Talk:Style of the Canadian sovereign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
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.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Common misconception? I think most people recognize that Canada is an independent nation. Maybe a popular urban legend.

Dunno. It's not the sort of thing that gets whispered from person to person. ("Hey, did you know that Canada's part of Great Britain? And there was this guy who got his kidneys stolen!") From the discussions I've had with foreigners, Americans mostly, I'd call it more of a vague misconception ("I'm not really sure - is Canada part of the UK? How does that thing with the Queen work anyway?") - Montréalais
Well, speaking as an American, I can't say I've ever encountered anyone who didn't know that Canada was an independent country. soulpatch
Right, but a lot of people are unsure of just how independent it is. - Montréalais

So, I added this bit about the passage of NAFTA, which I don't have a reference for except my Canadian friend, who confirmed the veracity of this with several friends of his. If someone knows otherwise, I'd be interested to read about it. Graft

Soverignty is the same for Canada, as for England and Australia, i.e."The Queen in parliament"

I removed the following line. and the removal of an unnecessary expense for the Canadian taxpayer.

The suggestion that monarchy is more expensive than republics is actually a myth. Britain's monarchy, for example, costs the average British taxpayer 79p per year. The Irish presidency costs the Irish taxpayer ?1.50, the Italian presidency costs the Italian taxpayer ?1.23 while the Spanish monarchy costs the average Spaniard ?0.45. Additional costs (upkeep of palaces, etc) would, in the event of Britain becoming a republic, remain exactly the same. The only difference is that instead of being described in one line of the state ledger, they would be moved to another, moving from the category of 'monarchy' to 'maintence of historic buildings', which would still be used as most of them are, now, as museums and for state functions. Most of the practical cost of the monarchy goes in wages and in fact is balanced by state income from a royal Duchy which belongs to the monarch but is given to the state, for a yearly civil list payment in return. I think the British government actually makes a profit of approximately £1 billion on the deal, and lawyers have argued that in the event of the abolition of the monarchy, the duchy would become the personal property of Elizabeth Windsor. Of the British Royal Family, only two are actually in receipt of state salaries, the Queen and Prince Philip, via the Civil List. The Prince of Wales is financed totally by the Duchy of Lancaster, a large body of lands run by the Prince of Wales' office. (Charles is currently renovating and upgrading his new London residence, Clarence House at a cost of millions, none of it from the taxpayer. If Britain was a republic, the cost of maintaining that eighteenth century building would fall on the taxpayer. Similarly Queen Elizabeth never actually wanted to live in Buckingham Palace but instead in Sandringham (where she as the owner would pay all the bills!) and commute to London. But the Government said 'no' and insisted she live there, turning down her other choice, the smaller, cheaper Clarence House.) All other royals are paid by the Queen out of her finances, with the taxpayer being paid back any salary cost involved in the Princess Royal, Duke of York, Earl of Wessex, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Duke and Duchess of Kent, meaning in effect that they and the large number of engagements they carry out come 'free' as part of the package.

In Canada's case, becoming a republic would involve a lot of additional expenditure. Presidents tend to require political advisors, involve costs with state visits, involve major expenditure on former governor-general's residences to upgrade them to full international head of state's palace standard; when Ireland created a presidency, millions had to be spent on the former governor-general's residence, the Viceregal Lodge, to turn it into Áras an Uachtaráin, the presidential palace. In fact the original plan was to demolish the Lodge completely because it was not thought large enough and adequate enough, and build a new presidential palace in the grounds. But with the outbreak of World War II put a hold on the plan. In the end the old building was converted at considerable expense to provide large reception rooms for hosting state banquets, meeting the diplomatic corp, etc. It still is regularly criticised as being inadequate as a presidential residence, with Dublin Castle having to be used for many state functions. So the development costs of a 'President of Canada', the costs of residences and the day to day costs of running their offices would far far exceed anything currently paid for the governor-generalship and monarchy.

That isn't to say Canada should not become a republic, merely that cost is a pretty weak argument, because the cost of having a republic will far exceed by cost of the monarchy, possibly by a factor of three. STÓD/ÉÍRE 19:15 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you think it is a good argument, it is an argument that is made by people in that context, and therefore should be included. If pro-monarchists argue as you do, state that. - Montréalais

The picture covers the text. Can't that be fixed? The only way to read that part of the text is to click on "Edit this page". Michael Hardy 23:12 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Did that help at all? Sounds browser-specific, looked fine to me before. - Hephaestos

About the NAFTA stuff, does anybody have any other reference? I ask for two reasons: one, I'm not sure about it being the Queen rather than the Governor-General who acted on the advice of the Prime Minister, and secondly, my recollection (which I haven't researched to verify yet) is that it was more than two Senators, something like 6-8? I'll try to verify in the next couple of days. - Cafemusique 12:23 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

OK...found corroboration that it was eight Senators. Also, the Constitution requires the Gov-Gen to advise the Queen in that case, instead of the PM. I tried to make that clear, without losing the fact that it was the PM who was the instigating force. - Cafemusique 12:55 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Senate was expanded to pass the GST not NAFTA. The Liberals conceeded Free Trade after losing the 88 election. SimonP 18:08 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Poked around, does seem to have been done to pass the Goods and Services Tax, although I'm not sure that NAFTA wasn't a bonus. This bit from this link:
Using permission from the Queen and a previously unused constitutional clause P.M. Mulroney appoints another 8 Senators, this ensures the passage of the GST in the Senate (1990)
Graft 19:27 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I am assured by several Canadians that NAFTA was indeed on Mulroney's mind when he stacked the senate. Still seeking written confirmation... Graft 22:49 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
From the Canadian encyclopedia: "In 1990 the Liberal dominated Senate effectively blocked plans of the Conservative government to pass the legislation for the unpopular GST. This led PM Brian Mulroney to use his power to add 8 senators in order to ensure passage of the legislation in 1990." The FTA was passed in 1988 and NAFTA was passed in 1993, neither had the enlarged senate at the time of thier passing. I'm afraid your Canadian friends might be misremembering. SimonP 00:15 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that, just as the United Kingdom is a kingdom, so also is Canada a kingdom? Or should one say that only when the monarch is male? Michael Hardy 00:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)

No. Male or female, a state with a monarch is a kingdom. And yes Canada could be called a kingdom. FearÉIREANN 22:15 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Canada was originally supposed to be called the Kingdom of Canada, but this was changed to Dominion (which itself was eventually dropped) to avoid irritating the Americans. - Montréalais
Just wondering, but in what sense does the Canadian monarchy cost the taxpayer anything? Surely the governor-general can cost no more than a republic head of state would (and, as has been pointed out, almost certainly costs less). Does the monarch herself impose additional costs on Canada in some manner? If so, how? john 22:31 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't think so. FearÉIREANN 22:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)

When she visits, we have to foot the bill. user:J.J.

If you had a resident head of state, you would foot those bills all the time, not for a couple of days every couple of years. FearÉIREANN 22:45 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

BTW last year due to the costs involved in the Jubilee, the British Royal Family last year cost each British taxpayer a whopping £1.51. And the Jubilee earned for the British economy £4.02 per head of population. Figures: BBC. FearÉIREANN 23:01 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This page was incorrectly moved to Canadian monarchy. Though that is a better title, I'm going to delete the moved page and do it correctly. - Montréalais 01:42, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Queen Elizabeth I of Canada

Is Elizabeth I considered the first Elizabethan queen of Canada, or is Elizabeth II the first Elizabethan queen of Canada? If Elizabeth II is the first, then shouldn't she be called Queen Elizabeth of Canada, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom? --myselfalso 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is accepted that the Canadian monarchy grew out of the British one, even though the two are now separate; the numbering system is sort of a grandfathered-in tribute to that history. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It was also ruled in the UK that the Sovereign's title lies within the Royal Prerogative, which means the Monarch can title him/herself as so pleases them; there's no rule that their numerical designation must follow a chronological order. --G2bambino 02:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Does anybody here have a source for the last sentence "However, from time to time, the style will be Her [His] Canadian Majesty so as to differentiate from foreign sovereigns."? Only I created the article "Canadian Majesty" and now they are threatening to take it off wiki because I haven't got any time to expand it or look for sources. Will have more time in a week or so, but the deadline is in a week. Would really appreciate any sources and/or info added to the page. After all Britannic Majesty has had its own page for ages! THanks in advance! --Camaeron (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The word "kingdom"

I must be missing something here, because to me the fact that Canada is a kingdom is completely self-evident. The dictionary definition of kingdom is "a country, state of territory ruled by a king or queen". Canada head of state is a king/queen; Canada's constitution clearly says that executive power is vested in the Queen of Canada, and all passed bills are signed into law in her name. Could someone please explain how they arrived at the point of view that Canada is not a kingdom? If this is about how the Queen has not real power, I'd like to point out that she is still the de jure head of state, all laws are signed in her name, and she appoints new Prime Ministers. If this has to do with the title of Canada, I fully agree that Canada does not use the title "Kingdom of Canada" and any use of that word should have a lowercase k (as it already does in the article). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling Canada a kingdom is pure fantasy and offence. The K/k diversion is not relevant, since neither sense applies. The use of section 9 of the constitution to justify an extrapolation from the dictionary is sophistry rather than evidence, since neither the word "rule" nor the word "kingdom" appears in that section. Indeed, is there anywhere in the various constitution acts where the word "kingdom" appears other than in the expression "United Kingdom"? To rule would require legislative powers as well as executive powers, and the queen does not have these; she acts "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada" whenever any law is proclaimed. The queen's role is essentially symbolic; it is not one of rulership, the pretensions of monarchists notwithstanding. Eclecticology (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The word "rule" in this case means "to exercise sovereign power over", and as Canada's sovereign, this is what she does. When describing Canada's form of government, the actual way that things are done is irelivant, we are concerned with the official, legal, process. Even though she is not the one making the decisions, all of the laws of Canada are her word, the queen is, on paper, the ruler of the country. By dictionary difinitions of "kingdom" and "ruler", Canada is a de jure kingdom, though not a de facto one. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of this discussion seems to escape me. I always thought Canada was a Dominion, as part of the full legal title. GreenJoe 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada's title is a whole different matter, and no one is arguing that Canada's title is "Kingdom", just that the country is, by definition, a kingdom given that it has a queen as de jure head of state. The constitution is a bit vague on whether Dominion is part of the title, it just says that the colonies "shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any need to use kingdom or dominion at all here?--Gazzster (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In this case we could get away with rephrasing it to avoid the term, but the issue has come up so many times, it would be nice to have a consensus on whether it is usable in Wikipedia, rather than deleting it one by one from articles to avoid debate. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. About 'Kingdom': it seems that it is used on the basis on one or two references and by a quite small number of users. I agree that the matter should be sorted. --Gazzster (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree to a point with User:Eclecticology in that "kingdom" is a misleading term to call Canada, as it does not at all reflect de facto reality. However, I do think that we should be able to at least mention it in Wikipedia articles given that it is the de jure legal reality and a dictionary-definition truth. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally, when in doubt, I would side with the notional legal form. My preference is Monarchy, or something along that line. I personally see no problem with kingdom, other than it is rarely used to describe Canada. Deet (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing to avoid the term is exactly what was in the change that I proposed in the article space. This would have preserved the use of the word sovereign, in the sense of "independent", with which I have no quarrel. Every other term that may be introduced will have its problems. I see "monarchy" as virtually synonymous with "kingdom". "State" is technically correct, but given our proximity to the USA, is prone to obvious misinterpretation. "Nation" is problematic because the French and English cultural perceptions of the word are in conflict. "Confederation" certainly has some historical weight. "Entity" would be somewhat pedantic. "Dominion" overlaps considerably with "kingdom", but has the advantage of easily documented historical usages that are easily substantiated. "Country" may be the least controversial term. The official name is simply "Canada" without any descriptive qualifier.
"Dictionary-definition truth" is a problematical concept, and depends on how one views dictionaries, and whether such works are descriptive or prescriptive. In a descriptive environment there is a recognition that definitions can change over time; words also carry culturally influenced connotations as well as denotations. Ideological baggage can result in opposing parties viewing the same word with different meanings. Differing de facto and de jure meanings aren't very helpful if you always need to point out which you are using. In the philosophy of science definitions can be neither true nor false, they are only tools and the person using those tools is free to define them as he will. Of course there won't be much progress if the adversary sees a different definition.
I can perfectly understand the concern that this problem will have to played out on every article where it occurs, and I must admit that I found this article far less problematical than some of the related articles. ("Kingdom" was only a problem in one place in this article.) But regrettably I think that this problem can only be solved one article at a time.... if only because each article is likely to draw its own different community of participants. Eclecticology (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There certainly is variability in definitions; Canada is not a "kingdom" in the same way that pre revolutionary France was a kingdom. Nevertheless, I think that you would agree that when using the most basic definition of "having a king or queen as head of state," Canada is a kingdom according to the text of the constitution (even though the head of government is doing all of the actual "ruling" and at times acting himself as a head of state). I agree that it is a bit cumbersome to have to differentiate between the de jure and de facto realities, but I think that is our best solution. In some cases, we only need to mention one of those realities. For example, in an article about prime minister's economic policy, we can treat Canada as a parliamentary democracy and the prime minister as both a head of state and a head of government. In other articles, it provides better encyclopedic knowledge to give the reader both realities, such as in the main article about Canada, wherein the info box defines Canada's government as both a parliamentary democracy and as a federal constitutional monarchy. In this article, given that it is about the Canadian monarch, I think that the basic de jure reality of "queen ergo kingdom" would be useful to the readers. That paragraph is talking about whether the monarch rules the UK and Canada as one multi-state kingdom or as two separate kingdoms. Maybe to help avoid confusion we could either link the word "kingdom" to constitutional monarchy or add a sentence explaining the use of the word. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The constitution of Canada in no place says that Canada is a kingdom. To say that it does is willful misrepresentation of the facts. In the absence of a reliable source that says "Canada is a kingdom", to say so is original research. Arguing that it is on the basis of your favorite dictionary definition is sophistry. The best solution to dealing with your cumbersome differentiation is to leave "kingdom" out entirely. The concept is not important to the article, which is about nothing more than the Royal Style that Canada has allowed to be used by the queen. For that matter a statement about economic policy has no need to talk about parliamentary democracy; it would be absolutely wrong to state that the prime minister is head of state. The "queen ergo kingdom" claim is not useful to the reader when it seeks to impose the tendentious point of view of the monarchists. Eclecticology (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly do not want you to think that I am promoting a POV argument. I do not consider myself to be a monarchist, but saying that a country is a kingdom when it has a king/queen as head of state seems to be a self-validating statement, like saying that the offspring of a duck is a duckling, or that a box for shoes is a shoe box. Saying that the constitution does not use the word "kingdom" looks like a debate about syntax rather than about the substance of the argument. It is possible to avoid using the word "kingdom" or "monarchy", but in a paragraph discussing the sovereignty of a monarch, I don't see why you would want to. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Both Arctic Gnome and Eclecticology have said things worthy of consideration. But in the final analysis I would have to agree with Eclecticology: the article is about the style of the Canadian sovereign. Since neither kingdom nor dominion are part of the Queen's Canadian title, there is no need to go into the issue. Unfortunately many of the articles about this great nation get bogged down in talk pages over the kingdom/dominion thing. These discussions are often way out of proportion to those notions' significance in the articles. They often become part of the great monarchist/republican debate that rages the length and breadth of the history and politics articles.--Gazzster (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If we are taking the word kingdom out of that paragraph, much of it needs to be rewritten. That section is discussing the transition from there being one empirical crown to several national crowns, and I can't think of a great way of discussing that topic while not acknowledging Canada's legal status as a constitutional monarchy. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Constitutional monarchy, certainly. But I and Eclecticology are suggesting that if the word 'kingdom' is contentious, there is no need to use it. The constitutional circumstances can be described without using the word. But note the article is about the style of the Canadian sovereign. There is no need to go beyond a statement and a dablink to any other number of Canadian monarchy related articles to explain the constitutional independence of the Canadian institution.--Gazzster (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I still do not understand why it is contentious. As I wrote above, it looks like a mere issue of syntax; saying that a country is a kingdom when it has a king/queen as head of state looks like a self-validating statement, like saying that the offspring of a duck is a duckling, or that a box for shoes is a shoe box. If the word is truly tied to a monarchist POV, then Wikipedia will have to avoid it to remain unbiased, but I still think that it is just a legal truth based on a dictionary definition. If we are going to change it, I agree with Eclecticology that "country" is the least controversial term, though even that one has been used in different ways the way that "nation" has been.--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're sayin mate. I don't think it's really an issue about the technicalness of it, but about common usage. The same issue came up at Monarchy of Australia. The word was excluded, not because Australia is not a monarchy, but because the term is never used. One simply never talks about the Kingdom of Australia. Australians do not describe their nation as a Kingdom. It was decided that 'realm' was descriptive enough. Similarly, it was decided that 'Australian Royal Family' should not be used either; obviously not because the Queen of Australia didn't have a family, but because the term is not in use. Australians do not talk about their Royal Family.--Gazzster (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"Kingdom of Canada" isn't used here either in a normal context; neither is there such a thing as a "Canadian royal family" except in occasional tongue-in-cheek metaphorical references to a prime minister's family. Only the queen has any sort of official status. Sometimes official wordings are there for a purpose. "Dominion of Canada" was formerly in common use, but it has been discouraged in recent years. Conclusions can also be drawn in the change of name from British North America Act, 1867 to Constitution Act, 1867. The queen herself knows her place and has the personal dignity and grace not to push the limits of her role. She is intelligent enough to know the consequences of doing so. Those with an appreciation of the balances in Canadian society know better than to insist on push-button terminology, and "kingdom" is a push-button term. The king-ergo-kingdom argument may very well have a wisp of logic, but it is POV to insist on terminology that few people find acceptable; it's a common technique of propagandists. Original research (which is even more relevant here) is about drawing unsupported conclusions. Surely if this syntactic exercise is so valid, it must have been reported before in a reliable source. Eclecticology (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd stick with the Canadian Constitution, concerning the usage of 'Kingdom'. PS: Though it doesn't apply here, a Kingdom doesn't necessarily have a King/Queen (example: Spain 1947-1975). GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll concede that the word kingdom has too much controversy behind it. I kind of like the Australians' use of "realm" for a subject like this, but if that word is also too controversial, country would be our next best option (as someone has already said, the word "nation" has too much weight behind it in Canada). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Really, there's no "controversy" behind the use of the word "kingdom" in relation to Canada besides that which a few Wikipedia editors try to raise from time to time. In other words, it is completely manufactured, and doesn't exist beyond a couple of articles in this encyclopaedia. Even the Department of Canadian heritage refers to the country having become a kingdom in 1867! Frankly, a dictionary definition should be a source enough to affirm the use of the term in this, or, indeed, any article. --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me state firstly that I decided not to read this lengthy section or get involved in any monarchy-related controversies. I saw a request for comment and decided to post my view here. Canada is not a kingdom but, rather, a constitutional-monarchy. The difference being that a kingdom has a ruling monarch that answers to no one. A constitutional monarchy has the monarch limited in ways by the constitution and has effectively become a simple head of state with ruling power in parliament instead. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a source for your assertion. Dictionaries, numerous present day kingdoms with constitutions similar to Canada's, or other resources, make no such distinction. --G2bambino (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A dictionary is not a reliable source for the controversial claim that Canada is a kingdom; instead that claim would require a reliable source that says exactly that. This kind of specious argument from a dictionary definition is exactly the kind of thing that the prohibition against original research was intended to prevent. Eclecticology (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my bluntness, but bull crap it's not. We're not creating an essay with a thesis and arguments here, we're simply asserting two sourced facts: 1) a kingdom is a country headed by a king or queen, 2) Canada is headed by a queen. Further support is added by the Department of Canadian Heritage source. The controversy is all your own creation. --G2bambino (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't introduce the term "bull crap"; I merely said that your original research was specious. If, however, someone wants to call it bull crap I will be glad to agree with him. Eclecticology (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Monarchy" and "kingdom" are completely synonymous terms in the first place, and "monarchy" has the benefit of being both more widely recognized by most Canadians and more compatible with modern conventions around gender-inclusive language (since a good many monarchies, including Canada, are currently reigned over by queens rather than kings). While it's not at all untrue that Canada is technically a kingdom, it's a completely unnecessary and trivial debate since the word "monarchy" conveys that fact just as accurately, and inspires a lot less sniping and bickering. There's simply no remotely practical or encyclopedic need for Wikipedia to ever replace "monarchy" with "kingdom" in an article pertaining to Canada — it's just irrelevant and unnecessarily tendentious nitpicking about words which have no practical difference in meaning. "Monarchy" is a perfectly acceptable synonym which is pretty universally used in reference to Canada; "kingdom" is only necessary in direct quotes or if you're intentionally trying to sound archaic or unctuous. So could we please let this rest and get on to something that actually matters? Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Synonymous they are not, but on a different basis than in the present discussion. "Monarchy" describes a form of government; "kingdom" describes a territory. Eclecticology (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Good. Then you agree "kingdom" is acceptable in this context. No reason to censor a perfectly acceptable term because of imagined, fantastical controversies. --G2bambino (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It's unnecessary in this context. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It is? So you feel the sentence would be fine as: Its usage has continued since the country became a in its own right in 1867,[8][9] and after a process of constitutional evolution ending with full sovereignty from the United Kingdom, is now applied to the Canadian monarch? I disagree. --G2bambino (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You know damn well that the alternative is Its usage has continued since the country became a monarchy, not Its usage has continued since the country became a (blank). Is there an actual reason, apart from pure tendentiousness, why the word in that sentence has to be kingdom rather than monarchy? Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspected that was the alternative you were thinking of. But, indeed, is there a reason why the word in that sentence has to be monarchy rather than kingdom? It's accurate, it's sourced, it fits, and even by Eclecticology's own argument (regardless of its validity) it's appropriate; so why, again, should we take it out? --G2bambino (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You're the one who changed the word to kingdom in the first place, so you're the one who bears the burden of justifying why the change was necessary. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't change the word from anything. It's been "kingdom" since I filled this article out back at the end of January last year. --G2bambino (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Application of the Royal Style and Titles Act

User:Eclecticology asserts that the Royal Style and Titles Act (RSTA) only applies to Elizabeth II. However, a reading of the 1953 Act doesn't affirm this in any way, and nor does the 1985 Act, which itself does not repeal the earlier Act. Each just says the act "establish[es] for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles..."

By my reading, that might mean the Act locks 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 as the title for all future Canadian monarchs, but something tells me that can't possibly be true. Would Charles really be known as Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, until a new Act is passed by parliament? I highly doubt it. --G2bambino (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's funny. Of course, apon Charles' succession (assuming he does succeed), the title would become (for example) Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. PS (just a side note) Charlie prefers of the Faiths. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
One wonders if United Kingdom will be removed from the Style, upon Charlie succession. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I made no assertion about the British RSTA whatsoever. The 1953 Act was repealed and replaced by Section 3 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 Act. While there was no apparent substantive change in this Act, that was not necessarily the case with many other Acts. It is a routine process when statutes are consolidated. The 1953 Act also had the effect of bringing about certain changes to the Interpretation Act, but that is a separate Act, and the more generic events that would happen upon the demise of the crown are covered by that Act. The big difference between the Interpretation Act and the RSTA is that the latter makes specific mention of Lizzie. I am speculatively sure that if Lizzie had not stuck around for so damn long we would have had a new Act. In the interim I'm sure that an adjusted style and titles would would be used for Charlie on an extrajudicial basis, since its only about symbolism rather than something of any real importance. Eclecticology (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Who suggested you made any assertions about the British Act? Where's the evidence the 1953 Act was repealed? So what if the 1953 and 1985 Act refer only to "Lizzie"? Both explicitly say they set down royal styles and titles for Canada, without any reference to a cessation upon the demise of the present sovereign. --G2bambino (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You did! ... in the first sentence of this section by referring to the Royal Style and Titles Act, which is for the UK Act. That Act may very well say as you say. I neither know nor care. It's a UK Act with no applicability in Canada. The repeal and replacement covering also a wide range of laws is in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 Act. In fact the current Act, despite its name, only establishes the title and not the style. The style remains established in the Interpretation Act. Eclecticology (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read the article Royal Style and Titles Act again; it is not solely for the UK Act, nor even just the 1927 one. --G2bambino (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't old Charlie want his title changed anyway? I hear he's not too keen on 'Defender of the Faith', for one.--Gazzster (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Poor "old" Charlie! He'll have a hard time living up to the reputation of his two preceeding namesakes. Lizzie could even end up outliving him out of the most royally decorous spite. At least the Kingston Trio's Charlie had a wife to hand him a sandwich through the train window. I don't think that Charlie will go so far as retaining the style "Charles III ... Queen ...", but even adding the "s" to "faith" could upset a few Brits who are already concerned about the number of Moslems and Hindoos in the country; they could even treat it as blasphemy against British pompery. Eclecticology (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I remember a line from the bloke who played Prince George in The Madness of King George: 'being Prince of Wales isn't a job; its a predicament!'--Gazzster (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny movie - though Prince George wasn't fat at that stage of his life (1788-89); also, did he actually need Charles Fox to explain to him what a regent was (OK, that was for the audience)? I'm getting off track here; what was the topic? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)