Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Canadian Royal Family

Can I point out that this section is amateurish and parochial, and remains an embarrassment to Wikipedia? What is the point of it? What information does it provide except a list of times that people have used the phrase "Canadian royal family"? There is tons of original synthesis going on in this section. At most, there should be a very short paragraph and a link to British royal family. john k (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If pompous derision is all that's on offer, please don't point it out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Superscript font size

For me (though apparently not for everyone), the reference/footnote superscripts in this article are incredibly tiny and either scarcely legible or not legible at all. Because I've also seen this in other articles, I raised it as a general question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Size_of_superscript_text. If anyone who understands why it was done in this article and wants to chip in over there, that'd be great! 86.134.43.204 (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Orphaned references in Monarchy of Canada

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Monarchy of Canada's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Valpy":

• From Monarchism in Canada: Valpy, Michael (2 February 2002), "Reasons to love the Queen: No. 1, she's funky", The Globe and Mail, retrieved 4 May 2008
• From The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis: Valpy, Michael (13 November 2009), "The monarchy: Offshore, but built-in", The Globe and Mail, retrieved 14 November 2009
• From Canadian National Vimy Memorial: Valpy, Micheal (7 April 2007). "Setting a legend in stone". Globe and Mail. Toronto. Retrieved 28 April 2009.
• From Debate on the monarchy in Canada: Valpy, Michael. Watson, William (ed.). Policy Options: Bye-Bye for Good?. No. May 1999. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. p. 26 http://www.irpp.org/po/. Retrieved 17 February 2009. {{cite news}}: |contribution= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No probs here. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

roots in the French and British crowns

• The Canadian monarchy has its roots in the French and British crowns, from which it has evolved over numerous centuries to become a distinctly Canadian institution[15] – one of the few crowns that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance

This part seems revisionist, and a monarchist POV. What roots does the monarchy have in the French crown? Didn't it evolve strictly from the British crown since the transfer of New France to the British empire? I don't think the inheritance of the last king of France to have ruled in a territory which is now part of modern Canada was given to the first British monarch in the 18th century, which means that it has not be uninterrupted. --zorxd (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you see monarchist POV everywhere? Here, from a government published source: "Initially established under the rule of the kings of France during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Canada's monarchical institutions continued as a key element of government under the British Crown as a colony, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries." "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France in the sixteenth century... The colonies that united and formed the Dominion of Canada in 1867 had already enjoyed a long and uninterrupted association with the Crown." I suppose this too was written by plotting monarchists who infiltrated the Department of Canadian Heritage? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not monarchist POV, I guess. I would guess it's some kind of ridiculous "Pandering to Québecois" POV. It is, at any rate, ridiculous, even if the Department of Canadian Heritage claims it. john k (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are always classy and worthwhile, john. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because France was also a monarchy in the 18th century doesn't mean that the Canadian monarchy has roots in it. You can say that Canada (the territory, because the country didn't exist at the time) switched from one crown to an other (or from one monarchy to an other), but it wasn't an "uninterrupted inheritance" for sure. Oh and by the way, absolutely nothing from the Department of Heritage says that the Canadian monarchy has roots in the French monarchy. It just call the French monarchy Canadian and then the British monarchy Canadian as well. It doesn't mean that there hasn't been a regime change in between. The "long uninterrupted association with the Crown" probably refers to about 1760 to 1867, the colonial British rule, during which there have been no interruption in the crown. --zorxd (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Take it up with the DCH. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the DCH doesn't confirm your point. It doesn't talk about roots, and do not say that the inheritance was uninterrupted during the regime change. --zorxd (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not clearly and explicitly. Back then, there was no such thing as a Canadian monarchy. The switch was made from a French to a British monarchy. So if the Canadian monarchy has roots in the French monarchy trough the British monarchy, it means that the British monarchy also has roots in the French monarchy of the 18th century. It is obviously not the case. --zorxd (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear. And it pretty clearly doesn't back up your personal theories. The regime changes are obviously acknowledged, but so too is continuity: "monarchical institutions continued" and "The Crown... was... established by the kings of France... The colonies that... formed... Canada in 1867 had already enjoyed a long and uninterrupted association with the Crown." Note, it doesn't say French or British monarchical institutions, or the French or British Crown.

Here, too: "Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British."

And here (the only available online copy I can find) the word "roots" is used: "[T]he institution itself... is thoroughly Canadian. Its roots lie in the establishment of New France... by King Francis I in 1534 and the claim made to Newfoundland by England's Queen Elizabeth I in 1583." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am still not convinced, you are doing an improper synthesis of sources, let me explain. There have been an uninterrupted succession of monarchs (from different monarchies), true, but it only means that there was always a monarch reigning over (at least parts of) Canada. But it doesn't mean that the inheritance wasn't interrupted. The inheritance was clearly interrupted from the French to the British monarchy, I hope you don't contest that fact. We could also say that the specific monarchy of the time, the crown of France, was interrupted and replaced by an other specific monarchy, the British crown. Because it is a replacement of one monarchy by the other, we can say that the monarchy (as the general system of government with a monarch as the head), was uninterrupted. We can also say that "It is one of an approximate half-dozen that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance from before the country itself was founded", because the country was founded in 1867 and the inheritance is uninterrupted since about 1763. Seeing it this way, there are two definitions of the word "monarchy" here : one is specific, and the other is general. One could argue that the general monarchy, as applied to Canada, has roots in the French monarchy (on a few things, but not that much, such as the house of the governor general I think), but the specific monarchy of Canada doesn't, its roots are all British. I still think that we should avoid the words roots because of the possible confusion. In all cases, your blogspot article that refers to a Globe and Mail article is a POV, not a fact. The using of the word "roots" can't be presented as a fact. --zorxd (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently nothing is a fact but what you concoct in your own imagination. Alas, you are not the arbiter of truth and cannot say which sources are correct and which are not. The sources say what they say, and more than one says there's continuity from the first establishment of the French Crown in Canada to the modern monarchy today. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Short blurbs from Canadian government departments are not a particularly good source on historical topics. Typically, we like to talk about what historians say about history. At any rate, the basic historical situation, which I don't think any of us disagree with, is that Canada was under the French monarchy, and then the British, and that the British rule developed into a distinct Canadin monarchy. Whether the Canadian monarchy has any French roots or not, the British connection was obviously direct and clear, and implying that the Canadian monarchy's roots are equally French and British is nonsensical, no matter what the DCH says. There's also a separate question of whether there was any continuity between the French monarchy and the British in Canada. I don't know the answer to that question. Was there crown land in French Canada that was taken up by the British crown after 1763, for instance? Direct continuities like that would be worth mentioning in the article, so long as we don't imply equivalence. john k (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think the source is a short blurb, you can't have actually looked at the source. And the implications you speak of are hard to find; well, impossible, really. The sentence says the French and British crowns are in the history of the Canadian one; equality or inequality doesn't even come into it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's possible to have something along the lines of what the British monarchy website says: "Canada has been a monarchy for centuries - first under the kings of France in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, then under the British Crown in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and now as a kingdom in her own right."[1] That is the intent of the sentence in question. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Something like this would be much better, although the definition of Canada is a POV, since Canada didn't exists before 1867. And the natives that lived in Canada in the 16th centuries weren't exactly subject of the French crown. What must absolutely be avoided is "roots" and "uninterrupted inheritance" (unless you have a source that say that the last French king gave it's inheritance to the first British). What about Parts of territory of modern day Canada have been claimed by monarch for centuries - first under the kings of France in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, then under the British Crown in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (and 20th also I guess???), and now as a kingdom in her own right. --zorxd (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "roots"? The word is perfectly apt in this particular case. Also, "uninterrupted inheritance" is sourced, more than once. Further, your suggestion is a copyvio as it plagiarises the British monarchy website.

Canada has been a monarchy since 1534, the Crown having evolved under successive French, British, and then Canadian monarchs to become a distinctly Canadian institution – one of the few crowns that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance.

"Canada" is usable because the name has been applied to the monarchs' territories since 1534. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok first, give me a single source that says that the inheritance was uninterrupted when changing from the French monarchy to the British monarchy. You didn't bring any. It is true that the Canadian monarchy is still uninterrupted. But the Canadian monarchy didn't start in 1534. It was the French monarchy at the time. It was replaced by the British monarchy, which we can say then evolved into the current Canadian monarchy. Second, Canada had various meanings, the one you are referring to is going all the way down to Louisiana. So in this case we should also say that Canada is also in part ruled by the president of the USA. That would be ridiculous, of course, so it is much simpler to use my wordings. The British monarchy web site makes the distinction : The territories which now form Canada [...]. We can reformulate the idea so that it doesn't violate copyright, this is not a problem, at least not the main issue here. --zorxd (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have provided you with three sources that explicitly use the word "uninterrupted" and one that says the same in a different way. Are you seriously contributing here, or merely playing games? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's yet another one: "The office of Governor General is the oldest continuous institution in Canada and is an unbroken link with the early days of our country's recorded history." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the word inheritance, which is the key here. --zorxd (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "inheritance". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the definition again [2]. And clearly, the inheritance of the last French monarch to have ruled over Canada, Louis XV, went to his successor, Louis XVI at his death, and not to George III. What's the problem in removing the word inheritance? --zorxd (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here: "to come into possession of or receive... to receive as a devise or legacy... to have in turn or receive as if from an ancestor." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Notice the word "ancestor". Now, find a source that says that Louis XV is the ancestor of George III. Good luck. --zorxd (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "as if from" an ancestor. You do realise "as if from" doesn't mean "must be from", right? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, you are referring to a possibility in the 4th definition, overlooking the 3 firsts? There is nothing "as if from an ancestor" from Louis XV to George III, by the way. "As if from a conqueror" would be a better wording. This is becoming ridiculous, really. Probably our lamest discussion and by far. --zorxd (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My sentiments, exactly; and you only make it worse as it goes on. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no "uninterrupted inheritance" from the French to the British monarchy in Canada - the British monarchy seized control. I propose we remove that claim. ðarkuncoll 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The British monarchs have French royal DNA within them, but this isn't what we're speaking about. The British beat the French in 1763 (The French and Indian War), thus the reason (for example) Ill Saint Jean was anglanized to St. John's Island. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New France was ultimately ceeded to Britain in the Treaty of Paris, not by conquest on the Plains of Abraham. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is, the British forces defeated the French forces, thus the reason for the Treaty of Paris. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we're talking about "uninterrupted inheritance", which the French defeat doesn't negate, given that the transfer (inheritance) occurred with the Treaty of Paris, four years after the fall of Quebec City. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"passing of territories, from French crown to British crown would be my choice of wording. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a transfer of power as a result of a conquest. This is most certainly not what the phrase "uninterrupted inheritance" implies. Even in British history itself the inheritance was interrupted a number of times - 1066, 1485 and 1688, to name the most obvious examples. ðarkuncoll 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All the sources speak of the continuity of monarchical sovereignty. The transfer of that from Louis XV to George III broke it no more than did the transfer of the same from Edward VIII to George VI. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a good example. George III wasn't neither Louis XV's brother or heir-presumptive. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've heard it said that our royal family is inbred, but never that George VI was both brother and son to Edward VIII! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I initially read it as George V, Edward VIII. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really saying that there was no regime change? Edward VIII abdicated, not Louis XV. Edward VIII gave all his possessions to George VI. Louis XV gave almost nothing to George III and continued to reign. There was no such thing as a distinct Canadian monarchy back then, by the way. --zorxd (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously still talking about regime change? The rest of us are speaking about the unbroken continutiy of monarchical sovereignty over Canada. Louis XV did abdicate his position as King of New France and transferred his sovereignty over the same to George III when he put his signature to the Treaty of Paris. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, your alone on this one. The transfer of territories by a treaty is far from being the same as an abdication. You have no source to support your claims. Regime change can occur through conquest by a foreign power. Seems appropriate. --zorxd (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And you've none to support yours either. What there are is five sources to support what's said in the article, and that's all that matters. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)<

Here is a first one : [3]. "The Conquest Of New France". --zorxd (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No need for BIG letters. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, cut and paste. I have an other one there : The Treaty of Paris, 10 February 1763 , ended the Seven Years' War between France and Great Britain and their allies. It brought into the British Empire new conquests, including the colony of Canada in the St Lawrence River valley and its dependencies in the Great Lakes region [4] --zorxd (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 Which does nothing to dispel the fact that you contest, namely that the transfer of monarchical sovereignty between Louis XV and George III occurred without pause. Why you keep focusing on the irrelevant change of the monarch's nationality is anyone's guess. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't contest that. The transfer was done without a pause (tough it took a few years to do) from the French monarchy to the British monarchy. But this is much more than a change of the monarch's nationality. It is a whole system that changed. --zorxd (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't contest it, then this debate is closed, as it only began because you contested the article's reference to the uninterrupted lineage from French to British to Canadian crowns. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't "only" what you said. Please see my first comment. There was 2 different issues at the beginning : "roots" and "uninterrupted inheritance". Whether the monarchy (and not the inheritance) was interrupted or not might be a 3rd issue, but it came only after the 2 main issues, and isn't the priority here, especially since fixing the 2nd issue might fix it. --zorxd (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Roots" and "uninterrupted inheritance" go hand in hand. The wording can be changed to remove the word "roots" - as was already proposed - but the intent will always remain the same: the Crown in Canada has a continuous existence from 1534 to the present. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You talk as there has been a single, Canadian, crown in Canada. This is a clear POV. The NPOV way to say it would be to say that Canada has always been a monarchy since 1534. Would you accept that? --zorxd (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't have talked like that because I said no such thing. It is you who keeps focusing on irrelevant nationalities. Whether I agree or not that the country has been a monarchy since 1534 is unimportant. All that's vital is that the sources say so; and they do. Given that, though, the sources also (logically) say that Canada has existed under a continuous crown that has passed, without interruption, from monarch to monarch to monarch, regardless of whether that monarch was French or British or Canadian, or whether it passed by death or abdication. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you said "the Crown in Canada". "The" means that there was a single crown. Also, you need to represent all viewpoints, even if you don't agree. Many historians agree that there have been a conquest and that Louis XV didn't pass over the territories either by death or abdication. That the nationalities are irrelevant is your POV, but that shouldn't dictate the article. Who was the monarch of Canada in 1759? There was actually two of them, depending on what part of Canada you are referring to. The end of the French rule was officialized in 1763, but it doesn't mean that the French were still controlling the territory in 1762. The only possible interruption would have been if there was a Canadian republic for a period, so of course, the monarchy wasn't interrupted and that's only what your sources say. --zorxd (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

outdent Look, I've said all I'm going to say, and have supplied ample sources. You continue to argue that the sources are wrong, but, as I said, you're not the person to do so. If you're going to persist in contesting the continuity of the Crown from 1534 to today, I suggest you seek assistance with dispute resolution. I assume, though, that you're okay with the proposed rewording of the first part: Canada has been a monarchy since 1534, the Crown having evolved under successive French, British, and then Canadian monarchs to become a distinctly Canadian institution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, I never said that the sources are wrong. I just don't make the same interpretation of them than you, think that you make a wrong synthesis of them, and think that they do not represent all the views of the subject. I don't "persist in contesting the continuity of the Crown". You just avoid talking about the 2 real issues, which I won't repeat. I do not agree with the first part of your wording either. I think it is a POV that I could define as "new Canadian nationalist", which isn't clear yet, as, for example, prime minister Harper said that Canada was founded by Champlain in 1608[5][6]. So talking of "Canada since 1534" is debatable. Also, putting the change between the French and the British at the same level than between the British and Canadian monarch is an other POV. (Yes, even if you have a source from the Canadian government that says so). It is not that you can't write it in the article, but if you do, you then need to present other views, because they exists. I think it's easier to put a single neutral statement instead. --zorxd (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to go to WP:3O, then. In the mean time, you may want to consider gathering some sources to support whatever edits you want to make; something that's been seriously lacking in all that's come from you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't ask for 3O since others talked about the issue. --zorxd (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Dispute resolution is yours to seek. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, dumping a huge POV banner at the top of the article is a form of vandalism. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I accept to tag specific statements, tough I find the whole article to fail NPOV. But obviously, you didn't understand the policy WP:POINT : however, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only circumstance under which someone should be warned about this guideline. Read the examples. WP:POINT is about try to discredit the rule , which I am not doing. The POV tag was serious, I didn't put it there to discredit any rule, so if I violated a policy, it is not this one. --zorxd (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So, now you've gone from contesting one sentence in the article to disparaging the entire article as an NPOV breach!? Either give it a rest or carry out your agenda to the fullest by tagging all the other articles about monarchies as being offences to neutrality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think that all the article about the monarchy in Canada, as a whole, have a strong pro-monarchist bias. However, I agreed to point specific issues one by one because I don't know any other way to solve such a big issue, unfortunately. I also agreed to remove the big POV tag, even if I do think that it is appropriate, because I didn't point out many issues in this article yet. But please, don't accuse me of breaching policies that you don't understand.

No, I said all the other articles about monarchies; tag Monarchy of the United Kingdom as POV, for instance, as it's clearly too one sided, what with it's lack of any sort of opposing viewpoint, whether imagined or not, to anything and everything in it. Your inability to read carefully does tend to undermine one's ability to take your arguments seriously. As does your haphazard, subtle vandalism with POV tags and low grade disruption with multiple, endless protests about whatever doesn't suit your personal opinions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the expertise to tell if the article about Monarchy in other countries are biased or not. But when I look at them, they don't seems so bad. Isn't it possible that only the articles about Canada fail NPOV? --zorxd (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you only have personal opinions on the Canadian monarchy and think all articles on it should make room for your unsubstantiated views. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

When the Bourbons ruled over Canada wasn't it known by the name of New France? Much of its territory comprised of what is now the United States.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain on 2 things, there was no 'Kingdom of New France' or 'Kingdom of New United Kingdom'. These places were colonies. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no prob with the uninterupted usage. It's the usage of inherited, which we associate with royal successions. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately your certainty is rather misplaced. "Colony" refers simply to a geographical or historical relationship with another (i.e. a "founding") nation-state and does not imply any form of political or social organization, nor does it preclude a Crown or monarchy. Some colonies were republics, others were private corporate states, etc. New France, as it happens, began inauspiciously as a state-corporate venture but was politically and formally a viceroyalty. Albrecht (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm departing this discussion anways. I don't frequent this article enough, to have it on my watchlist. PS: Don't forget to -outdent- properly folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New proposition for section about the roots in British and French monarchies and uninterrupted of monarchy.

I propose that we replace the following section :

• The Canadian monarchy has its roots in the French and British crowns, from which it has evolved over numerous centuries to become a distinctly Canadian institution[15] – one of the few crowns that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance

By this

• The Canadian monarchy has its roots in the British crowns, from which it has evolved to become a distinctly Canadian institution[15] – one of the few crowns that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance since the British conquest of New France.

What do you think? --zorxd (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A POV interpretation that purposefully ignores the various sources already provided. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no Canadian monarchy back then anyways, Canada was a bunch of colonies. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and what makes it a POV? You comments are not very constructive. --zorxd (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving this here to free it from all the other verbiage above:

Canada has been a monarchy since 1534, the Crown having evolved under successive French, British, and then Canadian monarchs to become a distinctly Canadian institution – one of the few crowns that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance.

The objections raised so far are:

1) It does not include other viewpoints

This can't be taken seriously as no alternate viewpoints other than personal opinions have been provided.

The view of at least the first nations (who didn't recognize the rule of the French Crown in 1534) and also other historians. I will be back with sources. --zorxd (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of aboriginal peoples remains elusive; whether or not they recognised the rule of the French Crown, the French Crown did indeed rule over a territory called Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The French did rule over Canada, but from 1534? Some people, including the first nations, may disagree. They didn't have effective control of any part territory before maybe 1608, when they founded their first city. Why insist on something that may be controversial? --zorxd (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That debate is going on under point 3. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

2) It doesn't give prominence to one shift in the monarchs' nationalities over another

This can't be considered as granting importance to one would be inherently against NPOV. Merely listing the nationalities without precedence, on the other hand, fits neatly into NPOV guidelines.

No, that isn't what I said. We don't only talk about a change of nationalities here, but a regime change because of a conquest [7] --zorxd (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Shifts in the nationality of the monarch was a consequence of the regime change. The regime change, however, did not end the institution of the Crown in Canada, as the sources attest to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The crown didn't "end", because it was replaced by an other one, over a period of a few years which is known as the French and Indian War, during which two monarchies controlled some parts of the country. Again, why insist on a particular wording that may be controversial instead of explaining the issue and let the reader decide if in his mind, there was a continuous crown or not? --zorxd (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"The crown didn't 'end'." Thank you for finally acknowledging this! Which is the entire point of the sentence and its sources you put into question. The regime changes don't matter to this statement because "the crown did not end" despite their occurrence. Finally, that's settled. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been saying that since the beginning. You just didn't want to understand, and kept saying that I contested your sources. Saying that the crown didn't "end" is equivalent to say that the republic form of government didn't "end" in Poland in 1939 (because it was integrated to an other republic). It is true, but do we care?. --zorxd (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've been saying that since the beginning then you've been contradicting yourself consistently for the past two days because you certainly contested what I said the sources said, which was that there was no end to the Crown in Canada since 1534. Is that important to the history summary in the lead of this article? Yes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice the difference between what you say and an "uninterrupted succession of monarchs" (which only means that they came one after the other). Also, no source say in the same sentence, or even paragraph, that the Crown was first created in 1534 and that it continued to exist without interruption to the modern day. Therefore, all sources are valid, but you did a synthesis of sources to get your claim. What we also have is that it wasn't interrupted for a long time before 1867. 1763 to 1867 is a long time. --zorxd (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that my proposal says "successive French, British, and then Canadian monarchs." Also note that the difference between that and "the crown did not end" is irrelevant as you agreed that the statement "the crown did not end" was true. The date is being discussed under point 3. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Because a true statement is necessary relevant? How about this true statement : "The Crown of Canada is the only one north of the USA, West of the Atlantic, and East of the Pacific ocean" Also, a true statement might require additional explanations for the reader. If it was relevant, then it would be discussed outside monarchist circles and the ministry of the Canadian Heritage, doesn't it? --zorxd (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your example is actually untrue - you forget about Greenland. Regardless, I believe you're now trying to question the importance, rather than the relevance, of the statement. Given that a lead is meant to summarise the article, and the history section of this article outlines the evolution of the monarchy from the days of New France to the present, it is indeed important, and accordant with WP:LS, to include that statement on the "Crown having evolved under successive French, British, and then Canadian monarchs to become a distinctly Canadian institution." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

3) 1534 is contested as the founding date of the Crown in Canada

This is possibly a credible criticism, as the date of 1608 has been floated. However, the two sources provided are dicey in this regard; one doesn't actually say Canada was founded in 1608, and the other says so only as one answer to the question asked by the journalist about the age of the country. Canada has been a monarchy since the early 16th or 17th centuries is a possible alternative, or Canada has been a monarchy since at least 1534.

What about a source that say that Canada was founded in 1867? [8] I could probably find more if you need. Also, the first strictly Canadian crown was technically in what, the 20th century? That makes many possibilities of debate against the choice of 1534. Why bother when we could avoid the issue completely? --zorxd (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't get confused because "Canada" was the name for multiple successive geo-political entities. Also, don't confuse "Crown in Canada" with "Canadian Crown". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly is the "Crown in Canada"? The Crown is a legal concept that was different under New France than under the British Colonial period, so technically, it doesn't refer to the same "Crown", even if possessions of the first were transferred to the second. (over a few years de facto, and in 1763 de jure). --zorxd (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You offer only irrelevant personal opinions that are dispelled by reliable sources. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't read my source about the conquest. It talk about what I just said. --zorxd (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It mentions nothing about the Crown over New France being a different legal concept. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that two different crowns ruled over parts of Canada during the war. About the legal definition of the Crown, then we would need to read the laws of France and of Britain in 1760. I doubt they were the same. Do you really contest that? --zorxd (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I offer no comment either way as it would be a pointless venture. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

About the date, why not just say "Canada has always been a monarchy", which would be true for all different POV about the creation of Canada. --zorxd (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a new source [9] that confirms that Harper said that Canada was founded in 1608. This one couldn't be clearer : The founding of Quebec City was also the founding of the Canadian state. --zorxd (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

4) The crown has not survived through uninterrupted inheritance

This assertion also lacks supporting sources; argument that the change in monarch in 1763 marked a break in inheritance ignores the passing of the Crown in 1936 from one living monarch to another, and remains unsubstantiated opinion that does not counter a statement corroborated by multiple sources. It has been argued that the reading of those sources is incorrect, but no convincing alternate interpretation has been put forward. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What should be noted is that no reliable source support directly and explicitly the claim that the inheritance was uninterrupted since 1534. Some sources say (I think) that the monarchy was uninterrupted since 1534, and an other say that the inheritance was uninterrupted since before the foundation of the country in 1867. That can't be expanded in the proposed claim. --zorxd (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This argument rests only on your rejection of certain interpretations of the word "inheritance" and a selective reading of another source. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "inheritance" does not include within its meaning something that was taken by force. ðarkuncoll 01:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The inheritance, though, came by law, and choice; France gave up New France in exchange for Guadeloupe. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So what, Hitler inherited the territory of the Second Polish Republic in 1393 I guess? This claim is the most ridiculous. Guadeloupe and New France were both possessions of France, occupied by the British Empire. That the transfer of New France was obtained in exchange for the liberation of occupied Guadeloupe doesn't mean that in was an inheritance. Anyway, this is unsourced. --zorxd (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It does, actually. But, regardless, "inheritance" is used in the source. If you really have a beef about with that word, "conveyance" or "succession" are also applicable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Which source? --zorxd (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The one that follows the sentence, of course. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, the Canadian Monarchist News. Talk about a reliable source. But even your biased monarchist source talk about "uninterrupted since the beginning". The beginning could be 1763. --zorxd (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A piece by a historian published in that newspaper. Regardless, it is corroborated by other sources. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Which we still didn't have the chance to see. --zorxd (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Go look again in the section above; they're still there to see. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't confirm your whole point. From what I remember, they don't talk about inheritance, so again, there is no source for a uninterrupted inheritance since 1534. And the problem isn't only the date. There is no source for an uninterrupted inheritance since 1755 either. --zorxd (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument that the sources aren't admissable because they don't use the word "inheritance" won't hold water. As I said, we can use "uninterrupted succession" instead. The date is being discussed under point 3. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What the source say is this : "the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British". It is far from being the same as "one of the few crowns that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance/succession". The "of monarchs" part is important. Also, a succession of monarchs isn't exactly the same thing as a crown that "survived". Then, you do a synthesis with an other source that say that "Canada in 1867 had already enjoyed a long and uninterrupted association with the Crown" to prove your point, but you forget that this source doesn't say that "long" refer to before the conquest. --zorxd (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

outdent Again, because the sources don't literally say the same thing as one another doesn't mean they don't support one another. If you're going to continue to argue that I'm interpreting the sources wrong, even though you admit the crown "survived" i.e., as you put it, "didn't end", then you're really going to have to go to the next available step of dispute resolution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if what you just said was right, you focussed on only one point (the use of the word "survived"), and I stated other problems in your interpretation of the sources. What about the "succession of monarchs" part? Do you agree? If so, change it right now in the article as it can't be worse. Next, you should consider changing "the Crown" by "a monarchical system of government" or something like that which would be less confusing. --zorxd (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I focus on it because the survival/continuance/endurance/perpetuation of the Crown in Canada from the early days of New France to the present is something you claim to be a monarchist fantasy, despite agreeing that the Crown did not end at any point between the 16th century and today. The only other thing you object to in your statement before last in this thread was the date of the foundation of the Crown in Canada, but, again, that's being discussed under point 3, not here. The succession of monarchs and the continuity of the Crown are one and the same; the crown cannot be said to have had an uninterrupted existence if the line of monarchs broke, and vice-versa. I have already repeated myself on this point umpteen times, and won't again. "Monarchical system of government" is possible as a replacement for "the Crown", but it remains to be explained why what can be summed up in two short words should be extended to four that include two long ones. The last I'll offer is this:

Canada has been a monarchy since [date pending], the Crown having evolved under consecutive French, British, and then Canadian monarchs to become a distinctly Canadian institution, represented by...

Monet's comments on the length of the Crown's existence will be moved down to the end of the first paragraph of the History section as:

According to historian Jacques Monet, the Canadian Crown is one of an existant few to have survived through uninterrupted succession since before its inception.

If you still have objections, besides the date, there's no choice but for you to either drop it or take it to the next step in dispute resolution. I've devoted enough time to trying to appease you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with "The Crown", is that it is usually used to refer to the Canadian state, as explained in the article, and it didn't exist in 1760. What we are talking about here are "the monarchical institutions" or "a monarchical system of government", the only things which can be said to have "evolved" under a succession of monarchs of different houses and different nationalities. As explained in the article about The Crown, it is a British concept that now also applies to commonwealth realms. Using it to refer to the French Crown in New France before 1763 is a revisionist POV. Next, Monet's comment can be presented as such (tough I don't find it really interesting if we don't even know what are the other crowns he is refering to), but I think that your current proposition contradicts itself by saying that the crown survived since before its inception (I understand it as "older than itself"). What he said is "older than our Canadian institutions itself", which probably refers to 1867. --zorxd (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Find another mode of settling this dispute then. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparing Louis XV to George III with Edward VIII to George VI, is a poor comparison. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a very silly one. A monarch abdicating in favor of his heir is very different from a monarch ceding territory to another monarch. When the Treaty of Tilsit gave all of Prussia's territories west of the Rhine to Napoleon's younger brother, did that mean that Jerome inherited the throne of the Duchy of Magdeburg from Frederick William III? Did Peter the Great inherit Estonia from Charles XII? Inheritance is one way for a territory to pass from one ruler to another (with abdication vs. death making no real difference), and cession by treaty is a completely different way for it to do so. For example, Victor Emmanuel II inherited the throne of Sardinia when his father abdicated; he was also ceded Lombardy by Napoleon III, who had had it ceded to him at the same time by Franz Joseph. But Victor Emmanuel didn't inherit Lombardy from either Napoleon III or Franz Joseph, nor did he inherit the throne of the Two Sicilies from Francis II. There are many different ways for one monarch to transfer a territory to another, and inheritance is only one of them. john k (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Tharkuncoll's suggestion

The Canadian monarchy has its roots in the French and British crowns, from which it has evolved over numerous centuries to become a distinctly Canadian institution[15] – one of the few crowns that have survived through uninterrupted inheritance

Change to:

The Canadian monarchy is a legal institution derived from the British Crown, though no monarch has ever resided in Canada. Prior to the British conquest of Canada, French monarchs also ruled over parts of it. ðarkuncoll 00:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Clunky, contains unnrelated trivia, and purposefully censors the sourced material. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it a trivial fact that no so-called Canadian monarch has ever resided in Canada? I think most people would agree that the fact that it's an absentee monarchy is crucially important. ðarkuncoll 01:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You might think that. Doesn't mean it's true, though. Regardless, the point is still an irrelevant tack-on that's already covered elsewhere in the lead, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than the part about "no monarch has ever resided in Canada", would you accept this proposal? --zorxd (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not, for the stated reason that it deliberately ignores sources to suppress a fact found personally distasteful by the author. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Even after reading your sources again, I don't see any source which is being ignored here. --zorxd (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's my opinion! That's what I was asked for. :D What's ignored is the continuity of the Crown's existence. Mention of French monarchs is explicitly separated from mention of where the Canadian Crown derives from. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What the issue with the continuity of the Crown? The Crown is an ambiguous concept in this case. Why not talk about the continuity of the monarchical system of government instead? You seem so attached to particular words to push your monarchist POV. --zorxd (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, what is the issue? It sat there fine until you came along and made a stink. You're fixated with suppressing words to push your anti-monarchist POV. (See what a ridiculous argument you're reduced to?) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this proposal. At least it is simple and accurate. It contains no controversial idea that I am aware of, except maybe the last part : Canada or New France? --zorxd (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

What's needed here is a clear citation for "uninterrupted inheritance", and none has been provided. This is not surprising, since a violent conquest cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as an "uninterrupted inheritance". Since the consensus here is clearly to remove that assertion, I propose we do so immediately. ðarkuncoll 08:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Inheritance should be in there. George III was at no time Louis XV's heir-presumptive to these colonies. The comparsion of Louis XV/George III with Edward VIII/George VI, is poor comparison. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean "inheritance" should not be in there. Well, it doesn't have to be; there are synonyms for the word. The point is, though, that the crown over Canada has passed from one monarch to another, without break, for 500 years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We need a better word the inheritance & yes, at no-time were the colonies independant during this transition period. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I already suggested a different word. I don't know what you mean by "transition period". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When they went from being French colonies to British colonies (which was instantaneous). GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The single "crown over Canada" that existed since before the conquest is a POV, and an ambiguous concept. Nobody in 1834 would have said that the "crown in Canada" have been continuous for the past 300 years, because such claim would have been ridiculous. Also, there was a big break for at least some parts of what was called "Canada" back then, because parts of the French colony are now part of the USA. There may not have any republican break for other parts of the colony, but different parts of the colony have been under the control of two different monarchs (and so crowns as well) at the same time during the war. --zorxd (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeating your POV doesn't make it right. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you disagree with in what I just said? --zorxd (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's doesn't matter what I disagree with. It's all unsourced POV that has no bearing on the sourced material in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not "all" only a POV. That parts of France's Canada colony is now in the USA is a fact. The conquest (and so the change of monarch), didn't happened everywhere at the same time is an other fact. Quebec, for example, fell before Montreal. I will bring sources if you really contest those facts. But please, stop telling that what is currently in the article is "sourced". It is full of original research and synthesis of sources. And for the rest, it is mostly a POV described as a fact. (yes, even if sourced, it can be a POV). What it does is exactly this : Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. WP:OR --zorxd (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying until your face turns blue that it's OR and using personal opinions as proof doesn't make you right.

PS- adding a new tag every day to something already under discussion and already with a proposed alternative doesn't make you right either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Most important: We have to keep in mind folks, that neither Louis XV or George III, were Canadian monarchs. The first Canadian monarch (arguable) was Victoria, the first Canadian monarch (less arguable) was George V & the least disputed Canadian monarch is Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too well informed of the situation at hand here but I've been asked to give my thoughts by Mies. Maybe I'm completely off, but the situation here seems to be about the French, British crowns over Canada and if they it is a continuous uninterrupted monarchy from the French to the British to the Canadian Crown. I would say that Canada, in it's different forms throughout the centuries, as a colony of France then Britain, and as a British dominion, and finally today as an independent monarchy has had a continuous uninterrupted crown/monarchy reigning over it for several centuries now (although at some points the French and British crown reigned over parts of it). --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

During its colonial period Canada had two different crowns ruling it - the French and the British. There was no such thing as a Canadian Crown in those days, even as a legal construct, and there was no legal or constitutional connection between the French and British crowns, both being completely sovereign entities.

Here's an analogy - would it be right to say that the British crown has an uninterrupted inheritance from the Roman monarchy? After all, the Roman monarchy ruled a large chunk of what is now the UK. The answer of course is no. The British crown is not descended from the Roman monarchy in any way at all. It is descended from early medieval and dark age polities that conquered the area of Britain ruled by the Romans. ðarkuncoll 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why this myth about a Canadian Crown prior to 1867 pepetuates. The article says no such thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What it says is that the Canadian crown has an uninterrupted inheritance from the British crown (which is obviously true), and also from the French crown (which is patently false). ðarkuncoll 18:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What it said. But so what? Still nothing about a Canadian Crown prior to 1867. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... what it says now is "the Crown having evolved under an uninterrupted line of consecutive French, British, and then Canadian monarchs to become a distinctly Canadian institution". This isn't true. It implies that what became the Canadian crown began evolving under the French crown, when in fact there was a complete break. The subsequent British crown in Canada owed nothing whatsoever to the French crown. In other words, what is now the Canadian crown only began evolving with the British conquest. ðarkuncoll 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You say there was a complete break. The sources do not. You can resolve that with yourself whatever way you want. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources say no such thing. There's a pretty strong consensus here that to imply an institutional connection with the French crown is nothing but OR and Synthesis. ðarkuncoll 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh yes, I just said they say no such thing. And don't confuse Zorxd's confused ramblings with consensus; his "it's OR!" line has gone pretty much nowhere so far. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Crown in Canada : no valid source as per WP:SELFPUB

Does the use of "the Crown in Canada" to refer to the French crown in Canada before 1763 exists outside of the propaganda of the Canadian department of heritage? I understand it is a POV, but nothing more, and should not be described as an undisputed fact. It certainly does not present a worldwide view. For example, no French historian will say that their country created a concept called "the Crown in Canada". The treaty of Paris does only confirms the transfer of territories, and not a so-called Crown in Canada, from the French to the British Crown. Read the text [10] There is not a single mention of "the Crown in Canada". Only the Crown of France and the Crown of Great Britain. Is there a single pre-1867 source that uses the concept "the Crown in Canada"? By looking at the British North America act of 1867 [11], we find that "Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". --zorxd (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What I refer to is the following policy : WP:SELFPUB. As per #2 it does not involve claims about third parties;, a self-published source of the Canadian governement isn't good to claim that the Crown in Canada was established by France in 1534, as France is a 3rd party. Therefore, there is no acceptable source that talks about the Crown in Canada before 1763. I could also add that it also violates point #1 it is not unduly self-serving; --zorxd (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It might also violates point #5 the article is not based primarily on such sources., given the number of references to the document "A Crown of Maples". Other articles could also potentially violate this point. --zorxd (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is, indeed, ridiculous that this whole article should be based on what is effectively a propaganda document produced by the Canadian government. john k (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is the number of times you call things ridiculous. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we conclude that you have nothing to oppose the claim that the source isn't valid? --zorxd (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

'Canada has been a monarchy since at least the end of the 15th century,[n 1][21][22][23] the Crown having evolved under an uninterrupted line of consecutive French, British, and then Canadian monarchs to become a distinctly Canadian institution'. Yes, I suggest we remove this statement. Canada wasn't a monarchy at the end of the 15th century. It was ruled by a monarchy since the 15th century until its constitutional autonomy. Even then, in a piecemeal fashion. And, as others have said already, there is no constitutional continuity between the French and British monarchies.--Gazzster (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced, so you can't delete it. Also, it doesn't say anything about constitutional continutiy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada wasn't a Monarchy before 1867, 'cuz Confederation didn't occur until 1867. Before that, it was British colonies & who ran British colonies? the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Since at least the end of the 15th century" imply that some people say that Canada was a monarchy before that. No source support this claim. The only correct date would be "since at least 1867", as it leaves the door open to views that Canada was a monarchy before that, even if not everybody agree (not that it was a republic, but it wasn't a monarchy by itself so we can't say that Canada was a monarchy just like we can't say that Vancouver is a monarchy) --zorxd (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources are clear enough. It is this statement, citing the sources, that creates the ambiguity: 'Canada has been a monarchy since at least the end of the 15th century,[n 1][21][22][23] the Crown having evolved under an uninterrupted line of consecutive French, British, and then Canadian monarchs to become a distinctly Canadian institution'. Canada has not been a monarchy since the 15th century; it has been ruled by two monarchies as a colony (or rather, colonies) until it became a federated monarchy in its own right. 'The Crown' implies one moral entity having 'evolved' through a succession of monarchs. This of course is not true.Yet the sources themselves suggest none of these things. The statement needs to be reworded.--Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And I might suggest that there is nothing noteworthy in stating that Canada has been ruled by a monarch since colonisation, since the same can be said of all the other Commonwealth realms, and indeed every colony until they or their parent countries became republics in relatively recent times.--Gazzster (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see #Line of monarchs below. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox : Queen's residence in Ottawa?

Interesting : the infobox says that Victoria was the first monarch of Canada. It says that the monarchy was formed in 1867. But what I don't agree is that her residence is in Ottawa. It should be in the UK. Rideau Hall is the residence of her representative, the governor general. Source : Rideau Hall is the official residence and workplace of every governor general since 1867 [12] --zorxd (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See the section Monarchy of Canada#Residences and royal household and the lead of Rideau Hall for the sources. None of which, by the way, negate that the Governor General lives at and works out of Rideau Hall. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Outback the koala (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"misnomered"

"The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution, and in Canada became a Canadian establishment,[23] though it is still often misnomered as "British" in both legal and common language,[23] for reasons historical, political, and of convenience; this conflicts with not only the federal and provincial governments' recognition and promotion of a distinctly Canadian Crown,[24][25][26] but also the sovereign's distinct Canadian title, 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.[27]"

There's no such word as "misnomered", so whoever wrote this hardly does any favours to the monarchy. Quite apart from the barely suppressed anti-British tone. ðarkuncoll 00:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a spelling error. They happen. I've replaced the word entirely, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is of course not NPOV. The one who wrote this obviously wanted to make a point. And we need to pay to read the sources. --zorxd (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That the title conflict with the idea that the monarchy is British is also original research and not backed by a source, other than a (dead link) source about the title itself. The title does contain United Kingdom, even in Canada, so this is enough to claim that the monarchy is British (as well as Canadian). --zorxd (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The link isn't dead; it requires payment to access.

However, you're right in that the connection between the title of the monarch (I assume, as you aren't clear) and the incongruous application of the "British" label to the Canadian monarchy seems hard to find. I'm thinking something like this would be better:

Canada shares the same monarch with each of 15 other monarchies in the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations, a grouping known informally as the Commonwealth realms. The emergence of this arrangement paralleled the evolution of Canadian nationalism following the end of the First World War and culminated in the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Since then, the pan-national Crown has had both a shared and separate character, and the sovereign's role as monarch of Canada has been distinct to his or her position as monarch of the United Kingdom, as reflected in the monarch's unique Canadian title. The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution, and in Canada became a Canadian establishment, though it is still often denoted as "British" in both legal and common language, for reasons historical, political, and of convenience; this conflicts with the federal and provincial governments' recognition and promotion of a distinctly Canadian Crown.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Much better. The link about the title now seems to work. The remaining problem I see is that no source say that calling the monarchy "British" conflicts with calling it "Canadian" (it could be both). We should say something like that the Canadian government insists on calling it "Canadian" instead of using the word "conflicts". Or that the Canadian government exclusively refers to the monarchy as "Canadian". I think the sentence that explains the best is the one about the "shared and separate character". --zorxd (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be called the Zordon monarchy. That doesn't make the accurate description of the monarchy any less accurate and the casual terms used any more right; it's a situation akin to everyone calling Elizabeth II the "Queen of England" when no such person exists. The articles on the British monarchy and British monarch's title don't bother to acknowledge this common misattribution; the similar situation here is only covered because years ago a rabid Marxist waged a months long battle to dispel the very notion that such a thing as a Canadian monarchy existed because it was often called "British". With that said, it is possible to drop the specific reference to the governments; this seems to imply that the governments are saying one thing while the people say another:

The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution, and in Canada became a distinctly Canadian establishment, though it is still often denoted as "British" in both legal and common language, for reasons historical, political, and of convenience.

That actually returns the sentence to something closer to what it was after the conclusion to the epic battle I mentioned above was reached. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to remove the last part. --zorxd (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented the change. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Line of monarchs

Here are the sources used for the sentence in question:

• "Initially established under the... kings of France during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Canada's monarchical institutions..."1 p.12
• "[The monarchy's] roots lie in the establishment of New France... by King Francis I in 1534..."2
• "The office of Governor General is the oldest continuous institution in Canada and is an unbroken link with the early days of our country's recorded history."3
• "Throughout Canada's evolution into statehood, there has been no more... enduring institution than the Crown."1 p.12
• "[T]he Canadian Crown is one of perhaps only a half-dozen still in existence that have survived in an uninterrupted inheritance from beginnings that are older than our Canadian institution itself."4 p.8
• "Canada has always had a monarch, since the time of King Henry VII of England and King Francis I of France."1 p.7
• "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France in the sixteenth century... The colonies that united and formed the Dominion of Canada in 1867 had already enjoyed a long and uninterrupted association with the Crown."1 p.16-17 [Note: no distinction between "British Crown" or "French Crown", merely "the Crown".]
• "Under the Crown, Canada developed first as a colony of two empires, originally the French and subsequently the British, then as an independent dominion, and now as an entirely sovereign nation."5
• "Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British."5
• "The Office of The Queen (or King) is the oldest continuous and unbroken institution in Canada, extending not only through time to Confederation but back through the centuries... In 1534 Jacques Cartier made a... claim on behalf of France's King Francois I of the Royal House of Valois. In recognition of these beginnings, the heads of King Henry VII and King Francois I are carved over the doors to the House of Commons in Ottawa."6
• "Canada has been a monarchy for centuries - first under the kings of France in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, then under the British Crown in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and now as a kingdom in her own right."7
• "Without interruption since the beginning of European settlement in Canada, a governor or governor general has been at the head of the country as the resident representative of the Crown.8
• "Canada has been a monarchy since 1534, beginning with the French monarchs who reigned over New France, continuously down to the present day."9

I'm open to adjusting the wording presently in the article, but only so long as it aligns with what's cited above. For instance, removing "uninterrupted line" means ignoring six sources. Saying "The former colonies that make up what is now known as Canada..." similarly overlooks three, possibly four, cites. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

All sources by the government of Canada are not valid as per WP:SELFPUB, as discussed earlier (but you never answered). Anyways, many sentences above don't even prove your point. Example : saying that no institution have been more enduring than the crown means nothing about the line of succession being interrupted or not. --zorxd (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, monarchist.ca isn't a valid source (obviously not neutral in this case), and neither is blogspot. Canadian Encyclopedia is not ideal either as it is a tertiary source. --zorxd (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:SELFPUB permits those of the sources that are Crown published. Many sentences above do support the statement that the line of monarchs was uninterrupted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No sources are "Crown published". They are published by parts of the government of Canada, like the department of heritage or the parliament. Think about it : if you say that the "Crown" published the source, and use it to argue that is is uninterrupted since 1534, it is a circular argument. What we look for here is secondary sources published by 3rd parties. --zorxd (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're out of your league here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one hear still defending this idea. About 5 different users tried to improve the article and you always blocked everything. I would even say that there is a concensus that there is no such thing such as an interrupted line of succession dating from 1534. --zorxd (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Endlessly uttering falsities does nothing productive. Why have you still not taken this to the next step of dispute resolution, as I suggested you do? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not everything that is quotable should be quoted.Some of the quotes, on the face of it, don't make any historical sense:'The office of Governor General is the oldest continuous institution in Canada.' No, it isn't. Firstly because Canada as a united polity governed by a Governor General hasn't existed since 1867. Secondly, because the present office is a specifically Westminster institution. 'Canada has been a monarchy for centuries'. No, it hasn't. Firstly, for the same reason: it existed as a number of colonies each with their own governors until federation. And in another quote, this is, thankfully, made clear. Secondly, because it was ruled by monarchies, not a monarchy itself. The latter is a bit like saying the tail wags the dog. It would appear some of these quotes are monarchical flag-waving. That's not a great evil of course, but they do seem to be muddying the historical waters.--Gazzster (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to help us in this venture to insist that the sources are wrong; I especially wonder how it can be said that the Governor General's office is incorrect about its own history. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Then your counter-argument seems to be 'the government cannot or will not mislead: therefore everything it says is true'. There doesn't seem to be much to argue that circular logic, except in demonstrating that governments have been misleading. Instead speak to what I and other users have argued, rather than the 'infallible authority' argument.--Gazzster (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I merely say that the sources say what they say and Wikipedia works on sources. For all the crabbing about the ones I've provided, all that's been offered as an alternative is personal opinion and heresay. If people want the sentence rewritten, I think it would be best to provide some cites that support their claims. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been rewritten twice already in as many days. We've already offered logical objections to some of the citations. Hardly 'personal opinion' and 'heresay' I would have thought. You're speaking to the author, not the argument. --Gazzster (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And when we've pointed out these objections, you've just referred us to the citations, avoiding the objections.--Gazzster (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you're simply making unfounded accusations. Mere argument, even if logical, isn't enough. You require cites. You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that, Gazz. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is its own history or not is debatable. In fact, it is exactly the same debate that we are having now. The current office of the governor general can talk about itself, but not about a similar function that belonged to France during New France. --zorxd (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also been on Wikipedia long enough to know that a citation does not necessarily make something a fact, particularly if it flies in the face of common sense. Ignore the citations for a mo. How hard is it to address the objections?--Gazzster (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It isn't whether the citation makes something a fact but whether it's fact that what's said in the article is supported by a citation. One can insert counterpoints, but they should be similarly backed up, and, if they are so common sensical, that requirement should be easy to fulfill.

By asking how hard it "is" to address the objections, you seem to assume I haven't yet addressed the objections. I think you should review the 10,000 or so words of discussion above and then ask me how hard it has been. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not as if a citation has never been challenged.--Gazzster (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

'Canadian Heritage' does not say Canada has been a monarchy since 1534. It says Canada has been ruled by French and British monarchs since 1534, as a colony, or rather, a number of colonies. But this is a moot point now since the sentence in question has been edited. Though I don't see why its noteworthy to emphasise its royal history, since the same can be said of every other European colony except of course the colonies of the Dutch republic.--Gazzster (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know what you're referring to. I see two sources from Canadian Heritage, one saying "Canada has always had a monarch, since the time of King Henry VII..." and the other, "Canada has been a monarchy since 1534", not to mention the one from Buck House that says "Canada has been a monarchy for centuries - first under the kings of France... then under the British Crown."

I want to be clear, though, as perhaps I'm starting to lose track of your and zorxd's objections: what specifically is bothering you about the sentence? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if all the sources were valid (which is far from true), the point isn't even proved, as explained before but I need to explain again since this is a new discussion:

• "Initially established under the... kings of France during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Canada's monarchical institutions..."1 p.12

doesn't prove the point. It doesn't mean that the line of succession wasn't interrupted. Also please note the difference between "Canada's monarchical institutions" and "Canada's monarchy". Source by the government of Canada not valid as per WP:SELFPUB.

• "[The monarchy's] roots lie in the establishment of New France... by King Francis I in 1534..."2

doesn't prove the point. It doesn't mean that the line of succession wasn't interrupted. Also note that it comes from a blog which is reporting an opinion article (from a monarchist, of course) in a newspaper. Not a history paper.

• "The office of Governor General is the oldest continuous institution in Canada and is an unbroken link with the early days of our country's recorded history."3

doesn't prove the point. The early days of our country's recorded history can mean 1867, the generally agreed date of the foundation of Canada. Source by the government of Canada not valid as per WP:SELFPUB.

• "Throughout Canada's evolution into statehood, there has been no more... enduring institution than the Crown."1 p.12

doesn't prove the point. The Crown can be enduring from 1763. Or even from later. Source by the government of Canada not valid as per WP:SELFPUB.

• "[T]he Canadian Crown is one of perhaps only a half-dozen still in existence that have survived in an uninterrupted inheritance from beginnings that are older than our Canadian institution itself."4 p.8

doesn't prove the point. Can mean since anytime before 1867, and not necessary before 1763. Source from a monarchist league which is the main defender of the uninterrupted line of succession, and single "Crown" since before a French or a British even set the foot on any part of modern Canada.

• "Canada has always had a monarch, since the time of King Henry VII of England and King Francis I of France."1 p.7

doesn't prove the point. A monarch was always there. It doesn't mean that the line of succession wasn't interrupted. Source by the government of Canada not valid as per WP:SELFPUB.

• "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France in the sixteenth century... The colonies that united and formed the Dominion of Canada in 1867 had already enjoyed a long and uninterrupted association with the Crown."1 p.16-17 [Note: no distinction between "British Crown" or "French Crown", merely "the Crown".]

doesn't prove the point. You skipped huge parts of the text. The long and uninterrupted association with the Crown can mean since 1763. Source by the government of Canada not valid as per WP:SELFPUB.

• "Under the Crown, Canada developed first as a colony of two empires, originally the French and subsequently the British, then as an independent dominion, and now as an entirely sovereign nation."5

doesn't prove the point. It doesn't mean that the line of succession wasn't interrupted. Source by the government of Canada not valid as per WP:SELFPUB.

• "Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British."5

This one is interesting. It contradicts many other sources, even from the government of Canada itself. It doesn't say that there was an uninterrupted succession between a British and a Canadian monarch. So either it was broken, or the current monarch is still a British one (shock, horror! in monarchist circles as it destroys their dream of a distinctively Canadian monarchy). I am sure that this is a mistake from the government, and as such can't be taken seriously. But if you do, you can make sure that I will use it to show that the current monarch is British, and not Canadian. The Canadian senate can't be wrong, doesn't it? :-)

• "The Office of The Queen (or King) is the oldest continuous and unbroken institution in Canada, extending not only through time to Confederation but back through the centuries... In 1534 Jacques Cartier made a... claim on behalf of France's King Francois I of the Royal House of Valois. In recognition of these beginnings, the heads of King Henry VII and King Francois I are carved over the doors to the House of Commons in Ottawa."6

doesn't prove the point. You skipped huge parts of the text. The oldest continuous and unbroken institution can mean since 1763. It doesn't mean that the line of succession wasn't interrupted. The propaganda of the governement means nothing, even if it is carved on the parliament. Anyway this source isn't valid as it is an amateur web site, an other monarchist league from what I understand.

• "Canada has been a monarchy for centuries - first under the kings of France in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, then under the British Crown in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and now as a kingdom in her own right."7

doesn't prove the point. It doesn't mean that the line of succession wasn't interrupted. Source by the government of the UK not valid as per WP:SELFPUB (as it imply a 3rd party: France)

• "Without interruption since the beginning of European settlement in Canada, a governor or governor general has been at the head of the country as the resident representative of the Crown.8

doesn't prove the point. It doesn't mean that the line of succession wasn't interrupted. The only thing said is that there have been different offices called governor, even if a French governor was a different legal concept than a British governor. Tertiary source.

• "Canada has been a monarchy since 1534, beginning with the French monarchs who reigned over New France, continuously down to the present day."9

doesn't prove the point. It doesn't mean that the line of succession wasn't interrupted. Source by the government of Canada not valid as per WP:SELFPUB. --zorxd (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a number of those quotations are odd. This one is interesting: "[The Canadian Crown is one of perhaps only a half-dozen still in existence that have survived in an uninterrupted inheritance from beginnings that are older than our Canadian institution itself."4 p.8 That's from an overtly partisan monarchist publication. The author seems hesitant to make the statement, writing 'perhaps'. What does it mean? That monarchies preceded the present Canadian one? If so the same can be said of every existing Commonwealth monarchy. The same can be said of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, the Kingdom of the Belgians, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Principality of Monaco, the Vatican City State, the Kingdom of Brunei, the Sultanates of Malaysia, the Kingdom of Jordan, the Kingdom of Tonga, the Kingdom of Norway. I suggest we remove these blog-like sources and concentrate on analysing the Government sources.--Gazzster (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)