for something that's maximally contraversial. Something without much active contraversy (like this) should not have more than a paragraph in the main article. WilyD 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy about possible visit to Quebec City

This article should be unlocked to include some information about the controversy regarding the —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ve2jgs (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Queen?

So Canada DOES have a queen then? And she is considered the queen of Canada? Please answer, my 'friend' and I are having a rather heated argument. I think she's going to hurt me. Bobafett424242 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, the article is correct. The Queen of Canada is Elizabeth II. She does .... uhm, not much, as you'll read in the article. WilyD 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)