Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 12

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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

"parts of the Crown"

Who and what are "parts of the Crown" of Canada?[1] Why is not the GG? - see The Crown and Canadian Federalism By D. Michael Jackson, p.20 [2] Qexigator ([[User talk:Qexigator|talk 20:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC) + 21:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Interpretations Act, "An Act respecting the interpretation of statutes and regulations", defines the Crown as "'Her Majesty', 'His Majesty', 'the Queen', 'the King' or 'the Crown' means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her or His other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth", ie the Canadian monarch. In Canadian law, the Crown does not include the Governor General. That being said, as the Crown's representative, the Governor General exercises nearly all of the Crown's powers on its behalf, in line with the letters patent constituting the office. So when we say "the Crown" we mean "Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada", and all laws and summons are issued by the Queen. So when we look at the latest Summons for example, it states "ELIZABETH THE SECOND,...WE DO HEREBY, by and with the advice of Our Prime Minister of Canada, pursuant to section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1867, summon and call together the House of Commons...", which is to say Parliament is summoned by instrument by the Crown (Elizabeth the Second is, with the advice of her prime minister, summoning..). This is further underscored by official, professional, and academic sources which "authorize the governor general of Canada to exercise powers and responsibilities belonging to the Sovereign". trackratte (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well and good, so far as that goes. But if, for the purposes of drafting and applying legislation, 'the Crown' means the Sovereign (ie the reigning King or Queen) it must be inconsistent to say "the Governor General exercises nearly all of the Crown's powers on its behalf" unless there is tacit lapse into metonymy. Does "the Crown", in the usual discourse about the constitution, include the cabinet, the privy council, and those persons responsible for performing the functions of government attributed to the monarch or sovereign? And so, include the GG? Is there any source that excludes the GG? Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fail to see what polysemy or synecdoche have to do with the conversation, or what is your point therein. When discussing the Constitution, or any other law, the meaning of the Crown isn't subject to debate, as it is clearly and legally laid out. So no, the cabinet, the privy council, and persons responsible for performing constitutional or any other functions are not "the Crown", although they may exercise its powers. Advising the Crown and being the Crown are not the same thing. Thus, legally the GG is not "the Crown". trackratte (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see already confusion is causing the problems here.

This has nothing to do with the 1947 Letters Patent or parts of the Crown. It has to do with a clause in the Constitution Act 1867 that outlines it is the governor general who summons the House of Commons: "The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon and call together the House of Commons."

Perhaps you're missing the first words of the paragraph: "Some of the powers of the Crown are exercisable by..." Nowhere is it denied the power to summon the House of Commons is the Crown's or, as such, the Queen's. Rather, it is a question of who exercises which of those powers and the Queen cannot exercise a power the constitution states shall be exercised by the governor general: "Constitutional authority James R. Mallory points out in his book The Structure of Canadian Government (1984) that legally 'the Governor General can exercise any of the Queen's powers in Canada.' The converse is not true, however; 'the Queen cannot exercise the Governor General's powers because they are conferred on him, and not on the Queen, by the British North America Act.'"[3] (Though, there the notion of powers belonging to the governor general is being used as a simplification of the fact of those powers belonging to the sovereign, but being exercisable only by the governor general.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A magazine article does not trump official or legal sources. The sole role of the governor general is to represent the Crown. The governor general does not have any powers or authorities itself but only those delegated to it by the Crown. Therefore, to say that the governor general has powers and authorities beyond those of the Crown is non-sense and contradicts the constitutional underpinnings of the entire Canadian system. trackratte (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If someone cannot legally exercise a power, then that power does not belong to them, as possessing a power by definition means to control it. What you/your source is saying, is that the power to summon parliament is beyond the control of the Crown, which directly contradicts Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution, as well as sources from the Government of Canada amongst others. Keeping in mind, in accordance with the Interpretations Act, the Crown legally means the sovereign and nothing else, so "the Crown" does not mean the governor general, as the governor general only exists to act on the Crown's behalf.

Section 10 of the Constitution Act 1867 states that any mention of the governor general is to mean the office "carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen". Subsequently, section 38 does not bestow any powers upon the governor general independent of the Queen, only saying that the governor general is responsible for summoning the House of Commons on the Queen's behalf (as in 1867, as now, the sovereign is not physically present to do so). No where does it say that the Crown (sovereign) cannot summon the House of Commons.

Also, the Interpretations Act states that "No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty’s rights or prerogatives in any manner, except as mentioned or referred to in the enactment.". Thus, for the law to restrict the powers and prerogatives of the Queen, it must explicitly state so. Stating that the governor general will summon the House of Commons does not mean that the Crown is restricted from doing so. In order for a law to do so, it must explicitly state that the Queen is barred from summoning the House of Commons, which it does not.

The summons themselves are done by the Queen and issued by the GG (you can read the actual summons, the Queen is doing the actual summoning in the document). The Government of Canada states that it is the Queen that summons Parliament. Barring a court ruling, magazine articles reflecting unsubstantiated personal opinion does not contradict the laws of Canada, or the stance of the Government of Canada. trackratte (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Section 38 does not say that the Queen is barred from summoning parliament, it says that the governor general will do so in the Queen's name. Saying that the governor general has powers that the Queen does not contradicts the constitutional basis of executive authority in Canada, in that the GG is the sovereign's representative and has no independent authority beyond this mandate, ie the GG does not possess any powers or authorities beyond those of the Crown.
The word "shall" used within the section generally means "'has a duty to' and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor", which is to say the section imposes the duty to ensure that the House is summoned from "time to time" by the GG. In the context of the times it was written, it makes sense as it would be impossible for any one person to be able to summon all of the provincial houses, the federal house, as well as various houses all throughout the world. So this duty was automatically bestowed upon the GG, but there is nothing barring the Crown from carrying out this duty itself.
"Parliament meets only at the “Royal summons” of the Queen, represented by the Governor General" (Government of Canada)
"authorize the governor general of Canada to exercise powers and responsibilities belonging to the Sovereign" (GG)
"He or she fulfils most of the duties of Her Majesty including, among others, the granting of Royal Assent, the summoning and dissolution of Parliament, and the use of reserve powers." (Crown of Maples page 36).
"The Queen has various reserve powers, or personal prerogatives, including prorogation, dissolution and summoning of parliament, and dismissing and appointing a prime minister." (Canadian Parliamentary Review)
"The Crown can summon Parliament to meet at any time" The Canadian Parliamentary Companion page 77)
"ELIZABETH THE SECOND,...WE DO HEREBY, by and with the advice of Our Prime Minister of Canada, pursuant to section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1867, summon and call together the House of Commons.." (Proclamation Summoning the House of Commons to Meet on November 16, 2015)
"Parliament can only legally be summoned by authority of the Crown...the proclamation is issued by command of the governor general or administrator..." (Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada)

"Crown" means, in line with section 35 of the Interpretations act ("(1) In every enactment, “Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”, “the King” or “the Crown” ...means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her or His other Realms"). So, the Crown has only ever delegated its responsibilities, powers, and authorities, never transferred them (inline with Letters Patent 1947). The Queen summons the House of Commons through proclamation, as "parliament can only legally be summoned by authority of the Crown (Queen)" where the proclamation is issued by the Crown representative, the governor general, on the sovereign's behalf (wording of proclamation is issued from the Queen, not GG). The reserve powers to summon parliament, according to reliable and official sources, reside with the Queen. The governor general, as the Queen's representative, issues the summons in the Queen's name and on her behalf, inline with section 38, but does not actually summon parliament themselves (according to the summons themselves).

There is nothing suggesting that section 38 is to be read in isolation from section 9 (all executive authority vested in the Queen), or section 10 ("Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General...carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen"). Which is to say all further sections within the Act are to be read in line with sections 9 and 10. Lastly, section 38 no where suggests that the Crown's powers are not exercisable by the Crown. So to suggest that the governor general is able to exercise authorities beyond those of the Crown is absurd. trackratte (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not, nor does the article, mention delegation of powers or sections being read in isolation or the Interpretation Act. That's all rather straw man-ish and certainly an over-complication of a simple matter. The power to summon the House of Commons belongs to the Crown (as all executive authority is the Queen's, according to S.9, and as recognised by the part of S.38 that says the governor general acts in the Queen's name). It is only the governor general who is named by S.38 as the person who exercises that particular power. The Queen, thus, cannot herself use her own power to summon the House of Commons, as explained in the source I provided. The governor general must do it for her. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Except the sources do not say that. In the Australian monarchy discussion, some experts claim the governor-general has powers the Queen does not. But Canada is not Australia so we cannot assume the same issues apply to it. TFD (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure if you look more carefully you'll see the source I provided refers specifically to Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, if you name someone to do a task on your behalf, such as clean your house, that person must always do that task for you and you are legally barred from doing it yourself, ever. That makes absolutely no sense. What if the governor general isn't there to do it? Well, then it's done by an administrator, even though the governor general is specifically named. The same logic applies to the Queen, except that when the Act was written and the with the technology at the time, it was thought virtually impossible for the sovereign to ever be there, so the sovereign's representative was named, in the same way that if the governor general is not expected to be there, the administrator would be named on a piece of paper somewhere to perform the task of issuing the summons. And once again, the summons are actually done by the Queen when you read the actual summons themselves, it is the Queen who is summoning the House, not the governor general, the governor general only issues them on the Crown's behalf. Thus, the sources saying that the Queen summons parliament, represented by the governor general. There is no basis in law saying that the Queen cannot summon Parliament, in the same way that there is no basis saying that the Queen cannot open Parliament. trackratte (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The summoning of the Canadian House of Commons was done by Elizabeth the Second. The fact that the proclamation was issued by the GG does not mean that the GG himself summoned the House. trackratte (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes the sources in the article refer to Canada but do not draw the same conclusions as you. It is OR to assume that because the Act says, "The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's name," that he has been provided with powers the Queen does not have. TFD (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the governor general having powers the Queen doesn't have. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

TFD is right, as I mention above, the Interpretations Act states that "No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty’s rights or prerogatives in any manner, except as mentioned or referred to in the enactment". No mention is made in any enactment that the Queen/Crown cannot summon parliament. Individual opinions or interpretations expressed in magazine articles or elsewhere, despite being verifiable, do not trump Canadian law or official sources such as the Government of Canada. trackratte (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Interpretation Act is irrelevant. It is an act of parliament passed long after the Constitution Act 1867, which is itself a constitutional law and cannot be overridden by mere statute. There being no law disallowing the Queen from summoning parliament is, therefore, a straw man argument. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you accept the 1867 act did not provide any powers to the GG not allowed to the Queen? If so, what are you arguing about? TFD (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Mies, the Interpretations Act is most certainly not irrelevant, and is not overriding anything, it is a legal requirement on how already existing terms are to be interpreted. For example, the common law principle of Crown immunity already exists as an established principle of common law, however the Act defines explicitly how this legal principle is to be interpreted in relation to Canadian Acts. Thus, Parliament has made it very clear that if an Act does not explicitly restrict or remove a power of the Queen, it cannot legally be interpreted as doing so, and this principle has been enshrined in statute law as well as common law. Thus, the fact that there simply is no law which removes the ability of the Queen to summon Parliament is most definitely not a strawman argument, but is quite obviously central to the entire discussion. It is essentially illegal to interpret section 38 of the Act as removing an ability or prerogative from the sovereign.
Subsequently, not only does the author in that magazine article not explain the reasoning behind his statement that the Queen is legally barred from Summoning the House of Commons, but their statement also contradicts central principles of the Canadian constitution itself (executive authority is only ever temporarily lent by the Crown, never permanently transferred), Canadian common law (Crown immunity), and Canadian statute law (nothing affects the sovereign's prerogatives unless specifically stated otherwise), in addition to official sources ("Parliament only meets at the Royal Summons of the Queen", "the duties of Her Majesty the Queen including...summoning and dissolution of Parliament"), as well as other published source ("the Crown [the sovereign] can summon Parliament at any time"). Quite clearly then, the weight of legal, official, and other reliable sources quite clearly and explicitly underline the fact that the Queen can and does summon Parliament. The fact that the governor general, as the Queen's representative, is named as responsible to issue the summons on the Queen's behalf in no way impedes with, modifies, or interferes with the Queen's own prerogative powers in any way. Delegation does not equal permanent transfer.
Section 10 of the Constitution Act, 1867 constitutes the office of governor general as the stand-in of the monarch, stating that the office only acts "on behalf of" and "in the name of" the Queen. Subsequently, whenever the person of the sovereign is physically not present to execute their duties, the governor general fills these duties and legally speaking, is the sovereign/is the Crown when executing these powers and authorities. Thus, when the governor general issues the Summons, in legal terms this means that the Crown is issuing the summons itself. The Act quite clearly establishes this office as proxy, in the same way that messages or orders can be issued from an authority via another (such as the chain of command in the military, of which incidentally, the Queen as represented by the governor general, is at its apex). As a result, to state that the governor general has the authority to execute a duty but the Queen does not, is to say in legal terms that the Crown has the authority to execute a duty but the Crown does not. Logically, N cannot both be untrue and true at the same time, representing the statement of the author that the Queen cannot execute her own prerogatives and responsibilities as logical fallacy.
As we can see in the same situation elsewhere, the fact that the governor general is specifically named as Commander-in-Chief in no way removes the Queen from this position, as once again whatever the governor general does in their official capacity is as the representative of the Queen. As we can see, the Queen is quite clearly still the Commander-in-Chief. In the exact same way, simply naming the governor general to fulfil a function such as summoning, does not remove this function from the Queen.
While I am in no way attacking you personally, and I do not think that the opinion that the Queen cannot summon Parliament is yours but is merely relayed from that magazine article, it is clear that that source represents the personal opinion of that specific author. Thus, in terms of sources, there is no way that that person's unsubstantiated personal opinion supersedes the abundant number of legal, official, and other (more) reliable published sources we already have. The fact that the governor general, as the Queen's representative, is legally responsible for issuing the summons on the Queen's behalf is true. The fact that the Queen cannot summon the House is clearly not. trackratte (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all those comments following the question at the top of this section. Given that the constitution operates "pursuant to unwritten constitutional conventions and are, in theory, the same for all Commonwealth countries that have retained the Queen as head of state", [4] perhaps we may recall, at the risk of SYNning, that an indication of what was intended by "the Crown" after the flight of James II is given by the act (given the name "Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689" by SLRA 1948), which does not actually define or contain the word "Crown", but has a (long) title expressing its purpose or motivation as "An Act for Recognizing King William and Queene Mary and for avoiding all Questions touching the Acts made in the Parliament assembled at Westminster 13 February 1689", while the act (from 1951 "Crown Recognition Act (Ireland) 1692) passed in the Kingdom of Ireland was "An Act of Recognition, of their Majesties undoubted Right to the Crown of Ireland" (1692). Those acts were in force at the time of the formation of Canada in the 1860s, and have continued in force in UK to the present day. A question may arise: why "the Crown", not "the Throne", or the monarch or sovereign? Are these really synonymous and interchangeable in all RS contexts discussing the constitution, without any change of shade of meaning? Is it not generally understood, according to context, that, in practice, when two or more countries have the same person as monarch, the Crown has come to be used to signify the monarch as advised, and governing by the agency of, the keeper of the great seal of the realm (used for summoning parliament, for proclamations etc.) and other responsible officers of state and ministers of the Crown in that country: historically and today in England, Ireland, Scotland, Britain, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand? Similarly, "Crown dependencies". In that sort of context, the Crown may be referred to by the impersonal pronoun "it" (and if a term of Greek etymology for such a figure of speech is lacking, doubtless one could be invented, just as "Commonwealth realm" has conveniently gained currency). Meantime, other terms have come into use by judges or experts seeking to describe and explain the evolving character of these institutions, such as "reserve powers" and "divisibility". Qexigator (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

+ I have trimmed the lead sentence under discussion.[5] Qexigator (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The UK does not have a governor general, although from time to time they have a regent who is given powers not assigned to the reigning king. Also, it is questionable whether Australia (at least at the federal level) has unwritten constitutional conventions because of the unique circumstances of its creation. So it is speculation to what degree their rules are the same. TFD (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about the relevance here of either of TFD's points in that comment. The lead sentence under discussion was specifically about the exercise of certain powers by the monarch or the monarch's representative in Canada. I do not see the Hicks article The Westminster Approach to Prorogation, Dissolution and Fixed Date Elections[6] (linked above, and in the article) inconsistent with TFD's remarks. My quote above was from the abstract of Hick's article, which reads in full: The Queen has various reserve powers, or personal prerogatives, including prorogation, dissolution and summoning of parliament, and dismissing and appointing a prime minister. The use of these powers is pursuant to unwritten constitutional conventions and are, in theory, the same for all Commonwealth countries that have retained the Queen as head of state. Yet in practice they operate differently – far more democratically – in England, where the Queen is present, than in Canada, where a governor general has been appointed to represent the Queen and manage these powers on Her behalf. This paper examines the British approach, contrasts it with the Canadian, and shows how Canada could improve its democracy by adopting the British practices. Qexigator (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal quoted James R. Mallory, "the Queen cannot exercise the Governor General’s powers because they are conferred on him, and not on the Queen, by the British North America Act.”[7] The quote was taken from a blog.[8] The blog also quotes former GG Clarkson as saying the Letters Patent, 1947 transferred "the final authority of the state" to the GG. These opinions may or may not be true, however we would need a better source so we could assess the degree of acceptance they have. TFD (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Those comments are most definitely not true, there are simply far too many reliable official and legal sources contradicting them. Not to mention that all of these sources hold far more weight than someone's blog. trackratte (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family or Royal Family

In the section Royal Family and House - the opening sentence reads as
"The Canadian Royal Family is a group of people related to the monarch of Canada".
IMHO, using Canadian & Canada, are un-necessary, per what this article is about. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The double mention of Canada has been rectified.

The use of "Canadian" was already explained to you directly. Have you forgotten or are you feigning ignorance to start yet another dispute? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Your explanation was unsatisfactory. We'll have to let others weigh in on this, of course. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's evident you disagree. It was evident back in March. Re-raising the matter not with your own cogent argument, but with a call for foot-soldiers, makes it appear as though this, here, is the result of your craving for drama. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Using Canadian is redundant, as the article is about the Canadian monarchy. Also, please don't make personal attacks. It's quite possible that others will agree with your position, so don't assume otherwise. PS: I don't have any 'foot soldiers' & I resent such a label being slapped onto editors, who haven't weighed in yet. I'm quite certain that they (whoever they are) don't view themselves as GD's foot soldiers. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks were made. A remark on how your actions could be perceived is not a personal insult.

The section is linked to directly from a number of other articles. Readers clicking through those pipes will land at the section immediately, meaning they do not see the article title. "Canadian" helps those readers know with certainty they have arrived at the location of the information about the Canadian Royal Family, as is done at the head of articles. In fact, according to MOS:BOLD, the words "Canadian Royal Family" should be bolded: "Use boldface in the remainder of the article... for terms... at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section."
The section itself outlines the emergence of both the concept of a Canadian royal family separate from any other royal family and the specific term "Canadian Royal Family".

--₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Canadian monarchy. What other royal family, would it be about? Are you suggesting that readers might assume it's about the British Royal Family, without Canadian in front of it? GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That was addressed in the first point in my preceding comment. Also, please consider the second point. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with both your points. Anyways, if nobody else protests what you're trying to keep in the article, then so be it. I've no desire to get into an edit-war with you. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A valuable contribution would be an explanation of why you disagree with a) readers arriving at the section via pipe or redirect don't see the article title, b) MOS:BOLD says "Use boldface in the remainder of the article... for terms... at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section", and c) the section covers the emergence both the concept of a Canadian royal family separate from any other and the specific term "Canadian Royal Family". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's apparent we're not going to agree on this topic. Besides, I honestly don't know what you're arguing. If anybody else wants to explain Mies' concerns? Please do. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that:

one of the sources cited in the "Royal family and house" section, namely, the DIAND document,[9] at p. 82, states: "The Queen visits Canada on the invitation of the Government of Canada (as is also the case for members of the Royal Family). The Royal Family, as the Queen’s Family, is considered Canada’s Royal Family."
and another states "Since the members of the Royal Family visit Canada in their capacity as family of the Queen of Canada, it is not accurate to refer to the "Queen of England" or the "British Royal Family." [10]

there is no need to state the obvious in the text, that the family mentioned is that of Canada (as well as of other Commonwealth realms, per the linked article). But it would look better if added in the heading: "Canada's royal family and house". Qexigator (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, altering the heading is fine, so long as something lets readers who get to the section directly via pipe or redirect know where they ended up. However, the header for that section used to be "Canadian Royal Family" until GoodDay altered it to remove "Canadian" for the same reason he now wants the word expunged from the whole section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add: Changing the heading means a lot of pipes (e.g. [[Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house|the royal family]]) are broken. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Mies. : Can you mention where any such piped redirect occurs? Is that a real problem? It must happen elsewhere now and again. Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a way to find all of them other than stumbling upon them. It's a problem insomuch as it's much less user-friendly; readers following broken pipes like that will end up at the top of the page and will have to scan to find what they were looking for. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have done one fix so far here[11], and others may be found if searched for[12]. Qexigator (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

+ More done at List of royal tours of Canada (18th–20th centuries), List of royal tours of Canada (21st century), Treaty 7, Royal monuments in Canada , Royal standards of Canada, Toronto General Hospital, List of Canadian organizations with royal patronage, 2010 Winter Paralympics, British Royal Family, List of Canadian organizations with royal patronage, Order of Canada, Government House (Newfoundland and Labrador). Qexigator (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good place to start. I also discovered Template:Anchor, which can be added twice, as {{anchor|Canadian Royal Family}} and {{anchor|Royal famliy and house}}, under the section header when the article is unlocked. Or, at least I can try to. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

When that time comes, could be an op. for a Royal Engineers' officer. But may be an unnecessary complication, or booby-trap? Qexigator (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I like that idea of changing the heading, as we already have Personificaton of the Canadian state. It also balances well, with the removal of Canadian in the opening sentence. PS - Though it was I who changed the heading Royal family and house, from Canadian royal family and house? I'm always willing to compromise. Thus my acceptance of your (Qex's) change. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Canadian" there may be read as meaning Canadian by birth,nationality, or citizenship which few of the present family is. Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The term "Canadian Royal Family" has been used and is cited as such. But, that is not really of consequence to the matter of the header. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with miesianiacal. Outback the koala (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that "Canadian Royal Family" is used throughout official sources, and media institutions. For example, Government of Canada Backgrounders, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces News Releases, Department of Canadian Heritage publications, Royal Canadian Mint products, Toronto Star articles, and Globe and Mail articles ("wearing in his lapel to indicate that he is on Canadian soil and a member of the Canadian Royal Family"). Despite the fact that this article is clearly about Canada, having the "Canadian Royal Family" makes sense in the same way as "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship" (HMCS) to differentiate between "Her Majesty's Ships of the British Navy, or the "Royal Canadian Mint to differentiate between the Royal Mint, Her Majesty's Canadian Government from Her Majesty's Government, and the list goes on. The exact same logic applies here, as the Canadian Royal Family is a specific institution and should always be used in the same way as the Royal Canadian Mint. Within the same paragraph or section for ease of use for example, the first instance would normally be the proper noun, while following instances would not, for example "The Royal Canadian Mint is a...." followed simply by "the mint specializes in...", etc. In the same way here, the first instance and all section headers should be Canadian Royal Family, and all subsequent instances could simply by "the family". trackratte (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The term "Canadian Royal Family" wasn't disputed. Rather, it was the use of the words "Canadian" and "Canada". (Though, it also seemed to have something to do with GoodDay deciding "Canadian" is redundant in the header, but "Canada's" is not. I don't understand the logic, but it doesn't matter as everyone seems fine with the outcome, regardless.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that as a proper noun in the same way as the "Royal Canadian Mint", or "Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or "Royal Canadian Navy", the header should simply be "The Canadian Royal Family", in the same way as "Canada's mounted royal police and constabulary" would be awkward as a title, instead of simply using its proper name. The first sentence should use "Canadian Royal Family" as well, and all uses thereafter simply being the "family", in the same way we would use "the mint" for the RCM or "the navy" for the RCN, or "the police/the force" for the RCMP. In the interests of being fair and neutral, I don't see why this case should be treated any differently from any of the others. trackratte (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Then, yes, I agree. However, to expedite the resolution of the dispute, I settled for "Canada's royal family and house" as it makes clear to readers who arrive at the section via pipe or redirect that they're in the right spot and it was acceptable to the other two parties involved.

The opening sentence is another matter. As I pointed out earlier, we should, according to MOS:BOLD, "Use boldface in the remainder of the article [i.e. beyond the lede]... for terms... at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the... section." There's presently no words appropriate for bolding at the top of the section. Whether we have to have "Canadian Royal Family" there to bold or not, or whether it really matters if there's bolded words or not, I really don't know. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, like I said there already exists a proper title, and the proper title is in common use in official and media sources when used to refer to that specific institution. As there are ideological persuasions on both side of the argument, I think it would be a simple matter in the interests of fairness to simply use the proper noun in the title and in the first sentence like we would do anywhere, and thereafter use the short form, "family". For example, if a monarchist and a republican were having a debate on what to do with a section on the RCMP, one side might want something like "Her Majesty's Royal mounted police for Canada" or something, while the republican may want "the Canadian national police force", well why don't we just try to see past our biases and use the proper name of RCMP. And yes, I realise I have my biases, I am a constitutionalist, so I prefer whatever is 'proper', 'official', and normally written down somewhere. It just so happens in this case we have plenty of verifiable sources for the neutral presentation for the proper name, whereas any other usage veers into the realm of editor personal preference instead of proper sources. trackratte (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I do understand and align with what you're saying. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Trackratte. Myself & Mies came to an agreement with Qexigator, on this matter. Please, don't spoil this beautiful moment. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't we all share in beautiful moments? Group hug? trackratte (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, track., do share the group hug and let us all move on: given that "Canadian" at that particular place may be read as meaning Canadian by birth, nationality, or citizenship which no more than a few of the present family is/are. The refs I quoted above (00:29, 10 December) do the work for "Royal Family". Let us not single out this section for bolding, if that is what Mies. was proposing. Qexigator (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, if to be Canadian is by birth (on Canadian soil), by nationality, or by citizenship then the Canadian Royal Family is Canadian by one or more of those three requisites, which is most likely to be by nationality. By definition the Canadian Royal Family is Canadian, otherwise it would not be the Canadian Royal Family. If we want to be fair and neutral, then we should use the institutions proper title instead of "Canada's royal family and house". Which, as an aside, seems confusing as the first thing I think of when I the word "house" is the physical building in which, in this case, the Canadian Royal Family would live, of course it quickly 'clicks' when reading the paragraph that follows, but it seems needlessly clunky and confusing. And I don't see why we would use something like "Canada's royal mint" instead of the "Royal Canadian Mint" or "Canada's mounted police" instead of the "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" in a title. trackratte (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I've requested early unprotection from the administrator who protected the article. I believe the dispute is over. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, at least the Qex compromise lasted a few weeks. So much for the agreement, Qexigator. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no agreement, two people advocated for using the proper noun in common and official usage as per the sources I linked in my post above at 12:00 am, 10 December 2015, and two did not. The proper noun in common and official usage is "Canadian Royal Family", and inline with common practice in Wikipedia the proper noun in common usage is used first, such as "Royal Canadian Navy" followed by Navy, or "Royal Canadian Mint" following by the mint, or "Royal Canadian Mounted Policy" followed by the police, and on and on. "Canada's royal family and house" as a title is very odd and not inline with common practice, in much the same way as "Canada's royal mint and money printer" instead of its proper and common use title of "Royal Canadian Mint", or using "The mounted police are..." to start of the RCMP article instead of its proper noun common use title of "The Royal Canadian Mounted Policy are...". trackratte (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As I understood it, we agreed to use Canada in the section heading & omit Canadian from the intro. But, if you & Mies are going to tag-team me, then it's obvious what you both want, will remain. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I have maintained that the situation should be treated in the exact same way as normal Wikipedia practice, which is to use the common use name as the title, with the proper noun beginning the first sentence as above. In this case, the title should be "Canadian Royal Family" with the first sentence using "Canadian Royal Family" and every sentence following using "the family" or "the Royal Family", etc. This particularly as other articles mentioning the Canadian Royal Family blue link to this article section, so the section serves as a Wikipedia article in its own right in this specific area. I still haven't seen any reason put forward not to follow normal practice in this case. trackratte (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And as an aside, the last comment in this discussion prior to today's edit warring was not one of agreement, but was a comment continuing the discussion on whether normal practice should apply, to which no one had replied, thus leaving discussion ongoing with a 50/50 split, not a true consensus resolution. trackratte (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Mies & yourself have made up your minds on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This current version[13] is in my view the way to do the heading and first sentence. Qexigator (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I still don't see any reason to maintain the convoluted and confusing title against normal practice. However, isn't at all worth getting upset over. Happy new year to all by the way. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's make 3 in favour & 1 against. Nothing I can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to needlessly add my opinion to the debate: it should be called the "Canadian" Royal Family at least once in the article, preferably at its first usage. The Canadian Royal Family is a distinct legal entity from the Royal Family (implying UK unless it is explicitly stated), so even though the article is about the Monarchy of Canada, I think it is still worth putting in. If you need precedent for adding "Canada" as must as possible, look at literally any government department. The UK throws crowns onto everything; we throw on the word "Canada". Either way, probably not worth much more debate. The world will keep spinning either way :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 09:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2013 Succession Act

How shall we interpret the wording of this Canadian succession act? Did it come into effect because of the passing of the British 2013 Act? or because of the changing of all the Commonwealth realm successions, which include some of them (like Canada) merely defering to the UK's Act. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a moot point. The article content was decided on earlier (which you're aware of, as you were involved in the discussion) and the latest edit did nothing to change it other than remove needless duplication in the section. Your revert had no justification. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Canada allowed the United Kingdom to change its (Canada's) succession. We both don't like it, but it's what happened. Anyways, I'm not in the mood to get into an edit war with you (particularly if you're going to start making personal attacks, in your edit summaries), so I'll allow others to decide on which wording is better. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

To spell it out for you, here's the content before my edit:

The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, assents to the proposed changes to the succession to the British throne as set out in the UK's Succession to the Crown Bill, 2013, which came into effect on 26 March 2015.

....

Along with the other Commonwealth realms, Canada in 2011 committed to the Perth Agreement, which proposed changes to the laws governing succession, including altering the primogeniture to absolute, that is, without male preference. The Department of Canadian Heritage said in 2013 that the laws governing succession for Canada are UK law and are not part of Canada's constitution. The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, was then brought into force on 26 March 2015, the same day as the other Commonwealth realms that required their own legislation for implementing the Perth Agreement. The act expresses the federal parliament's "assent" to Britain's Succession to the Crown Bill, in keeping with the preamble to the Statute of Westminster.

Here's the content after my edit:

The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, assents to the proposed changes to the succession to the British throne as set out in the UK's Succession to the Crown Bill, 2013, in keeping with the preamble to the Statute of Westminster. It came into effect on 26 March 2015, the same day as the other Commonwealth realms that required their own legislation for implementing the Perth Agreement.

....

Along with the other Commonwealth realms, Canada in 2011 committed to the Perth Agreement, which proposed changes to the laws governing succession, including altering the primogeniture to absolute, that is, without male preference. The Department of Canadian Heritage said in 2013 that the laws governing succession for Canada are UK law and are not part of Canada's constitution.

Can you see the difference? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You've changed the ending of the opening paragraph from:
*"which came into effect on 26 March 2015"
to
*"in keeping with the preamble to the Statue of Westminster. It came into effect on 26 March 2015, the same day as the other Commonwealth realms that require their own legislation for implementing the Perth Agreement".
You appear to be taking the focus off of the UK & putting it onto the other realms. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to let others review your changes to the aforementioned section of this article & voice their concerns or lack thereof. I'll accept what they choose - the status quo or your changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As is so often the case, I have no idea what you're talking about. However, it is evident to me you have an unhealthy obsession that leads you to get in over your head and altogether cause more problems than good. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't predict the actions of others, but I won't be reverting your recent changes again. This isn't because I consent to them, but rather because it's too much hassle. I'm sure you'll agree that what goes in or comes out of this article, isn't entirely up to you & me. Others will decide collectively. PS- A Rfc won't be necessary here :) GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Day, I too am having difficulty following your point. As I understand it the Canadian government says that the inheritance of the Canadian crown is determined by UK laws. However there is a convention that the agreement of all the realms is obtained and, in the case of Canada, agreement is acknowledged by its parliament. TFD (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That's alright. I won't revert Mies' changes, if you & the others (from the last Rfc) have no problem with it. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC

How old is the Monarchy of Canada?

"Canada is one of the world's oldest monarchies..."? This sentence just doesn't read correctly to me. I'm assuming it's taking its cue from List of Canadian monarchs, but according to the infobox, the Canadian monarchy isn't quite old compared to the European monarchies for example. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

...it's 'taking its cue' from the academic, peer-reviewed, journal reference which is the big "13" smack dab at the end of what you just quoted.

I'm not too sure about the infobox date, or what sources it is based on. Reliable references explicitly tackling the start date of monarchy in Canada use 1534, with unexercised claims from 1497. The first monarchical Canadian government was established in 1534 for the the colony of Canada.

The Constitution Act, 1867 states that the Canadian government and executive authority is simply "declared to continue" and "be vested in the Queen". Command in chief of the Canadian forces was also simply "declared to continue and be vested in the Queen". In reference to the office of sovereign of Canada, I have seen nothing within the Constitution Act 1867 to state that there was anything beyond a simple "continuation" of the office and its authorities within Canada. trackratte (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Will this change require a date change in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What "this change" are you referring to? trackratte (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The formation date in the infobox has 1867. Shall we change it to an earlier date? GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't currently understand why it is 1867, however I might be missing something. There's no harm in leaving it for now and waiting for some input from other editors who may be able to fill us in on the the reason if there is one. If no evidence is forthcoming of the monarchy actually being created in 1867 then we can go ahead and change it I think. trackratte (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The crown was formed in the sense that the crown of the dominion of Canada was a merger of the crowns of three provinces. But would we say that the crown of the UK was created in 1801, when the the united crown of Great Britain was merged with the crown of Ireland? The other issue is that Miesianiacal and others claim the crown of Canada was created in 1931, before that there was only the crown of the UK. Why do we even mention foreign rulers before that date? TFD (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Monarchy of the UK article doesn't have a date in the infobox, and discusses various dates/events in the body, such as 1066, 1603, 1701, 1801, etc.

In summary, no I wouldn't say that monarchy in GB started in 1801, it clearly started prior to then and has continued to evolve to the present. The Crown wasn't created in 1931, it evolved into a uniquely independent and separate Canadian institution, thus it was institutional change, in the same way as one who changes their nationality (or acquires another one) later on in life does not receive a new birthday. trackratte (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed Victoria & 1867 from the infobox, for the moment. Note: I support the date 1867 as the formation date & Victoria as the first monarch. IMHO, we should consider the topic of this article as having come into being upon Confederaton. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, there is no requirement to have a date in the infobox at all, or certainly not any pressing reason for this very moment. The British Monarchy does not have a date of formation in the infobox either. Note: Nothing in the Constitution Act supports the formation of a monarchy, but instead explicitly states that the then current monarchy was to continue. We also have a boatload of reliable sources, including peer-reviewed academic journals and official sources, which state that Canada is one of the oldest continuing monarchies in the world, and that monarchy in Canada was established as of 1534. I don't think changing the scope of this article to only the Dominion of Canada is feasible, it would needlessly disperse the current topic in a bunch of different articles, there is nothing to support a 1867 start date as the Constitution merely stated the current institution was to continue, and would be a lot of work only to make it more difficult for the reader to have a proper overview of the topic.

In my mind there are really two ways forward, either we put 1534 which is supported by the overwhelming weight of reliable sources for the institution of monarchy in Canada, or we leave it blank and not have any date in the infobox at all. trackratte (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of "Formation" in the infobox, the infobox template should be edited to change "Formation" to "Foundation" or have "Foundation" added. "Foundation" more means the farthest back an historical lineage can be traced, whereas "Formation" means the creation of something. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you, Trackratte & the others can agree on, is fine with me :) GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense as well. There is no legal formation of monarchy in Canada in terms of instrument or statute, as it was practically formed from the moment of the very first colony and organically evolved from there, so in that regard a 'tracing of historical lineage' is much more practical than a 'legal formation' approach, as there simply isn't one. trackratte (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we want to 1) leave out the date, 2) attempt to change the template from formation to foundation or establishment, or 3) input 1534? My preference is for 1534 as we have a tremendous number of reliable sources, including official, which state that 'monarchy in Canada was established in 1534' or 'Canadian monarchs date back from 1534', etc along those lines. trackratte (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I would go with 1867. Before that date, it could easily be argued that the situation was first - French monarchs reigning over Canada, then afterward - British monarchs reigning over Canada. Though British monarchs reigning over Canada, from 1867 until 1931, could also be argued? I think 1931 would be difficult to get a consensus for. PS: I'll accept what ever date gets a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources go against 1867, so yes, we could absolutely make some good arguments for a variety of dates such as 1931, 1953, and 1982, however it's not about our arguments as the sources are clear.

The sovereigns of Canada have had French, British, and Canadian nationalities, but their nationality doesn't change the fact that they occupied the office, in the same way as prime ministers of Canada who were British, or governors general of Canada who were French, for example. All of the sources stating 1534, coupled with the fact that the Constitution Act explicitly states that the role of sovereign of Canada was simply to continue in 1867 not be created, was the reason I didn't put 1867 as an option as it contradicts too many legal, official, and other reliable sources. trackratte (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

1867, was the long standing date. But, I'll go along with whatever is decided. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I:t is hard to determine a list of monarchs of Canada before Canada was formed. Note that List of Presidents of the United States starts with Washington, not James I. No one is tendentious enough to begin an article called "Heads of State of the United States" and start in 1607 before the U.S. was formed. TFD (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Um...not that James I was not a president...so would obviously not be included in a list of presidents of the United States...

Also, Canada was formed as of 1534, which is why when you look at maps from the mid-16th century the word "Canada" is clearly present where the modern day provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia are, and why there were governors general of Canada, a government of Canada, Canadian militia, and the colony of Canada, etc in the 1500s. trackratte (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kindly read my comments more carefully before replying. I did not say James I was a president, I said he was a head of state. Kings are heads of state. I said, "No one is tendentious enough to begin an article called "Heads of State of the United States." TFD (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thus my reasoning for supporting 1867. Also, the French line didn't evolve into the British line, but was abruptly replaced by the latter in 'French and Indian War'. Where as the British line evolved into the Canadian line. Some would even argue that today, it's the British-Canadian line. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The info-box for Canada mentions 1867, 1931 and 1982. While the confederation was a merger (unlike Australia) between existing provinces, it is usually given as a start date of the country. And despite the fact New France was acquired through conquest, it was ceded through treaty and there was continuity between New France and British North America. Political institutions continued, and Catholic bishops swore allegience to the King of Great Britain. 1534 is problematic because Nfld was merged into Canada, which already existed, hence is not a predecessor state.

I would not use 1931 though since there was no change in the Crown or Canada's legal relationship with it. The King continued to be King of Canada as had George III. The only change was that he ceased to receive advice from his UK ministers.TFD (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

1534 has nothing to do with Newfoundland (which by the way it is not known that John Cabot landed there, only somewhere on the East coast of North America, likely Newfoundland or Nova Scotia). 1534 was when Canada was established in the name of King Francis I. In 1867 two colonies joined the colony of Canada to form the Dominion of Canada, to which territories were gradually added over the following 80 years.

Second, we are not talking about the establishment of the Dominion of Canada, but of monarchy of Canada. All of the sources say that the actual line of sovereigns of Canada began in 1534 with Francis I as King of the French colony of Canada (with unexercised English claims from 1497). There is no other date besides 1534 that is supported by the weight of verifiable sources. As I said, there are no sources for the creation of monarchy in Canada in 1867. trackratte (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said 1583, which is when Newfoundland was claimed for the King and is one of the start dates suggested. Cabot of course lived in the 1400s. There are of course no sources that Canada was not established in 1867. It would be bizarre to claim there was a Queen of Canada before there was a Canada. TFD (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would, which is why the sources say that Canada has been a monarchy since the 16th century instead of the 12th. trackratte (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

British Nationality Acts, Institutional Evolution, and other "into the weeds" discussions

Canada was a British colony/dominion prior to 1931, with British subjects, so the British Crown at the time wasn't in any sense "foreign". In the same way that John A. Macdonald wasn't a foreign prime minister, even though he was a British subject and born in Scotland. The existence of a Canadian monarchy in the same sense as the existence of a Canadian people (les Canadiens) since the founding of Canada in 1534. The official stance of the government of Canada is that the Canadian monarchy as a form of government was established as of 1534. In the same way as Canadian governors general have existed "in an unbroken line since the appointment of Samuel de Champlain in 1627". The crown evolved along with Canada (which makes sense as they're legally one and the same), so Canada was French until it was British until it was completely sovereign. Commensurately, the Canadian crown was French, then British, then completely sovereign. Unless you're saying that there is no such thing as Canadian history prior to 1931 because it was actually British history... trackratte (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that Canada began in 1931, that is what you think your opinion the Canadian crown was created in 1931 means. BTW Canadians did not cease to be British subjects, the 1981 Nationality Act merely changed the term to "Commonwealth citizen." Not sure whether your misinterpretation of the law has anything to do with your position. Whether or not Canada has a history has nothing to do with whether it is a monarchy. But the issue is when that monarchy began. You claim it began in 1931, when you believe the crown was divided. GoodDay dates it from when Canada was united. But now you bring up the King of France. That's where your other (contradictory) argument might be valid. Because AFAIK he was not simultaneously King of Canada. TFD (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about, 1981 Nationality Act, this section is about the date monarchy in Canada was established, not about foreign citizenship laws. You're talking about my "misinterpretation" of the law? You just said "Canadians did not cease to be British subjects, the 1981 Nationality Act merely changed the term to 'Commonwealth citizen'". Why don't you go ahead and take a look at an actual Canadian law, such as Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 ("The Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, is an Act of the Parliament of Canada which separated Canadian citizenship from British nationality"). trackratte (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

So you are telling me what I think my opinion is? I highly doubt it. And you are confusing the creation or establishment of an institution with institutional change.

For example, the Hudson's Bay Company was established in 1670 under a Royal Charter and essentially existed as a government over a huge part of North America, then became a mercantile business losing its territory in 1869, and since 2003 has been an American retailer. Just because it transitioned from a British para-government, to British business, to Canadian business, to American business, does not change the fact that it was created in 1670 and has existed since then.

Just because we acknowledge it became "American" in 2003 does not mean we are saying it was created in 2003, in the same way that our acknowledgement that the Crown became uniquely and separately Canadian by 1931 does not mean it was created in 1931. Just as a person can change their nationality at any point during their life, it doesn't result in a new date of birth when they do so. trackratte (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The Citizenship Act did not remove the status of British subject, but created a new status. Check out pre-1982 Canadian passports that say, "A Canadian citizen is a British subject." Following the change to British nationality law they now say "Commonwealth citizen." I do not understand your HBC comparison. HBC is a legal person, (a corporation) whose personality does not change when its shares are traded. But the queens of Canada and the UK are two separate legal persons (corporations sole.) According to you, before 1931 there was no sovereign of Canada, merely a British one.

(edit conflict)Um, no, Canadian passports do not say "Commonwealth citizen" anywhere, they say "The bearer of this passport is a Canadian citizen". Are you Canadian?

And a corporation sole is a legal person, so your confusion will likely be cleared up with a bit more research. The "personality" of the King/Queen of Canada does not change when the person filling that role does, in the same way as a President/CEO/ownership change does not affect the status of the HBC as a legal person. I'm not too sure what you are not understanding in that regard.

And no, before 1931 there certainly was a sovereign of Canada, and I've never said anything different as the sources are clear. The fact that the sovereign of Canada was French at one point, or that the sovereign of Canada was British afterwards, or that the sovereign of Canada is now Canadian, does not change the office of sovereign of Canada as a corporation sole. This, in the same way as Canadian governors general were all French and British before the appointment of Vincent Massey in 1952, which in no way made it so that Canada never had governors general before that date. Canada has been a monarchy since 1534 according to reliable sources (peer-reviewed academic journals, academic university publications, official publications, and a miscellany of other published histories, books, websites, etc). So, the fact that Canada has been a monarchy since 1534 isn't up for debate in terms of Wikipedia policy in the main space due to the overwhelming number of reliable sources. If we change the name of the article to "Monarchy of the Dominion of Canada" then there would be a clear reason to have 1867 I suppose, but then we would have to go through a great deal of trouble breaking up the current article, and having "Monarchy of the Colony of Canada", "...of the Canadas", "...of the Province of Canada", etc, which I think does a great deal more harm than good as there would be a tremendous amount of overlap and needless dispersion making it harder for a reader to achieve a good overview of the topic. trackratte (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Part VIII of the current citizenship act says, "Every person who, under an enactment of a Commonwealth country other than Canada, is a citizen or national of that country has in Canada the status of a citizen of the Commonwealth. For the purposes of any law in force in Canada on and after February 15, 1977 that refers to the status of British subject, the status so described shall refer to the status of Canadian citizen or citizen of the Commonwealth or both as the intent of that law may require."

TFD (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Canadian law does not bestow Commonwealth Citizenship, it merely recognises the status of certain other countries national statuses, and accords this status on non-Canadian citizens. Section 32(1) deals with Commonwealth countries "other than Canada", Section 32(2) deals with countries which still retain British Subject status, and Section 33 deals with Citizens of Ireland. If you are a citizen of Canada (with no other citizenship) then you are not a citizen of the Commonwealth (in the legal sense, but are in the sense of being a citizen within a wider community, like a citizen of North America for example). Canadian citizens are Commonwealth citizens under British law, which affords certain privileges for Canadians entering the UK, such as I believe working for the UK civil service or joining the British military.

Wikipedia explains it as a "Commonwealth citizen is a person who has that status under British nationality law and may enjoy some privileges in the United Kingdom...Each country can determine what special rights, if any, are accorded to non-nationals who are Commonwealth citizens. The term is largely confined to British nationality law and is not used in many other Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada".

You're clearly over your head in this area, and are just shooting out random falsities such as Canadian passports "now say 'Commonwealth citizen'", which they don't. trackratte (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what your comments have to do with the article. Indeed, Commonwealth citizenship is not bestowed by Canadian statute, it is bestowed by common law. (See Calvin's Case.) But the Act does not "merely recognise[] the status of certain other countries national statuses." It says that Canadians are Commonwealth citizens which is the new term (in most cases) for British subjects. Canadians are British subjects under common law (both in England and in Canada), as are Irish citizens but the terms Commonwealth citizen and Irish citizen are now used. You appear to be tailoring your facts to new information provided to you. I suppose your view is that the Canadian crown depends on Canadians ceasing to be subjects. But in common law, subjects never owed allegiance to the corporation sole, so your argument makes no sense.

I stand corrected on the passport. It did until approx 1977 say Canadian citizens were British subjects, today it merely says that in the event of the absence of a Canadian mission, they should contact the nearest British consulate.

TFD (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To summarize: the status of British subject, which is part of common law, was never revoked, but British subjects who are citizens of Commonwealth nations are now called Commonwealth citizens. Canadian citizenship, introduced in 1947, did not replace the common law status of subject, but Canadian legislation gradually removed the rights and privileges of British subjects and reserved them for Canadians only, including the right to enter Canada and to vote there. But none of this appears to be relevant to when the Canadian crown began. The House of Lords says it began when the first administration was created for Canada, while according to you it occurred in 1931. TFD (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

have no opinion but happened to read something the other day that may be of interest Quote Peter Trepanier Canadian Parliamentary Review 2004 In Canada the legal embodiment for this change, The Royal Style and Titles Act, was approved by the Canadian Parliament and was established by Royal Proclamation on May 29, 1953. The Act conferred legally and publicly, on the eve of the Queen’s Coronation, the principle of a distinct constitutional monarchy for Canada. Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom. The monarch remained shared, but the institution of monarchy had now evolved into independent constitutional entities-- Moxy (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

So... until just before the 1953 coronation, Elizabeth II & her predecessors were considered British monarchs reigning over Canada or British/Canadian monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I read it as British monarchs reigning over Canada...only in 1953 was the new crown formalized. --Moxy (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. There have long been discussions about when the Canadian crown was established. That was finally settled in 2005 when the Law Lords, citing one of the opinions in the 1982 patriation case, decided there is a separate crown when there is "an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867." In any case, her previous title referred to Canada, since it was one of her "British Dominions beyond the Seas." TFD (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the legal description of the sovereign of Canada as "of Canada" (nationality) and the title "Queen of Canada" were legislated in 1953. The institution of the Crown in Right of Canada was established as soon as Canada had an "established government" beyond a simple extension of that of the UK (that one UK law case cited by TFD states that this was the case "by 1867" suggesting that this was likely the case before then, and in fact Canada had "an established government" in 1840 as well). In terms of legally having a Canadian Crown as distinct from that of the UK, it has been widely recognised that this was the case by 1931. In summary, there was a lag between the emergency of a independent institution, and the commensurate style and titles being legislated for. trackratte (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No it is generally recognized that the Canadian Crown has always been distinct from the Crown of the UK. The theory that the Crown was divided in 1931, while once popular, is a distinctly minority position today. Canadian nationality was established in 1947 and the Queen's title was changed in 1953. But note even before the change it referenced the dominions of which Canada was the first, and of course the new title gives primary place to the UK, with Canada being mentioned second. Furthermore, official titles do not determine official roles, rather they are meant to reflect them. So the Prince of Orange for example is not the actual prince of Orange, as Orange was ceded to France. I have provided lots of primary and secondary sources explaining the division between the two crowns and suggest you read them before repeating your opinion. TFD (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

1534, 1763, 1867 or 1931

Correct me if I'm in error, but these seem to be the top candidates for which year the Canadian monarchy came into being. Shall we decide which year to use in the infobox? or just not bother at all & leave it blank. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)