Talk:List of Canadian monarchs/Archive 4

Missing monarchs
If this is a list of all monarchs who claimed territory in what would become the current nation of Canada, it appears two Spanish kings are missing. The district of Louisiana was a part of New Spain, and included parts of what is now Alberta and Saskatchewan from 1762 to 1803. That would suggest that Charles III and Charles IV of Spain should be included in this list. It was also under Charles IV that a Spanish settlement was established on Vancouver Island in 1789. Maps I have seen indicate a Spanish claim to the entire west coast of today's B.C., as well as significant territories inland.

Similarly, Russia claimed much of the B.C. coast and inland areas, including what would become the southwestern part of Yukon Territory, from 1799 to 1825. This augurs for the inclusion of Paul I and Alexander I of Russia on this list (and perhaps Nicholas I, depending on exactly when in 1825 the Treaty of St. Petersburg was finalized).

One minor piece of land may also put Margrethe II of Denmark on the list, if not her predecessor, Frederick IX. Hans Island is claimed entirely by both Denmark and Canada. Whether Canada gets it all or it's divided between the two countries, it would be fair to include this monarchy...or are we not listing monarchies with whom Canada has or had (as Canada or Britain) a boundary dispute?

Where do non-monarchical heads of state get listed? That part of Louisiana which is today's Alberta and Saskatchewan were under United States control from 1803 to 1818. U.S. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe were the heads of state during those years. Yoho2001 (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources don't include them among the monarchs that reigned over what's now Canada. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This list is not about "monarchs who claimed territory in what would become Canada", but of monarchs heading Canada as a contemporary political entity. For example, land claims by foreign monarchs in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan from 1762 to 1803 are irrelevant to who was the monarch of Canada, as these places were not part of Canada at the time. Who the current monarch is has nothing to do with territory, but only about the political entity over which they reign. trackratte (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The text of the article indeed suggests it's a list that includes monarchs who claimed territory in what would become Canada. The lead paragraph says "The date of the first claim by a monarch over what is now Canada...", supporting inclusion of all monarchs who claimed territory in what is now the nation. See also the reference next to Henry VII, under the section "The English and British Crown", which says "John Cabot laid claim to what is now Canada...". The Spanish kings and Russian Czars similarly laid claims, and the Spanish ones were certainly confirmed. Yoho2001 (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If we want to follow the line of territories that would become Canada, should we take out the British monarchs before 1760? Based on what we did on List of Governors General of Canada, it looks like the Crown in Right of the Canadas is a continuation of the Crown in Right of New France. Should British monarchs of pre-1760 Acadia, Newfoundland, and Hudson's Bay be relegated to a brief mention in the intro, like we did with Spanish and Russian monarchs? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If this list is to include all monarchs with a claim over any lands/waters found within today's national boundaries, then pre-1760 British monarchs should be on it. The subject of this section, however, is not to review who might be removed, but to point out omissions, namely those of Spain and Russia. Yoho2001 (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the people wanting a wide scope and the people wanting a narrow scope both have valid arguments. So, how about we break the article into two big sections? One will cover the line of monarchs of the Canadas following the same line as List of Governors General of Canada. That is, the French crown from 1534–1763, British crown from 1763-1931, and Canadian crown from 1931-present. The second section will cover monarchs of lands which are now part of Canada. That is, Russian, Spanish, Aboriginal, and British. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs)


 * This list is based on a wide variety of verifiable reference lists. Any additions of other monarchs are speculation. Secondly, the lead states that this list is an enumeration of "The lines of monarchs who reigned over the French and British colonies of Canada, followed by the British Dominion of Canada , and finally the present-day sovereign state of Canada ", which "begin approximately at the turn of the 16th century". Which is to say, "of Canada" as a political entity, and not as a specific land as the territory occupied by Canada has constantly changed, and these territorial changes have no effect on Canada itself and therefore no effect on its sovereign. Third, Canada existed as a named entity on maps in the early to mid 1500s so the status of territories outside of Canada at that time are irrelevant to the status of the sovereign at that same time. This is in the same way as if Quebec were to separate today, and Maine join tomorrow, the status of the sovereign would be completely unaffected. So, this is a list of sovereigns of Canada, not a list of sovereigns who ever laid claim to a piece of land which at the time had nothing to do with Canada but now are currently occupied by Canada. Every sovereign on this list has been the sovereign of Canada, whereas kings of Spain, or presidents of the U.S., have never been sovereigns over Canada, and this is the difference. trackratte (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * canadiancrown.gc.ca --Moxy (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That should be the main focus of this article, I agree. At the same time, the monarchs reigning over lands which are now part of Canada are notable. If my town was once under the Spanish crown, that's cool and I'd be interested in knowing about it. The question is whether those other monarchs deserve their own article. In my opinion, we don't have enough to say about them to make it worth creating a new article, but we do have enough information to write an interesting paragraph in a small section at this end of this article. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My only ick is that they are not "Canadian monarchs", so do not belong in this article. From what I gather you are proposing, it would simply be a list and therefore does not even require sufficient material to form an article. One or two sentences followed by a list would be sufficient for such a list. We could add a blue link under "See Also" at the bottom of the article, as well as a single phrase somewhere at the bottom of the lead to the effect of "For a list of monarchs which have staked claim to lands or territories which contemporary Canada occupies, see xxxx". Something along those lines I think would meet your desire to have such 'notable and interesting' information presented within the Encyclopedia, while at the same time preserving the overall subject and reason for existence of this list. trackratte (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to expand the scope of this list to include a Spanish monarch who had a tenuous claim to part of Vancouver Island. This is mentioned in none of the sources we have for this list. Also, there isn't enough to warrant a separate list; New Spain did not extend into present-day Saskatchewan and Alberta and Hans Island is basically pointless (and, as admitted by Yoho, disputed). The reason not to include US presidents is obvious.
 * At most, a brief mention of Charles IV and the russian czars in the lede here; maybe. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * TBH, this list should only begin in 1867. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with GoodDay. Would also mention too that the division between English, British and Canadian monarchs has no basis in law.  Both before and after 1931, George VI was king of "the British Dominions beyond the Seas," and Canada was not specifically named until 1953.  TFD (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Scottish monarchs
I've added in that the English monarchs - James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II, William III, Mary II & Anne, were also Scottish monarchs - James VI, Charles I, Charles II, James VII, William II, Mary II & Anne. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? TFD (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because they were. GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If we're not going to include that they were Scottish monarchs, aswell. Then the English and British section, should be split into seperate sections. England didn't become Great Britain in 1707, but rather England & Scotland merged to become Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

What part of Canada was a Scottish colony? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * History guy here :-).... King James granted Sir William Alexander a charter for Nova Scotia (New Scotland)  in 1621 and  established small settlements on Cape Breton Island and at the Bay of Fundy,....but these claims were turned over  to France in 1632. .....So for 11 years there was a claim but not until  1720 did many Scots start to immigrate and that was with the  Hudson’s Bay Company.  Is this worth mention?....will leave it to you guys to workout -- Moxy (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are inherent problems about a list of Canadian monarchs before Canada was formed in 1867. Both Spain and Russia also made claims to what is today parts of Canada.
 * Assuming though that we are stuck with the status quo, I suggest we follow what reliable sources such as the Canadian Parliament do, and they consider George III as the first British king of Canada. That seems in line with state continuity theory.  Newfoundland was acquired by Canada, hence Newfoundland's sovereign cannot be considered a Canadian sovereign.  TFD (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems to be many Scottish named places throughout Canada, names which were bestowed during the existance of the Kingdom of Scotland. Also (again), the Stuarts were monarchs of Scotland, aswell as England up until the Acts of Union in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Canada wasn't formed in 1867, it started appearing on maps in the 1500s. King James' grant in 1621 has nothing to do with this list as it was separate from Canada at the time, so Scottish monarchs have never laid claim to the colony/province/dominion/sovereign state of Canada. The same is equally true for Spanish monarchs. The colonies of Canada were French, English, and later British possessions, and only those sovereigns ever ruled over Canada prior to Canada gaining independence and having its own specific monarchy. trackratte (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And some monarchs of England and Scotland were also monarchs of Ireland, and monarchs of the UK were also monarchs of Hanover (and there's lots of places in Canada with German-derived names, too). But, we're not going to re-title the second section "The English and Scottish and Irish and British and Hanoverian Crown (1497–1931)".
 * I don't object to a small section that covers the other claims in brief. But, the list should stay as is; it's based on the reliable sources we have. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the scope of this list is quite clear: "Listed here are the monarchs who reigned over the French and British colonies of Canada, followed by the British Dominion of Canada, and finally the present-day sovereign state of Canada". Any entity not reigning over the colony/Dominion of Canada is beyond the scope of this list. The place for added detail on geographic claims made (at the time) outside of Canada is in the History of Canada article, or similar. A "see also" to that article can easily be added in the See Also section. trackratte (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, in looking at History of Canada, it discusses aboriginal inhabitants, as well as Viking, Portuguese, and Spanish claims. I've added the wiki article in the See Also section. Further additions involving Scottish colonies or other claims beyond the scope of this list should rightfully be included within that article. trackratte (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you & Mies are opposing my proposed changes, I may aswell not push it any further. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fine. But, as this is an article focusing specifically on monarchs, I don't think a small section mentioning other monarchical claims to what is now Canadian territory would be out of place. I'm not going to add one; I simply believe if someone did, it wouldn't be unreasonable. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * trackratte, Canada indeed was formed in 1867 through the union of three provinces but, later, other parts of British North America joined the union. (See the 1867 Act.)  But if we begin with the New France province of Canada, then present day Canada is its continuation.  Mies, this is a list article and should not be cluttered with minor details.  TFD (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD, for your first point, I suppose when you say Canada was formed in 1867, you mean the Dominion of Canada. As I've stated before, Canada has existed since the 1500s. Of course, Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick came together to form the modern Dominion of Canada, to which you admit "present day Canada is its continuation", of which you are entirely correct. As we've already seen, the Government of Canada from June of 1866 was essentially the same as the Government of Canada on the 1st of July 1867, same key figures, same building, same rules and procedures, with an "executive Government and Authority of and over Canada" which was "declared to continue" in the Constitution Act of 1867, and not created anew.
 * As for your second point, I completely agree. trackratte (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NB and NS did not become part of the Province of Canada. The three provinces united to form a new political unit.  It would have been more obvious of course if the new unit had been given a different name, as Australia was.  The Dominion was just as much a continuation of NB and NS as it was of the Province of Canada.  Certainly the Governor-General of the Dominion had been Governor-General of the Province of Ontario, but he had also been Governor-General of British North America and continued to be so.  But elections were required for the new legislatures of Canada, Quebec and Ontario, while NS and NB continued their existing ones.  TFD (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "came together to form the Dominion of Canada"...no one ever said that NB and NS became part of the province of Canada. And of course elections were required for Ontario and Quebec because they had just been created. Geographically, Canada was split in two to form Quebec and Ontario where they each stood up their respective provincial governments, and the government of Canada was elevated to the federal level. NS and NB pretty much carried on since they existed at the same level previous to Confederation. All of this is pretty straightforward and non-controversial, and I have the distinct impression we're simply reading back the same story to each other. Regardless, Canada pre-existed confederation (obviously not the Dominion of Canada, however), and the Constitution itself states that Canada, its government, and the executive authority over it, was simply to continue. This can be seen both in written law, as well as in operation, where a constitution similar to that of the UK continued to operate, and in fact even the rules and procedures of the house of commons simply carried forward without any immediate amendment. Post-confederation, Canada was still a colony, albeit a much larger one with two levels of government instead of one, and true independence didn't follow for nearly 60 years. No one is attempting to diminish the importance of Confederation, however, the myth that it was the creation of a completely new entity entirely separate and removed from all of its previous iterations is non-sense in both historical fact, and in law. Which of course, has nothing to do with the topic at hand, Scottish monarchs, but I do rather enjoy our tangentious sidebars regardless. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

At the time of confederation, NS and NB did not just carry on, they were joined with the new provinces of Ontario and Quebec to form the Dominion of Canada. The new federal parliament included MPs from NS and NB. The Dominion was a merger between three provinces. The 1867 act begins, "An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick....Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion....the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada." It was a new state that was a union of three existing states. You are right in one sense, that the Province of Canada was not extinguished, but neither were NS or NB. TFD (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this all mean that you support including that the Stuarts listed in this article, were also Scottish monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They were also monarchs of Scotland, but they reigned over Canada by virtue of their English crown, not their Scottish crown. Mentioning the Scottish crown here would be like saying between 1931-1947 India's monarch was the monarch of UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're going to keep the pre-1867 lists. We should divide the English and British monarchs subsection into English monarchs, British monarchs sub-sections. Neither England or the English monarchy expanded over Scotland. England & Scotland (and their respective monarchies) merged in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The legislatures of British North American colonies were independent before joining confederation, but their viceregal representatives were lieutenant-governors, who ranked under the Governor-General of The Canadas. The Governor-General of the Confederation is a continuation of the office of Governor-General of the Canadas, all the way back to Samuel de Champlain. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Guess work is not good....use sources pls The Kings and Queens of Canada: The Crown in Canadian History -- Moxy (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:The Four Deuces gave a reference above to the Parliament limiting monarchs to ones who reigned over The Canadas. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That source isn't a list of all the monarchs of Canada, but a list of portraits of Canadian monarchs which hang in the Senate "In the Senate foyer and the Salon de la Francophonie, hang the portraits of the kings and queens in whose names our laws have been, and continue to be, enacted", with the list explaining each portrait and who made it. trackratte (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a great source with nice info....I see the difference here....we have 2 types of sources...and 2 POV here and I think I see the differences. Many sources talk about ALL kings/queens that claimed a piece of what is now Canada vs those kings/queens that had administrative entities in the new lands. For example Rupert's Land had Charles I of England... he was the Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company at the time ....not there as a Governor-general of the crown. So i think we should think  what is best here. -- Moxy (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While they ranked below the Governor General of Canada, it was in his separate role as Governor General of British North America, which originally included the 13 colonies. Furthermore the office of GG of BNA continued after confederation, with PEI at least still reporting to the GG.  And   Also, current legal thinking is that the monarch did not reign over territories outside England by virtue of the English crown.  While de facto England had colonies, in law they were subject to the  not England itself.  TFD (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we limited this article to post-Confederation monarchs, as you suggest in the other section, would there be value in creating articles about monarchs of BNA and New France? Those could differ from the existing lists of English, British, and French monarchs by saying which colonies the monarchs reigned over at what times and listing who their viceroys were. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I believe though that the governors of Canada and BNA were always the same person and do not know if the office ended in 1867.  There is very  little I have seen in sources about the BNA governorship.  TFD (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My comments are below, as this conversation is no longer about Scottish monarchs, and has been carried on in the topic immediately below. trackratte (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Explaining who reigned over what
I thought we were going to limit this to monarchs of The Canadas, but I guess we're back to including monarchs who controlled any part of what is now Canada. Given that, I think we should include something to show which monarchs controlled which parts of what is now Canada. At one point I added that info to the table itself, but that was reverted. So, how about we add a seperate table to show who reigned over what? I was thinking something like this:

—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I guess we're back to including monarchs who controlled any part of what is now Canada." We are? I was under the impression the list is staying as is. trackratte gave good reasoning above. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Trackratte was the one who reverted my edit that limited it to monarchs of The Canadas. If we're limiting it to monarchs of The Canadas, should we go back to my version, which excluded English monarchs who only reigned over Newfoundland and Rupert's Land? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not, given they're included in the sources. The Spanish and Russian monarchs are not. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're including Henry VII to George II, that means we're not limiting the article to monarchs who reigned over the Canadas. In that case, how should we show which monarchs reigned over what parts of what is now Canada? Should we add a table like the above, or should we include the information as a column in the existing table? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * IMHO (as mentioned 2 sections above), we should drastically cut the article down to having the list beginning at July 1, 1867. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. TFD (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we can't limit it to monarchs of The Canadas as per my edit, I'd prefer limiting it to post-Confederation monarchs rather than keeping the arbitrary status quo. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a list of monarchs who ruled over Canada, and is not arbitrary but is taken from 6 separate sources. There's two tests: 1. If they appear on the sources lists they appear here, if they don't then they don't appear here, and 2. If a monarch never reigned over an entity called Canada, then they don't belong on the list, if they did, they do. It doesn't take a degree in constitutional law. trackratte (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From 1534–1763 while the French crown was reigning over Canada (New France), what entity called Canada were the English monarchs reigning over? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cant limit the article to just post-Confederation monarchs with this title....as sources do not present it this way (Canadian monarchs always have the French listed). Would be best to list all here (as is) with sub articles that have details about territory etc...-- Moxy (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're keeping every monarch, we should include a way to show which monarchs reigned over which colonies, which was my original point in this section. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * . It already says at the top of each table which colony they reigned over, ie Colony of Canada, Dominion of Canada, etc. It goes into further detail under "territorial changes" for each individual monarch. If a reader wants even more detail than that, they can click on the blue link for each monarch's wiki page, this is a simple list after all. trackratte (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From 1534–1763 while the French crown was reigning over Canada (New France), what entity called Canada were the English monarchs reigning over? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (response to AG) Who decided that the status quo is arbitrary? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've yet to hear inclusion criteria that match the status quo. The same people who are arguing that the list should only contain monarchs of The Canadas are also the ones who won't let me remove English monarchs during the time when The Canadas were under the French crown. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If enough of us prefer to start the list at 1867? those changes will be made. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are seven sourced lists, anything outside of the sources is Original Research. trackratte (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No reason why this article (and corresponding sources) can't be split up. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already split up under French, English and British, and Canadian Crowns. The sources list 33 sovereigns of Canada.
 * That's a good point, why are there overlapping English and French monarchs. All of the source lists have these overlaps however. I assume it is because the English Crown laid claim to Canada and never officially gave them up (John Cabot in 1497, and Humphrey Gilbert in 1583). trackratte (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we sure those sources include overlap because of John Cabot's claim, or are they including overlap because they're listing monarchs of what is now Canada rather than just monarchs of The Canadas? We do have one source doesn't have any overlap: Parliament's website. That's the model I was trying to match when I removed the pre-1763 English monarchs from the article. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and it's a valid one. The Senate source seems to list all of the portraits they have hanging, not necessarily a conclusive list of all of the sovereigns of Canada, although that was probably their goal in acquiring those portraits in the first place. The source lists would not be listing monarchs of "what is now" Canada as if they were, they would have Spanish and Russian monarchs as well, which they don't. The various claims made and never disavowed by Cabot, Gilbert, Frobisher, etc. I think is a valid reason for why the sources include the overlap. It is a bit difficult to track since you have England sending people willy-nilly all over the world making grand claims on undefined lands ("I claim this land!" meanwhile having no maps or surveys so having no idea what the extent is of what they're claiming).The fact of the matter is is that we have 7 different sourced lists outlining what we already have here, including official crown sources and another encyclopedia. I don't see how disregarding these sources and going into the realm of OR really helps to improve anything. If we remove the overlap, or just take the list from 1867, we're just removing information from the reader and adding to the confusion as the sources say there have been 33 sovereigns of Canada, and many many many sources all state that Canada has been a continuous monarchy (including the Senate source you've used) since the early 1500s, so then starting the list in the late 1800s seems all of a sudden quite contradictory. trackratte (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's our justification, we should re-word the intro or add lead paragraphs for each table. The French crown reigned over Canada before 1763 when it was Canada (New France), and the UK reigned over Canada after 1763 when it was Province of Quebec (1763–91) and later The Canadas. If we're including English and British monarchs before 1763, then we should change "reigned over Canada" to "reigned over or claimed to reign over Canada". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're getting sucked pretty far down the rabbit hole here. The source lists all invariably list these English monarchs under "Lists of the Sovereigns of Canada", or "Canadian Monarchs". Certain sources, such as Crown of Maples, are well-researched and written by academics. Others are written by published historians. And still others are official government sources, with one from another encyclopedia. Which is all to say these are not fringe sources to simply be discarded. That being said, I realise the logical sense of what you are arguing, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm just saying (like with almost all of our articles involving Canadian constitutional theory in some way) that there is no reason to make things needlessly convoluted or complicated. However, I did add a note under "Territorial Changes" for the first English monarch a brief explanation of what, I think, your main point is. trackratte (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No should be the other way around....that is this is the parent article as per the sources....then sub articles with more info. -- Moxy (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem, GoodDay, you're still having trouble understanding what consensus is. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The columns for consorts and full names don't seem to have to be there. The reign dates can be consolidated into one column. If the former two are deleted and the latter condensed, that leaves a fair bit of room to add information. I don't see what harm there is defining (maybe more clearly, as trackratte notes the list already does cover territories reigned over) what areas of what is now Canada was under what monarch. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's like a family tree. One that starts with an individual and shows ancestors or one that starts with an ancestor and shows descendants are both fine.  It's when you try to show all of one's relations that it becomes too complex for a two dimensional display.  Luckily we are able to create additional articles to avoid the confusion.  TFD (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, additional articles will just add confusion. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What is confusing about for example about a separate "List of monarchs of Upper Canada?" TFD (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we don't have consensus to remove the monarchs who didn't reign over The Canadas, I'd be okay with adding a column listing which colonies they did reign over, as you suggest. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why explaining (somehow) who reigned over what is mutually exclusive to having all the monarchs as included in the numerous available sources. Clearing out the two columns and merging the other two into one, as I outlined above, should open up enough space. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not dead-set against adding all of this additional information on what other outside colonies each monarch rules over, but I don't see why that information is pertinent here. Each monarch's holdings are surely covered in each of their own articles. Second, that information has no relevance to this list which is only to do with monarchs over Canada, and not any other outside colonies or territories (for example, listing the other 15 countries that Elizabeth II has is amply covered elsewhere, and her status as the Queen of New Zealand has nothing to do with this list). Subsequently, I think we're just adding a whole lot of redundant information not relevant to this very narrow in scope list which will only serve to clutter and confuse, and doesn't really add anything of any pertinent value to the list topic. trackratte (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added missing bits to the appropriate "territorial changes" blocks (such as the Province of Canada, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta), and added a note regarding how the English/British crown didn't concretely exercise its claim over Canada until ceded by France in 1763. As it stands now, readers can clearly trace the territorial evolution of Canada from the beginning to the present, and how Canada changed hands, which I believe is one of the points that some editors wanted. Having territorial changes clearly traced out in a clear manner I think adds pertinent detail to the list which may have been previously lacking. trackratte (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm much happier with the status quo now that it explains what pre-1763 English monarchs are doing in the list. I'm wondering now if some of the information you added to the monarchs' rows should instead be added as lead paragraphs at the beginning of each section, sort of like what I did with my big edit. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, now that I know what the goal/improvement was behind the big edit was, I'm a lot less jarred by it. Looking it over, it makes sense. That being said, I am hesitant to start putting big blocks of text into it as all of that text is already covered in articles elsewhere and this is supposed to be a list.
 * I like how the information is covered within the Territorial Changes portion of the list however, even though it's covered elsewhere, as it is succinct and doesn't provide the reader with a blast of information up front. Instead it provides a clear delineation along what amounts to a timeline, of how these changes occurred gradually over time and with each monarch.
 * Having all of this information in a big blast up front I think is less effective than having it dispersed in a logical and succinct fashion within the list itself.
 * That being said, is there a way that we can have a sort of "see also" in a single sentence at the outset of each sub-section? For example, we already have a short paragraph at the outset of "The French Crown", to which we could probably append "For more detailed information on this period, see History of the French Crown in Canada", or something to that effect, which may be helpful to those readers who truly do wish for a 'deeper dive' as opposed to the majority of readers who, I assume in coming to a list, simply want to see a straight-forward list of Canadian sovereigns. trackratte (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Split up into 3 articles with corresponding sources
A post-1867 list for one. A French Crown list for another. An English & British Crowns list for another. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? The content is already clearly delineated in line with the sources within this article, with separate paragraph tables for each Crown. As they are all sovereigns of Canada in line with a multitude of sources lists, it would not make sense to split the one topic list into three separate articles. Third, we are not adding anything to the reader, on the contrary we are making it more difficult by splitting the same topic into three separate articles. Fourth, this is a simple list, not a massive topic header like Canada. trackratte (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Canadian monarchs, List of British monarchs over Canada & List of French monarchs over Canada, would be accurate names for these 3 proposed articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So would List of Canadian monarchs, or even better, List of the Sovereigns of Canada which is in fact what sourced lists use. This has the benefit of 1) having all of the same information consolidated into one easy to ready package, 2) in line with the appropriate sources and therefore not OR, and 3) jiving with countless sources stating that Canada has been a continuous monarchy since the early 1500s. The core idea of what you want to accomplish has already been done, there are 3 separate paras with clear titles and symbols already making the exact distinction you wish to make. trackratte (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the distinction between monarchs over Canada and Canadian monarchs? TFD (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "...over Canada", during the period when (what would be Canada) the land was French & then British colonies. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no question of "what would be Canada" during the French and British colonial periods, it was Canada (although I assume you mean "what would become present-day Canada"). It's really an exercise in futility to try and untangle being Canadian, French, or British prior to 1947, as no real or legal distinction existed. Canada in 1867 was a British possession, with a British-born British subject as its prime minister, and a British Queen as its sovereign. This is not to say that the country, its prime minister, and its Queen were not Canadian at the time. In the same way as no one would say that Canadian soldiers during the Second World War weren't Canadian just because they were British subjects. It isn't until the passing of the Citizenship Act in 1947 that there's a concrete, clear, and legal basis for what constitutes being Canadian (citizenship), and the 1931 Statute of Westminster for the country itself and the Canadian crown. trackratte (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My stance hasn't changed on this matter. Seeing as there's no consensus for splitting the article, I won't be proceeding with that action. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Canada's road to independence is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, it is not clear when it ceased to be a colony and some colonial relics remain, not least the Crown. (Note there is no "Independence Day," just a Canada Day.)  But since none of these changes affected the position of the Crown in Canada, the distinction is arbitrary.  TFD (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, we don't know when it ceased to be a colony, only that it wasn't as of 1931 (although this status was already acknowledged as of the Balfour declaration of 1926), you're quite right, an exercise in futility in many ways as I said. And to answer your previous question, the word "Canadian" usually implies nationality, which as for reasons already stated, can quickly lead to a bit of a black hole. trackratte (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If we truly wanted to be precise? this article should begin at 1931. Before that date, it's French monarchs & British monarchs. Until 1931, there was no (I know it says 1867)Monarchy of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * By that logic model there were no people of Canada then either. Of course, Wikipedia defines to be "Canadian" as to have "identified with the country of Canada. This connection may be residential, legal, historical, or cultural". trackratte (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In Ex p Indian Association of Alberta|Ex parte Indian Association of Alberta (EWCA, 1982), the Lords of Appeal presented distinct dates for a separate Canadian Crown.

Denning MR wrote, "[A]t the Imperial Conference of 1926 it was recognized that, as a result of constitutional practice, the Crown was no longer indivisible. Thereafter the Crown was separate and divisible for each self-governing dominion or province or territory."

Kerr LJ wrote in 1982, "[I]ndependence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867."

Finally, May LJ acknowledged that in addition to the Canadian Crown there could have been a British Crown in Canada as late as 1931.

Certainly the judges were not in agreement on the exact date. Fortunately the House of Lords has resolved the issue by siding with Kerr.

TFD (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly, thanks. While not speaking to colonial or a completely independent status, the Kerr quote does speak to the "Crown in Right of" dynamic, which would have equally applied to the government of the (province/colony) of Canada as well one would think since it had "an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory". But as we both agree I think, even the greatest legal experts on the matter tend to say things like "was recognised that" on such a date, or "had clearly happened by", or "as of" such and such date, which the point is there's a tremendous amount of fuzziness, and if the same issue were to be hypothetically treated in the Supreme Court of Canada tomorrow, they may very well come up with a variety of dates as well. While there's arguments to be made for 1840, 1867, 1926, etc, I think that there is consensus that this was indisputably true as of 1931, and may have been true prior. trackratte (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not fuzzy at all. The Dominion of Canada was established in 1867 with a separate Crown.  Whether that Crown was a continuation of an earlier Crown or Crowns and when that Crown or Crowns was created was beyond the issues discussed in the trial.  But his observation is not fuzzy at all:  "[R]ights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question."  And no need to wait for a SCC ruling, we have a House of Lords ruling.  TFD (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If Canada had a separate and independent Crown in 1867, then the Queen on the Bench in Right of the United Kingdom would have no jurisdiction on Canadian matters (and nor would the British House of Lords), and therefore the JCPC would have had no ability to offer advice to the Queen of Canada, which is the current case. trackratte (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you confusing the Lords of Appeal with the JCPC?
 * The English courts do not exercise jurisdiction in colonies once colonial courts have been established and there is no appeal from a colonial court to the British House of Lords.
 * As determined by the EU, t The JCPC is not considered a part of the UK government but as part of the government for the state whose case they are deciding. The JCPC hears appeals from 9 Commonwealth realms, three republics in the Commonwealth and Brunei, all of which are independent countries.
 * TFD (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't be around for the rest of the night so I can track the Paris attacks. Although I enjoy the debate. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that the JCPC has no place in the Privy Council of Canada, and even then there is no clean cut-off for the JCPC's role in Canada as it's role was gradually phased out, and still heard cases after it's official removal as the case was begun before the "cutoff" dates. British 'rulings' or advice after a certain point may continue to inform Canadian constitutional affairs, but not definitively rule them as the Canadian and British constitutions are not one and the same, and the jurisdiction of foreign states on Canada's constitutional affairs is null. This was acknowledged as such by Denning Kerr, and may in that the "court has no jurisdiction to consider the issues". Which isn't to say the legal principles regarding the divisibility of the Crown are invalid prior to 1931, only that that judgement does not say Canada had a wholly independent crown in 1867, but that "an overseas government can have rights and obligations without being wholly independent", ie the crown in right of the UK retained certain responsibilities, while the crown in Right of Canada held others.  trackratte (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, whether or not the Queen of Canada relies on the advice of her British or Canadian privy councillors, and whether she declares laws of her UK or Canadian parliament, has no bearing on whether in doing so she exercises her power as Queen of Canada. In the case of the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which has no population, the lords wrote, "While instructions may be transmitted to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State he does so, in constitutional theory, as her mouthpiece or medium. He is passing on her instructions as Queen of SGSSI, not acting as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom."

It was not Denning but May who said the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has no jurisdiction over Canadian affairs. In fact it never has. And similarly today it holds no jurisdiction over Scotland, the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, the United States or any other territory outside England and Wales.

And you interpret your last quote incorrectly. "an overseas government can have rights and obligations without being wholly independent" does not mean "ie the crown in right of the UK" it means i.e. the crown in right of the overseas country, viz., the "overseas government." That was the whole point of the case. That because the crown of the SGSSI was separate from the British crown, the rights and obligations of the crown of the UK were separate from the rights and obligations of the crown of the SGSSI, just as Denning had determined they were separate from the rights and obligations of the Canadian Crown.

TFD (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Adopt the Table
Given that the above discussion has some interesting points, and that the current version of the article is not presenting a problem, is there any good reason for not letting a further section be added to include Arctic Gnome's Table above, with suitable introductory paragraph and maybe annotations to cover claims by others? Seeing that both article and discussion take for granted that statehood, including colonial and dominion and independent sovereignty, is usually treated as territorial, and the  judicial rulings mentioned above by TFD, how the present article should be understood is sufficiently clear: per List of Canadian monarchs Listed here are the monarchs who reigned over the French and British colonies of Canada, followed by the British Dominion of Canada, and finally the present-day sovereign state of Canada, and the  adjacent  infobox  linking to History of monarchy in Canada, which begins  ''The history of monarchy in Canada stretches from pre-colonial times through to the present day. Canada's monarchical status began with the French settlement of the colony of Canada in the name of King Francis I in 1534; although a previous claim was made by England in the name of King Henry VII in 1497 when John Cabot made landfall in what is thought to be modern day Newfoundland or Nova Scotia''. That makes things about as clear as could be for otherwise less well inforned readers. Qexigator (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above table is not a list of Sovereigns of Canada (colony, province, dominion), so instead of continuing to add sections and more and more details on territorial changes, foreign claims to territories which were at the time outside of Canada, etc (what is essentially turning this list into a full-fledged article covering information already covered in other articles), I would suggest that if we want the information reflected in a table or list form, that we create a new article space instead. We can easily provide a link to this new article space from this one. If the "Consorts" space is added to in any significant way, it should also be moved to its own article space as well (actually, any details on royal consorts beyond their mention in the list shouldn't really be placed here in the first place, I'm not sure if it would be better off as a stub article for now, and can be built up later?). trackratte (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sovereigns of the colony of Canada
Are we sure we are linking and saying the right thing here "Sovereigns of the colony of Canada" = links to Canada (New France) this is just an administrative division of New France....not the whole area. The territory was divided into colonies, each with its own administration: Canada, Acadia, Newfoundland (Plaisance), and Louisiana.--- Moxy (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of Canadian monarchs. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lgontario.ca/en/biographies/pages/kings-and-queens.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Canadian monarchs. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211042131/http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003350 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003350

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Canadian monarchs. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111217201837/http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/constitution/constitution13_e.html to http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/constitution/constitution13_e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114080534/http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/constitution/constitution15_e.html to http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/constitution/constitution15_e.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Canadian monarchs. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103031222/http://www.monarchist.ca/en/history to http://www.monarchist.ca/en/history

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)