Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 19

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 15

←

Archive 17

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Succession to the Canadian throne

Here we go AGAIN. Has the Canadian succession to the throne been changed from male preference primogeniture to full cognatic primogeniture? or not? GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The only person resuscitating the argument here is you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored Surtsicna's version, but with a dispute-tag. If he chooses not to dispute? then I won't press the issue any further. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, the dispute is of your own making, not Surtsicna's. So, either clarify what your problem with my edit is or put it back and let us all rest again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Do as you wish. I'll allow Surtisca to decide on whether he agrees or not. As for me? I support the change he made. Due to its clarity & reflection of fact. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Monarchy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Monarchy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Head of state

Would anyone object, if I added head of state to the intro? GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that it would be consistent with the article's NPOV section on Head of state, it could be an acceptable improvement to the article as a whole, if neatly done. Qexigator (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added it in. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You said she is head of state but the Head of State section questions this. You need to ensure consistency between the lead and the rest of the article. TFD (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any proposals of wording? GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I would leave it out of the lead. It should not be mentioned without explanation, so it is best explained in its own section. For example, it is important that the governor general performs most of the functions of head of state and has the status of a head of state in international protocol. TFD (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarify, are you suggesting the monarch is not the head of state? GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Not up to me to decide. I am however saying that the wording we provide is supposed to inform readers not confuse them. Why do you think it belongs in the lead, other than it appears in other articles. TFD (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I put it in the lead, because debated in Canada or not, the monarch is 'head of state'. But yeah, it's up to the Wiki community that chimes in. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If retained in lead, link head of state to Head of state#[Governors-general (Commonwealth realms).[1] Qexigator (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That's great. I wonder if it could be an idea for the Monarchy of Australia article's lead? GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

And for consistency all the others?[2] Qexigator (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Being true is not sufficient reason to include information in the lead. If it were, then there would be nothing left for the rest of article. TFD (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't ruin the good vibes :( GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to explain my position, I'll try again. Saying the Queen is head of state without qualification is confusing to readers, since most of the normal head of state functions are carried out by someone else, who in protocol ranks as a head of state. Also, I do not see that mentioning it in the lead provides any information to readers. I asked you for a policy or guideline based reason for including it, you have provided none. Now you may agree or disagree with me, but I don't see that further argument or requests for clarification will resolve anything. TFD (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Canada's Royal Family

Much of the Canadian Royal Family section was written well before the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 which changed the nature of the Canadian Royal Family ^[1].

At the same time, certain information from the 2010-2012 versions of this page (e.g. 2010), which somehow got deleted, should be re-established. The text discusses how, for example, "as legal subjects of the country's monarch, the Royal Family holds a unique position reflected in the confusion that sometimes arises around the awarding of honours to them" and several useful examples are given.

I'll put an update flag on this section.

Mebden (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that Canada has 'no' royal family. It has a monarch as head of state, though. Anyways, that's a whole other can of worms, so not gonna dwell on it too much. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What part of the Succession to the Throne Act changed the royal family, exactly? I have read your linked article and don't see the answer in there, either. It opines on Harry's application for permanent residence in Canada, which the royal family section of this article doesn't cover. It also includes Philippe Lagasse's opinions about Harry not being a Canadian prince or duke, which the royal family section of this article does cover, but is in alignment with Lagasse in saying the titles and styles the family members (other than the sovereign) hold are granted by the British monarch and are only courtesy titles in Canada. Nothing in this article makes a contrary claim to them being British citizens or them [sic] being British subjects in line to the British throne. (Legasse is wrong to use the plural; Harry is in the line of succession, Meghan is not.) So, what's not accurate and reliably sourced on this page?

Per honours: I can't see what material you're saying was deleted. But, I do know the constitutions of the Order of Canada, Order of Military Merit, and Order of Merit of the Police Forces were all amended to allow for members of the royal family to receive substantive appointment. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mebden:, look who you've just stirred up ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you click on the 2010 link I provided above, you'll see a page with, for example, this text (and references): "Still, the existence of a Canadian Royal Family is contested, mostly by individuals in Canada's fringe republican movement, but also by former Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia Iona Campagnolo..." The removal of this information on 9 February 2015 — by yourself — is an example of how this page has lost its nuance over the years.

Currently the section is weak. For example, the opening sentence, in defining the Canadian Royal Family, uses as its source an archived document saying somewhat feebly that the Queen’s Family is "considered" Canada’s Royal Family. A Wikipedia section introducing Canada's Royal Family needs a stronger starting point than "considered". As far as I can tell, the term Canadian Royal Family originates from a line in a speech that the Queen delivered in 2002. This speech is referenced several paragraphs later; perhaps it should be moved up.

For now, I'll add a request for references in the second paragraph's sentence claiming that the Royal Family are "considered Canadian". More generally, a useful next step (perhaps for others to take on, so that there isn't a concentration of editing activity in my hands) would be to reinstate the deleted arguments that only the Queen is Canadian. In the run-up to, and aftermath of, the Succession to the Throne Act there was discussion about this. Relatedly, it was successfully argued that Canada has a rule of Crown identification rather than an incorporated law of Crown succession^[2]; this supports the argument that from a constitutional point of view we can only be certain that the Queen is Canadian. The Queen's spoken words in 2002, and other sources in this section, have a bearing too, but the Wikipedia section could be rewritten (preferably not by you or me) to reflect both sides rather than make the reader's mind up for them. Mebden (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I did click on the 2010 link. But, it didn't show differences. I can say right away, though, "mostly by individuals in Canada's fringe republican movement" are weasel words and unverified. Delving deeper into the older version of the page you linked, I see the opinion attributed to Iona Campagnolo was sourced to a self-published political cartoon which doesn't meet WP:RS. I couldn't find where it included anything about only the Queen being Canadian.

I take your point about this document saying "the Queen's family is considered Canada's Royal Family". While it's still a worthwhile source, this book is more definitive and ties in the creation of Canadian royal standards with the concept of the Canadian royal family, as well as supporting what's said in this article about the first use of the term being in the Queen's speech in Nunavut.

I'm not sure, though, how Crown identification vis-a-vis incorporated law of Crown succession relates to this particular subject. The essay doesn't mention the family and none of the other sources here touch on those concepts.

I agree the section could do with some copyediting. It's seems to me that there's actually two topics within it: the Canadian royal family and the nationality of its members. Do you think its best to start paragraph by paragraph here? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Great find! A quotation from Michael Jackson's book, written in 2018 after the dust settled, would be a quality addition to this article, thanks.

And yes, separating the two topics — of existence and of nationalities — should also help, if only to better navigate any future misunderstandings.

I hope that someone might rework the section; preferably someone new to it but who skims archives 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13 lest they unwittingly resurrect past concerns. Mebden (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, the Canadian courts have basically ruled that the UK decides who Canada's monarch/head of state is. As a Canadian, I find those rulings (along with how the Harper gov't handled the whole situation) & subsequent rejection of appeals, quite disappointing. No doubt, John Aimers would be peeved, about those rulings. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

After having read all of the Courts' rulings, they have not stated that the UK decides who the Queen of Canada is. They have said that Canada has agreed to a "principle of symmetry", and the constitutional convention in all of the realms, including the UK, is that all of the realms must agree to any changes to the succession before they can be implemented, and of course Canada is free to change its own constitution and rules of succession if it wanted to break away from this principle if it wanted to as a sovereign state. You can also turn it around in the sense that that Canada decides who the Queen of the UK is, insofar under current constitutional norms they cannot change their own succession laws without Canada's consent.

As an aside, it's been awhile since the old gang has been together hasn't it ;-) .trackratte (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Trackratte: Well, actually they can. They can make the preamble to the Statute of Westminister inapplicable in the UK by simply passing another statute that says so - and since preambles aren't generally considered binding they may not even have to do that. As far as UK law is concerned the Statute of Westminster does not have constitutional supremacy and so parliament can amend it like any other statute. They choose not to but if the UK government really wanted to make a change and, say, Grenada refused for some reason the UK could simply choose to go ahead regardless. 157.52.6.39 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As this article points out, the royal family of Canada is not a legal concept. I don't see therefore that any legal rulings will have any direct effect. Discussion has died down since the Quebec Superior Court decision, which was upheld on appeal. TFD (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. What we are really talking about, stated slightly differently, is the family of the Sovereign of Canada, which is obviously not a legal concept. What is a matter of fact and not opinion is that 1) the Queen of Canada has a family, and 2) a number of them have been officially recognized within Canada through the granting of uniquely Canadian orders and / or Canadian Royal standards. trackratte (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Head of state

Below moved from a notice board. trackratte (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In April 2020, the term Head of state was deleted from the article Monarchy of Canada, on the argument that monarch & head of state mean the same thing. I'd recommend that the term be restored, at least on the grounds that we have it in the other Commonwealth monarchy articles (see Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Monarchy of New Zealand, for examples). It would be best to settle the issue for all these articles, instead of having 'one' different from the other fifteen. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Monarch and Head of State are certainly distinct terms. Not all heads of states are monarchs, of course. But also not all monarchs are heads of state, or the only head of state. As a simple starting point we can find some counterexamples at head of state. But I don't see anything on the talk page, where should I contribute to achieve WP:CONSENSUS? - Astrophobe (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I see what you're saying: that we should have one discussion for all the articles. Well I certainly agree that head of state is non-redundant with monarch. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Head of state was also added to the governor general article. That is clearly incorrect as the GG is simply a representative of the monarch here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above from Walter.

No one is arguing that head of state means the same thing as monarch as it doesn't. The edit was that, for the phrase "is monarch and head of state", that the term head of state is redundant given the definition of monarch which is "a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor".

Therefore, the exact same logic as "monarch and head of state" applies to such a phrase as "monarch and sovereign", in that both sovereign and head of state are literally in the definition of monarch, and as a result if you say monarch, both sovereign and head of state become superfluous/logically redundant.

Now of community consensus is to maintain such redundancy for a (as of yet) completely unknown reason that's fine, as I'm not exactly emotional about the issue. This is a bit of a mountain out of a molehill situation in reaction to a good faith edit made nearly two months ago. trackratte (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course I certainly don't mean to question the good faith of the edits involved. But you've left something extremely important out of the definition you give for a monarch. Our page monarch says that a monarch "is a sovereign head of state in a monarchy". When speaking about government systems in general, it is sadly more complicated. With a quick check to the University of Gothenburg's Varieties of Democracy dataset, which is one of the most complete WP:RS for government system types, it's easy to find 20th century recent examples from the Commonwealth where the Monarch of the United Kingdom was the monarch but not the functional head of state of a country. Some of those are South Africa up to 1961, India and Pakistan up to about 1950, and New Zealand in the early 1900s. These are somewhat unusual examples, but they matter nonetheless; it's much easier to find examples like the ones I pointed to in my comment above where there are certain periods of history in which was common for, say, the Pope to be jointly head of state with a monarch in a European country. I don't want to stay anything particular about how these details are captured in the page and maybe you can find a nice way to improve the wording and reduce the appearance of redundancy, but what I think is crucial is that a huge part of Wikipedia's usefulness as an encyclopedia of government system types is that these pages usually note who the head of state and head of government are in a given country-year, and that can indeed be distinct from a country's monarch. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

All good stuff. The article in question is Monarchy of Canada though so got it, other stuff exists, however we're not talking about the monarchy Wiki page but a specific one.

The definition of monarch I presented above is from the Oxford dictionary, so that is it's verifiable common meaning. The Wikipedia definition says something very similar according to your own text above in that "a monarch is a sovereign head of state". So, either way saying that QEII is Canada's "monarch and head of state" is, by definition, redundant. I wonder if someone was arguing that we should say that QEII is Canada's monarch and sovereign if you would have the same opinion given the logic is exactly the same.

Like I said though, Wikipedia is full of redundancies. Generally we try to remove them and simplify where possible as editors, but certainly not the end of the world.

Edit: I'm not advocating for changing the Australia article, or any other, as I had initially seen a redundancy in a Canadian article and removed it there, not in any other article clearly. It may make sense to have "monarch and head of state" for a Australian Monarchy article given the baggage, debate, and any other unique reasoning (or maybe the opposite is true, I don't know and don't pretend to be Australian!). But given the definition of the word, it doesn't make sense in my mind to deliberately include such a redundancy in the specific article that I had initially tried to improve a month and a half ago.trackratte (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have now explained why monarch does not imply head of state, and I have given specific examples where countries that had a monarch also had a head of state who was not the monarch. I only gave a small number of such examples, and can certainly give many more specific examples if it's necessary. I also pointed to places on Wikipedia, including the page head of state, where the tacit consensus is that heads of state can be non-monarchs in countries that have monarchs. Until somebody engages with the many specific examples that show that it is not at all true that "monarch" always and invariably implies "head of state", I'll consider my part in this discussion complete. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, monarch doesn't always = head of state. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, this effect a great number of articles. There's the commonwealth republics, not to mention monarchies & republics outside the Commonwealth of Nations. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Astrophobe, I'm not disputing that there may be cases where certain articles warrant additional explanation, however, this discussion is about Canada, and in Canada there cannot be a separate monarch and head of state. And given that, as you yourself have quoted, that monarch is by definition a head of state, including it is redundant. Not that it shouldn't be included here, I just haven't seen a reason that justifies it (here) trackratte (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a topic that should be considered singular to this article (see President of the United States, Monarchy of New Zealand, etc). Such a topic should be hashed out on a bigger stage, which would effect all republic/monarchy articles which have a 'head of state'. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not my position that certain other articles elsewhere in the world warrant additional explanation. I was saying that it is always necessary to specify that a monarch is also a "head of state", or, in many cases, that somebody else is the head of state. It is not a definitional property of the country of Canada that inside our borders "monarch" implies "head of state" regardless of what it means elsewhere in the world. Further, even if it were completely obvious to every Canadian that the monarch is the only possible head of state in the country, that would not be obvious to all of our readers who may be unfamiliar with Canadian governance. I myself have used Wikipedia's explicit labeling of heads of state and heads of government many times in the past for many different countries that I'm not at all familiar with. Anyways, now this conversation really has run its course. Obviously my argument is strong keep. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Too late. I've already done it. According to Canada's constitution, the monarch is the head of state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not in dispute as a matter of classification (although the words head of state are not used in the Canadian constitution, please point me to the appropriate paragraph of I'm mistaken!).

However, given that monarch means "a sovereign head of state, especially a king, queen, or emperor", I fail to see how saying "monarch and head of state", or "monarch and sovereign", or "monarch,.sovereign, and head of state" add anything of much value given the clear redundancy. Please feel free to provide a clear explanation relevant to the Canadian case, I'm not necessarily against its inclusion per se. trackratte (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You should be broadening your argument on a bigger stage, instead of concentrating on this 'one' article. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a section on this very page, "Head of state", that talks about the debate and misconceptions surrounding whether the monarch is properly "head of state"— that some academics believe the GG is, and that the public is largely unaware of the constitutional procedure and believes it's the PM. It is obviously relevant to include "monarch and head of state" in the lead, both as a clarification for readers (if merely a quarter of Canadians know the Queen is head of state, safe to say the percentage of foreigners is much, much lower) and as a summation of the article, as the lead is supposed to do. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should leave it out. The term head of state was coined in the 1960s to explain that monarchs and presidents have similar functions in their respective states. The concept doesn't work well for regents or acting presidents, who carry out the same functions and have the same status in diplomacy, yet lack the title. Considering that the Canadian constitution does not use the term head of state and the debate has received no attention, there is no reason to mention it. TFD (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

While the term monarch and head of state is redundant based on a purely logical reading of the definition, the comments above from Kawnhr offer that there is a measure of further clarity added by its inclusion given the political and academic context of its usage. Further, in looking at verifiable sources this usage is also supported and therefore should be used whenever possible as a matter of core policy. As a result, barring any further points or dispute, I would offer that this discussion has run its course and that the previous status quo be allowed to remain. trackratte (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I quite like the current solution, in which the first paragraph reads "The Queen of Canada (and head of state) has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952". It states unambiguously that the Monarch of Canada is its head of state, while also making it clear that being head of state is, in this context, completely attached to being the monarch. I think this represents a good consensus position for this page. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Stating that Queen Elizabeth II is the "current monarch and head of state" is indeed redundant, almost misleadingly so. That she is a monarch is very easy to deduce both from her title and the scope of the article. Stating that she is the current head of state is enough; or, better yet, we could just say that she is the current queen of Canada. Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THIS ARTICLE - As mentioned before inclusion/exclusion of 'head of state' is a topic for all head of state-related articles. We've got several of these Monarchy of country articles (Commonwealth & non-Commonwealth) & several President of country articles (Commonwealth & non-Commonwealth), which include the term head of state. AGAIN, expand this discussion to a larger scale, to cover all related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves as it isn't clear that there is consensus here. If there were to be consensus for this specific article, then a wider discussion could be had. There is no need for this page to be written in the same way as the President of the United States for example, so to force a consensus across hundreds of not thousands of disparate and only tangentially related articles is not likely to get us anywhere. trackratte (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps then, tiny steps. Best to (as best as possible) have consistency across the 15-related Commonwealth realm monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it would be for the best if you would stop obsessively imposing consistency at the expense of the quality of individual articles. Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be best if you'd stop promoting non-consistency, merely because you don't like consistency. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty, children. Respectful discussion is what’s required here. With a view to creating a consensus. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening lead

@Surtsicna: prefers that we take monarchy of Canada out of the opening intro (note: his multiple attempts to do so). It's been in the intro for years & therefore (per WP:BRD) should not be deleted, without a consensus. What say all of you? GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS:AVOIDBOLD is clear:

If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy.

Of course it is the monarchy of Canada that is at the core of Canada's federal structure and parliamentary democracy. Having that much redundancy in the lead sentence is absurd. I am growing increasingly impatient with GoodDay's obsession with consistency and his persistent hindering me from improving anything in the name of consistency. Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There's only one way for me to deal with this & you. That's to allow others to chime in. I'm tired of your threats of administrative action, merely because you don't like anyone (particularly me) opposing your bold edits & accompanying demands. My only hope is, that you don't threaten others here, if they happen to oppose you, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The only reason you oppose this edit is because it would make this article inconsistent with others. You do not have an argument relating to the quality of this article. You do not care about the quality of any individual article. Consistency is all there is. That is at the essence of the previous dispute too. Surtsicna (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming across as a bully on Wikipedia, is not the best way to seek consensus for an edit you wish to make, which changes a long standing version. Threatening administrative action to obtain said goal, is even worst optics. Again, best we allow others to chime in, to settle this 'dispute'. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The only reason you seek the input of others is because you want support to change other articles en mass along with this one. You have not yet written why you think this edit of mine did not improve the quality of this article. You did not do that in the previous section either. Being hindered like that at every step is bullying. Being told for years to improve 120 articles at once or none at all is bullying. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I seek the input of others, because Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Since others may 'not' know what's being discussed (and I'm not interested in a childish edit war), I've restored your bold edit to the article intro. If you get a consensus here, then cool. If not, then respect it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the status quo due to edit warring and both of you violating 3RR. There is no deadline and the current state of affairs (7 or 8 reverts on the same sentence over a few hours) is not productive. I suggest taking a 24 hour pause if it can be managed. trackratte (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Trackratte, I do not think that anyone has broken 3RR (reverted four times or more). I have only reverted twice. I do agree that edit-warring is not the way to go though. Which of these sentences look better to you?

The monarchy of Canada is at the core of Canada's constitutional federal structure and Westminster-style parliamentary democracy.

Monarchy is at the core of Canada's constitutional federal structure and Westminster-style parliamentary democracy.

I am not sure I like either wording very much but one of them is at least not silly. The first one basically defines the monarchy of Canada as the monarchy of Canada. Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Write it up in a way that we have monarchy of Canada in the intro, per WP:BOLDTITLE. It's not a crime to have consistency in the intros of these set of 16 articles on this minor point, if not the entire set of 'Monarchy of x' articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand the wish to avoid redundancy/truism in terms of 'x is defined as x', which I think the UK monarchy article is particularly bad in this regard. At the same time I think it makes an abundant amount of sense to have the word Canada in there as there is widespread lack of awareness of whether it is a British Monarchy of Canada or a "Canadian monarchy of Canada" if that makes sense. Further, I would offer that "monarchy" in the general sense is not what we are talking about here, but a very specific type (i.e Canadian) which differs in many respects from the UK for example. For what it's worth. trackratte (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, not all the (16) Commonwealth realm articles have the exact same intro. Two have no bold title (which is what Surtiscna prefers) & three use monarch of ... in their intros. The remaining 11 use monarchy of... GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no requirement for articles to follow precedent set by similar articles. I could just as easily edit those other articles to make them consistent with this one. TFD (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should the term "viceroy" be used as a synonym for "Governor General" or "Lieutenant Governor" in articles on Canadian government?

I have started an RfC on this question at Talk:Governor General of Canada. All comments welcome.--Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Foreign trips

I'm no expert on this. But, I think those foreign trips were by Elizabeth as the British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Per List of state visits made by Elizabeth II only the 1957 and 1959 visits were made as queen of Canada. It's possible that some of the other royal visits were made on behalf of the empire or Commonwealth, but if so should be identified as such. In 2010, Elizabeth II addressed the UN as "as Queen of sixteen United Nations Member States and as Head of the Commonwealth of 54 countries."[3] In the meantime, it should be removed. TFD (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

bias in public understanding section

The section "public understanding" is largely filled with quotes from people dismayed about the lack of awareness in the crown. This gives the impression that this is a bad thing. Overall it seems to have a monarchist bias. There is no look into opinion surveys on Canadian attitudes and knowledge of the crown. 73.251.173.187 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is naturally biased in favour of the monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I get that impression from the first paragraph. But the rest of the section reads to me as a level-headed explanation of why Canadians ignore it. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Misleading

The foreign visits section doesn't clarify that the trips listed were made as head of the Commonwealth and monarch of various states, not just Canada. DrKay (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes that should be mentioned. One or two of the visits to the U.S. were however as sovereign of Canada and that should be explained. TFD (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

By all means, if you know how to do it, untangle it. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

1936 visit to France by Edward VIII: "When her uncle King Edward VIII as King of Canada first dedicated the memorial seventy one years before, he was there first to receive the French President, Albert Lebrun." page 139

1939 visit to USA by George VI: "Political implications were eschewed and, significantly, the Canadian factor was highlighted, it being emphasized they were 'here not as the King and Queen of England but as the King and Queen of Canada'." page 611

1957, 1959 and 2010 visits to USA by Elizabeth II: "Queen Elizabeth II would follow in her father's footsteps by visiting the United States as Queen of Canada in 1957, 1959, and 2010." page 49

1984, 1994 and 2007 visits to France by Elizabeth II: "Elizabeth II has specifically represented Canada in the United States in 1951 (as a princess), 1957, and 1959, and in France in 1984, 1994, 2007, for example." page 51

2004 visit to France by Elizabeth II: "The Queen was unequivocally present at the ceremony as Queen of Canada. This underlining was accomplished by the absence of British officials at a senior level, by the use of a Canadian Equerry to HM along with the prominence of the RCMP, in the sequence of the Anthems, through the speaking order as well as by the use of the Queen's Canadian Standard." page 3

Peter Ormond 💬 16:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please also copy over all the sources that say otherwise. You'll find some of them on Elizabeth II and in that page's talk archives. DrKay (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It would indeed be interesting to see sources that expicitly state Edward, George, and Elizabeth were not in those places in their capacities as monarch of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh jeez. Let the sparks begin. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, most of Elizabeth II's foreign trips, are as the British monarch. When she visits as another monarch? it's usually to the country she's monarch of. AFAIK, she's never made any foreign trips to the UK as the Canadian monarch, or Australian monarch, etc etc :) GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That's because Canada and Australia are not foreign countries, at least when it comes to diplomatic protocol. Unlike ambassadors, for example, high commissioners are not received by the Queen or Governor General. TFD (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Make over

I reckon Miesianiacal is steam rolling through & making several changes. I hope we'll recognise the article, when he's done ;) GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous Position re: independence of "Queen of Canada"

"Supremum caput ecclesiae Anglicanae was omitted in the writ of summons of Parliament by Queen Mary; resolved by all the Judges of England that the writ was good: for it was not part of the name of the queen; but only an addition. The word Rex comprehends all attributes and dignities of the king; and the king was defensor fidei in his kingdom before the said statute, as appears by the said statute...The name king surmounts all additions. In the king's grants, his Christian name with the word king, is sufficient." (Jenk. 209)

Therefore, REX/REGINA is the same everywhere. So, for example, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada = REX/REGINA (depending on the sex of the Sovereign), and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of England = REX/REGINA. Queen of Canada is a style held by REGINA

It's why all prosecutions are REX/REGINA v. DOE, etc.

The Quebec Superior Court decision on the topic is poorly argued---Crown law has not been taught in law schools for some time, they mostly learn statute law and insurance contracts and torts.

"The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." (https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-12/page-1.html)

This says a "style and title" is created, for use in Canada, it does not say that another Queen is created, it just says that REGINA may use this style/title in Canada. But she could also create any style/title she wanted for use within her dominions.

All of this is connected to allegiance, which is due by law of nature, not positive law:

"And therefore thus were directly and clearly answered as well the objections drawn from the severalty of the kingdoms, seeing there is but one head of both, and the postnati and us joined in ligeance to that one head, which is copula et tanquam oculus of this case; as also the distinction of the laws, seeing that ligeance of the subjects of both kingdoms, is due to their sovereign by one law, and that is the law of nature." ( 7 Coke Report 14 b)

So one never pledges allegiance to the "Queen of Canada," as distinct from the "Queen of England," one pledges allegiance to THE QUEEN/REGINA, her natural body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:10B0:2D4E:5004:9042 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There hasn't been a King or Queen of England, since 1714. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. Under common law, the king has two bodies: the living person and the corporation sole. The first is mortal, indivisible and imperfect, while the second is immortal, divisible and perfect. Subjects owe permanent loyalty to the physical person, who is the same in every realm and territory, and they owe local allegiance to the corporation sole, which is different in each. The formal title held by the king in each realm or territory, or the lack of a title, is irrelevant.

Can you show where this has been misrepresented in the article?

TFD (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Canada's royal family and house?

Why are we using "Canada's" in the section heading? Wouldn't "Royal family and house" be enough? This page is about the Canadian monarchy. What other royal family & house would we be eluding to? GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

We'd be "alluding", not "eluding", which we're also not "doing". So yeah, you're right. Proceed with confidence! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I never was overly good with my spelling :) GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Or overtly, either. All good, eh? At least you don't call my point "my pint" or the room "the rooom", like some people... InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah;) I see someone has made the correction. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

A certain someone, too. Ah well. If you see something similar around the next time, implode first and ask questions later! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk:&@The Four Deuces:, I tried the same method on a few other monarchy pages, but @Peter Ormond: won't allow it. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've run into that a few times, too, in thousands of tries. Never give up. Just when ya think dat trouble's gonna pounce, our style guide will be there when it really counts! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. It just get so frustrating sometimes. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Go outside for a few hours. You might solve a mystery. Or rewrite history! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It's all right, now. I walked away from the situation. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And o what heights you'll hit! On with the show, this is it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If I find something doesn't seem right, I consult policy and guidelines and can usually find something about it. Often that works if other editors are involved. AT worst, I get a lot of interesting explanations about how this case is different or why we should Ignore All Rules! TFD (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope one of you is going to fix all the links in other articles directly to that section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The Canadian royal family redirect has been changed to reflect the section's updated name. Leventio (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Or that. Thank you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense. Why would one describe it as the Canadian royal family (in the article body), when the name of the page is "Monarchy of Canada"? What other royal family would we be alluding to? GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Read the edit summary at 14:08, 25 July 2022‎. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to bring consistency to it, but you're opposing me. Matter of fact, I expected you to be the first editor to 'agree' with removing the "Canadian" prefix. You're reacting as though I were attempting to put something like "British royal family and house in Canada", which is something I would never do on this page & would resist, if anybody else tried it. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Though I don't owe you any favours, for your sake, I'm alerting you to the fact this revert went back to the same one you made here and therefore counts as your revert number one. This was revert three. One more and you're in breach of WP:3RR. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Those reverts are not identical. Anyways, from here on out, I'm going to let others chime in. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the deletion of the word "Canadian" sure was different in... Wait, no, it wasn't. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you somehow not understand the edit summary at 14:08, 25 July 2022‎? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, I'm surprised that you (of all editors) are opposing me on this 'prefix' topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Evidently you either didn't understand the edit summary or didn't read it at all. That is very unhelpful in dispute resolution.

Regardless, understand or don't, the onus remains on you to explain why a section should give information on the use of a term that's neither in the section header, nor its opening sentence; not even in its first paragraph. The British royal family gets its own article. So does the Swedish royal family and Spanish royal family. There used to be an article Canadian royal family until it got deleted and its contents shifted here. So, on this page, the section was called Canadian royal family and was treated as an article-within-an-article, especially as many other articles link directly to it. Then ~~you deleted Canadian from the header~~ "Canadian" was deleted from the header. Now you're trying (again) to delete it from the opening sentence, too. You argue for consistency; but, consistency with what? Belgian royal family redirects to Monarchy of Belgium#Members of the Belgian royal family. The article Monarchy of the Netherlands has the section Monarchy of the Netherlands#The royal family and the royal house, but it's opening sentence gives context by stating, "a distinction is made in the Netherlands [emphasis mine] between the royal family and the Royal House." So, consistency actually can't be your motivation.

Why you want readers to click on a link that takes them to the completely decontextualized, generic words "the Royal Family is...", as if this were the article Royal family, is anyone's guess. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's allow others to chime in. I don't think an RFC is required here & so a local consensus will do. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed Canadian from the section heading because as the MOS, for which InedibleHulk provided a link, says, "As a matter of consistent style, section headings should: Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article, e.g., Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life." Certainly, if we were to spin out the section into a new article, the title would include Canadian. But it's obvious the section is about the Canadian royal family, not the royal family of Japan, Saudi Arabia or any other realm. You may however have an argument by including Canadian in the text, since the text mentions the British royal family, so we want to draw a distinction. TFD (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I've corrected my error re who deleted "Canadian" from the header.

All that really matters is that context is given, whether it's in the header or the first sentences of the section; it's not so much for the sake of a reader who starts at the top of this article and reads their way down, but for those who end up at the section directly via a link from another page.

It sounds like the royal family section at Monarchy of Belgium needs a fix, as the header doesn't conform to the MoS. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

So you do at least agree with the section heading being named "Royal family and house". GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That is far from the only non-compliant article. I know of over a hundred "year in film" articles and discover new cases almost every day. It's a big job, and hindering us is only going to make it take longer. Helping us will make typing links to the sections easier. People clicking those links will arrive at the same information; it will remain the sole responsibility of the linking page's editors to provide appropriate and reasonable context for them. It's for the best. Join us or carry on, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it hours ago. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thank you. I was thinking more of the future, and the remaining countless dozens. Now that you're aware of the rule, I'd hope you might just pitch in where you notice similar violations, if you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I was also floored that Peter Ormond would revert my changes at pages like Monarchy of Belize, concerning "their" royal family. Thus the paradox-ish nature of it all. Is their 'one' royal family, or fifteen royal families? Is their 'one' monarch, or fifteen monarchs? Now, that's another headache right there. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war with Mies on this. So, I'll let other here, decide. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Content

Again, we don't need "Canadian" as a prefix in the body of the section. But since it's there. Why does "Canadian royal family" have (count them) seven sources? Isn't that overdoing it? I would think that three sources, would be enough. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think three is plenty. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I've cut them down to three. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

And carelessly left a number of named references orphaned. You know why the references were put there. If you don't want them after the first mention of "Canadian royal family", put the parent citations back to their original, singlular locations. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: it appears Mies, prefers to over-source. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears you don't read. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You're the one who should be removing the four extra sources, then. Since apparently it was you who added them. Why you added them (thus creating a long list of sources), we can only guess. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Still not reading. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That will do, Mies. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, nobody wants orphans, chop with care. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

'Tis alright. Mies has graced us with his tender kindness & trimmed down the sources. GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So quit ragging on him. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

How to link to the 2013 Succession to the Throne Act

Just above the subsection "Succession and regency", we've a link to the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 page. Seeing as the courts have ruled that the Act has changed the succession to the Canadian throne (on March 26, 2015) from 'first son' to 'first child'. Is it still required to link directly to the (constitutional issues) failed appeals section? Or since the Supreme Court's turning down of the appeals, is it best to link to the entire page, rather then a section of it. PS - I dislike having a foreign parliament (in this case the UK) changing our country's succession. But, the Canadian Supreme Court didn't object to it. GoodDay (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As Philippe Lagassé said in his article in the Ottawa Citizen, the courts determined, "There is no law of royal succession in Canada; instead there is an unwritten constitutional principle that Canada takes the person who sits on the British throne as [Canada's] monarch." If tomorrow the UK becomes a republic, the president of the UK will be King or Queen of Canada in the same way that Macron is co-Prince of Andorra, although I imagine Canada would amend the Royal Styles and Titles Act, which describes the British head of state as King or Queen of the UK, Canada and numerous other places.

I do not see why though we should remove the link, since some readers may want to know more about how the office is filled. It is also interesting that a minority of scholars in Canada still hold their views about the throne of Canada.

Incidentally, unlike in Australia, the UK is not officially considered a "foreign" country in Canadian law.

TFD (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering about the linked page, though. Does it still have to be directed to the linked pages' subsection-in-question? The matter of the UK/Canada succession has been settled. Why direct readers to the 'dispute', when the dispute is now 'moot'. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Canadian royal succession is quite obviously not a very clear subject. There's the past approach to it, which is very different to the most recent one; all the still extant differing opinions from constitutional experts; plus the details of what courts did and, not unimportantly, didn't say. All the info in the "Constitutional issues" section of Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 (did you actually read it?), can't be transferred here. So, linking to that section for more information is perfectly fine. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have read it. Bear in mind that a final legal decision would not be made until last year. There are many examples of legal views, such as the indivisibility of the crown, that turn out not to hold up once a legal decision is required. It's not as if the SCC overturned an existing precedent.

Anyway, it's not Canadian royal succession. Canada is "One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom." While the crown of Canada was always separate from the crown of the UK, it is held by whomever is king or queen of the UK.

TFD (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We're getting off track here. My edit (since reverted) was done, because the matter of the succession to the Canadian throne has been settled. The SCC by dismissing the appeal-in-question, sides with those who say the Canadian gov't didn't need to adopt a constitutional amendment to alter the succession. Its dismissal, confirms that succession to the Canadian throne is automatically what the succession is to the British throne & therefore the 2013 Act simply re-confirmed that fact. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As already explained, your edit disallows readers direct access to further information about succession to the Canadian throne. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We already disagree on that. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we? You have some way of proving your edit does give readers direct access to further information about succession to the Canadian throne? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The link need not be directly to the section of said article, as the Supreme Court's dismisal of appeal (IMHO) makes it not necessary. It's up to others to decide if my reasoning is correct or not. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

[The comment this was responding to has since been edited] The Supreme Court did not rule on how to link between Wikipedia articles. We do linking as efficiently as possible everywhere else. There's no reason why it should be done inefficiently here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll await others' input. Might consider opening up an RFC, a week from now. If we don't get 'more' input. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That is your go-to when you can't defend your own actions; expand the dispute. How exciting. More drama. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

[Responding to the edits to the comment at 21:02, 29 July 2022] Have you read the section "Constitutional issues"? I asked you this before because it really appears as if you haven't. You didn't answer and you continue to carry on as if the section contains things it doesn't and it doesn't contain things it does. There are historical facts there, other court cases, opinions and observations from a decade or more ago. The Supreme Court dismissing an appeal is NOT a justification for making the aforementined information an obscure footnote in this encyclopedia. The aforementioned information would be in this article, if it weren't already so bloated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll await the input of others & that'll make me decide on whether an RFC is required. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Translation: You can't refute the points I've raised, but will prolong the dispute, anyway, drag in other people, and hope they can do what you cannot. It leaves one wondering what your motivation really is. You haven't even read the section you're trying to disconnect this article from. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'v requested more input from members of WP:CANADA, concerning the topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Since the succession sections has a hatnote linking to Succession to the Canadian throne, is there any reason to also include the Canadian Act recognizing the 2013 Canadian succession act? Presumably, readers would go to the first article and find a link to the other article there. TFD (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Succession to the Canadian throne redirects to Succession to the British throne, which doesn't contain any of the information in the "Constitutional issues" section of Succession to the Throne Act, 2013.--₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Then the first linked article does not belong. It might make sense to have an article, "Succession to the Canadian throne," and spin the material about the constitutional issues. TFD (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That idea had crossed my mind. However, there always seems to be a negative backlash to such spinoff articles; regard the demise of Canadian royal family; all the info it contained was dumped in this article. (And I think the original was deleted, before being recreated as a redirect.) I've also thought about bringing the "Constitutional issues" info into this article; but, it's already so long. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

TFD: Such an article would almost certainly be changed to a redirect to Succession to the British throne, as I doubt the community would agree to the creation of 14 pages, with basically identical info. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have the sub-link to the constitutional issues. The link should go directly to the article on the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. There's no reason to point the link to a specific part of the article, since the entire article is relevant to the Succession. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The entire article Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, is indeed relevant to succession to the Canadian throne. However, there is information in the "Constitutional issues" section of Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, that relates to the broader topic of succession and isn't included in the "Succession and regency" section of this article.

I'm getting more and more tempted to just bring said information into this article, regardless of the length of this page. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be a big move though. An RFC would definitely be required, if you're suggesting moving large amounts of info, from one page to another. If you're really that determined to let readers know, that there were failed challenges to the Act-in-question. Be a lot easier though, just to let readers go to the 2013 Act page (where that info belongs) & read up on the entire thing, instead a part of it. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That would go against weight. Why not put the legal issues into its own article? It began at the latest with the king's abdication in 1936, 80 years before the 2013 act. TFD (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There was little discussion of this issue in 1936. The issue really came to the fore with the Perth Agreement, and the issue of how to implement it in light of the new amending formula in the Constitution Act, 1982. Since the legal discussion is all about the constitutionality of the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, it makes sense to include it in the article on that Act, rather than create a separate fork on the constitutionality of the Act. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

In fact there was a lot more discussion about it in 1936 than today, which is outlined in the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. The preamble to the Statute of Westminster had said that the dominions would have to consent to the succession and leading politicians and legal scholars beleived that it was possible that different succession rules would apply to different realms. There was in fact debate whether Edward VIII had remained king of Ireland after the abdication act was enacted in the UK and before it was enacted in Ireland. Canada ensured that its abdication act was passed on the same day as the UK to avoid such an anomaly. In more recent years, Tony O'Donoghue took the government to court over the succession by Catholics and the Court of Appeal agreed to uphold the succession act, because otherwise symmetry would be lost, thereby stating that the succession laws had been incorporated into Canadian law and could therefore only be changed by an amendment to the Canadian constitution. The recent challenge was really the culmination of what had happened before. TFD (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

All I'm proposing is that we link to the entire 2013 Act page, rather then just a portion of it. My goodness, why is that such a terrible thing? Wouldn't we want our readers to read about the entire Act? Certainly, we don't need to move huge chunks of info from 'there' to 'here' or create a new page. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean bring the entire "Constitutional issues" section over here, TFD. I meant only the information "that relates to the broader topic of succession", as I suppose you can see from my edit that merged said information into this article. Everything specifically related to the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 (the bulk of the "Constitutional issues" section) has been left in that article.

I personally think there's enough in the "Succession and regency" section here to make its own article (ditto for the "Royal family and house" section). But, I refer us back to the concern that it'll just get pushed back here again and the new article deleted or made into a redirect. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Applying proposal

@The Four Deuces: & @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:, would either of you object to me changing the inter-page link, to direct to the entire 2013 Act page? Or should I wait another week, for more editors' input. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection. TFD (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

No objection from me. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I shall make the change. With the hope, that I won't be reverted again. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: & @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:, it appears we've a 'new' situation. I think an RFC may be required 'for' both pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing again? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

They've already given their objections, to what you've just done & yet you went ahead & did it. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You know they did not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: and @Moxy: might like to provide input here? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerning your mass 'move' of info from the 2013 Act page to this page? Yes indeed, ping them. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, since you can never articulate a reaason for your constant reverts of my edits, across numerous articles over the last 10 or so days, even as you continue to revert them, you force the necessity of bothering other editors who can actually participate in a discussion; who read what's written and give percipient replies. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

All are invited, which is why an RFC at WP:CANADA would be ideal. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, this does cover 'two' Canadian pages. So, it might be necessary to open an RFC on this matter at WP:CANADA. After all, there can be only 'two' results then. Accept mass changes 'or' revert them. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Personification of the Canadian state

Honestly folks. I think 11 sources in a row, in the opening of the "Personification of the Canadian state" section, is overdoing it. I'm confident we could get by with just 3 sources. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's been reduced to 6 sources in a row. Which is better. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Capitalise or not

I've asked the question at WP:JOBTITLES & MOS:CAPS, as to whether we should have "...the Royal Family", or "...the royal family". GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Dispute appears to be settled. We're using lower-casing - "...the royal family", "the Canadian royal family" etc, etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Official way of writing "royal family"

Please explain why the reference to the federal government's way of writing royal family was deleted. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I've raised this matter at MOS:CAPS, concerning which is preferred. A 'footnote' or 'writing it out in the content'. My concern is, the latter method 'might' contradict the style used throughout the page. PS - I'll abide by the decision reached at MOS:CAPS. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear what footnote you're referring to. You deleted the material (and left the sources). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Restore the material, but in a footnote^[a] form, IMHO. I don't dispute the source, but am concerned with 'how' the material is presented in the page. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes

^ Capitalized by the federal government as the "Royal Fmily"

The Canadian government capitalizes Royal Family out of respect. Showing respect, HM's loving subjects also refer to them as Her Majesty and their Royal Highnesses. But the MOS says they should not be capitalized in Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The federal government has its own style guides. However, yes, WP:MOS rules Wikipedia. I think WP:MOSCAPS tells us to capitalize royal family when writing about a specific royal family; a country's royal family is an institution. But, it seems no one else agrees with me and it's not a hill I'm going to die on. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you agree then, with putting the info in note-form? GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No. No one is talking about that in this particular branch of the discussion. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I hope this will be resolved at MOS:CAPS. There are somethings that are possible & then, there's trying to get the Australian monarch listed as an official resident in the Government House, Canberra page ;) Then again, I think among the governors-general residences across the non-UK Commonwealth realms, Canada is the only country that lists the monarch as an official resident. But, that's another discussion for two other pages;) GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

^ John Ibbitson (13 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan will need a good immigration lawyer if they want to stay in Canada". Globe and Mail.
^ Mark D. Walters. "Succession to the Throne and the Architecture of the Constitution of Canada". The Crown and Parliament (PDF).

[3] Capitalized by the federal government as the "Royal Fmily"

[1] John Ibbitson (13 January 2020). "Harry and Meghan will need a good immigration lawyer if they want to stay in Canada". Globe and Mail.

[2] Mark D. Walters. "Succession to the Throne and the Architecture of the Constitution of Canada". The Crown and Parliament (PDF).

[1]

[2]

[a]