Talk:Monarchy in Quebec
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
[edit] Facts
"This Act undermined the American revolutionaries' plans to gain the support of Quebecers, who saw their rights being more protected under the Crown than in an independent American republic [citation needed]".
- This should be rephrased or properly sourced I believe. Typically, the popular interpretation of this period is that the Quebec Act contributed to the Canadian elite's siding with those who called them to defend their country against an invasion. The reason for this support by parts of the Quebec population is unclear and has been the constant object of speculation by historians. Was it a desire to prove their loyalty to their new Sovereign? Did the majority remain neutral as is often asserted by some historians? We could also ask ourselves, if, had Quebec become and independent republic, it would not have been up to an elected Legislative Assembly of Quebec to decide what to do with French civil law? How many Francophones actually understood the nature of the political conflict between Britain and its American colonies? There are many hypotheses but nothing solid as far as I know.
"Their demands were disregarded by the Lieutenant-Governor, Lord John Russell, an act which eventually led to the Lower Canada Rebellion."
- This seems like an oversimplification of a complex situation. First of all, Lord John Russel was not the Lieutenant-Governor. The L-G was Archibald Acheson, 2nd Earl of Gosford. Russel is a member of the British Cabinet at the time. The "rebellion" as it was called is the result of more than just the rejection of the 92 resolutions by the British Parliament. There was an escalation of violence during the whole of the year of 1837. After replacing Lord John Russel by Archibald Acheson, 2nd Earl of Gosford in the article, maybe we can write "an act which contributed to the radicalization of the Patriotes actions." At least that can be backed by evidence. The Patriotes, frustrated by the failure of the reform movement, began to boycott British imports.
""Part then in peace. I urge you to unanimity and accord. Let me hear no more of the odious distinctions of English and French. You are all His Britannic Majesty's beloved Canadian subjects." It was reportedly the first time the word "Canadian", which had previously been reserved only for Francophones, was used in a manner that included all colonialists."
- Prince Edward was not the first person to speak of the "Canadians" that way. Pierre du Calvet called for the end of distinctions of origin and nationality in Appel à la justice de l'État in 1784. I do not know if he was the first one, but that is long before Prince Edward. -- Mathieugp 07:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broken ref, sorta
FYI, reference one (^ a b CBC Archives: 1964 Quebec Visit, speech) points to an Ontario site, and doesn't have anything to do with the facts cited. Cmprince 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Queen's quote
What's with the quote of Queen Liz being happy to speak in French at the beginning of the article? This clearly shows some bias in favour of the monarchy. The quote can be kept, but it should be placed somewhere else in the article.
