Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 14

"Succession and regency" update
Would the following be acceptable, or some tweaked version? Qexigator (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, is was under judicial review in the Quebec Superior Court over, among other issues, its effectiveness and alleged failure to "follow the amending procedure" set out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In the court proceedings, the federal government was due to reply by 10 October 2015, with another month for a reply from the challenging parties. The court's decision was delivered in February 2016, in favour of the validity of the Act.
 * I think ya meant February 2016. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks alright to me, with one except. We should have an opening sentence that clearly tells readers if the Canadian succession is eldest child & monarch can marry a Catholic or still eldest son & monarch can't marry a Catholic. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 16 No, it should merely say the act was found not to be unconstitutional. (I realise that's a double negative; however, saying it was found to be constitutional could be interpreted as describing the act as a constitutional document, which, if I understand things correctly, so far, the judge said it is not; it doesn't amend the constitution.) -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But isn't it constitutional, until the Supreme Court of Canada says it isn't? Note: I'm approaching this as a reader, who wants clarity shown on this article. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mies. Where do you get "the act was found not to be unconstitutional" from? What we know is that there was an application to have the Act declared invalid and that was rejected by the judge. How is that not "in favour of the validity of the Act". We had best leave out mentioning "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" unless verbatim in the judgment. Qexigator (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The challenge was to find the law unconstitutional. "Consequently, the Act is unconstitutional... The Act is therefore unconstitutional for this reason as well... DECLARE the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 unconstitutional... [etc.]" -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The phrasing provides too much weight to a fringe view. Anyone can request to a court that they be recognized as the King of Canada and technically it is under judicial review until the court throws it out.  I would mention very briefly the various frivolous challenges - O'Donohue, Teskey and Taillon and Motard - in the article, but not present them as serious challenges.  TFD (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest "The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, is was under judicial review in the Quebec Superior Court over, among other issues, its effectiveness and alleged failure to "follow the amending procedure" set out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In the court proceedings, the federal government was due to reply by 10 October 2015, with another month for a reply from the challenging parties. The court's decision was delivered in February 2016, in favour of the validity of the Act The Court ruled that no changes to Canada's laws or constitution was necessary for the changes to the rules of succession to come into effect.(ref court decision paras 146-147"
 * I would also suggest that, once the official translation is published, that we stay close to or adopt its language. trackratte (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, again, this doesn't clearly show the status of the succession. Most folks (like myself) aren't lawyers, so it would help if we had an opening sentence like "The royal succession was changed from eldest son to eldest child and the ban on the Canadian monarch's marriage to Catholics was removed" or "The royal succession is eldest son and the Canadian monarch is barred from marrying a Catholic" . GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Track: As said above, the  one thing certain is that the judge has rejected the application submitted  for a declaration that, for the reasons (proposed by Motard and Taillon) stated in paragraph [2], the act of 2013 was invalid.  We should not at this stage attempt to give the reasons, which are more likely to be an individual's interpretation. But we can safely say the court ruled in favour of the validity of the Act.  My proposed wording at the top of this section is concerned only with updating at that place in the article, in as minor a way possible, leaving the other questions to be attended to now, if necessary, or later when the effect of the judgment is better understood. Qexigator (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The ruling may use the wording, but I'd caution against including in the article "no changes to Canada's laws or constitution was necessary for the changes to the rules of succession to come into effect." It begs the question: come into effect where? Canada or the UK? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think now that there's been a ruling the following is unnecessary and of no importance: "In the court proceedings, the federal government was due to reply by 10 October 2015, with another month for a reply from the challenging parties" Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Instead of "The [Act] was under judicial review...," what about, "Opponents of the change in succession unsuccessfully challenged the law in Ontario and Quebec superior courts?" BTW weren't they challenging the succession rules, not just the Canadian Act?  The Government's position was that the Act had no effect on the succession, but merely acknowledged agreement with the change in succession.  TFD (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As you all can tell by the 2 plain spoken versions I put into the article (one was deleted, the other kept -with a citation note), I just want us to make a clear statement in the article on the succession. That way, readers like myself, can get an immediate clarity in the opening sentence, of what the succession is. :) GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not yet a simple black-and-white issue. Please stop forcing us to make it one. We go by what the available sources say. If they aren't clear or contradict, that's not our fault. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but you're needlessly muddying the waters on this topic. Anyways, it's not up to you. Perhaps TFD, Tracks, Qex, AH etc etc - can work this out. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You missed the point again. Perhaps you're in over your head here. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then add that the Canadian succession is unknown or undecided, concerning eldest child/eldest son & that it's unknown or undecided that the Canadian monarch can or can't be married to a Catholic. Just write a plain opening sentence, if anything else. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Qex, your point is well-taken, particularly as this isn't the article on the Succession Act itself. I like TFD's suggestion as that it encapsulates the whole thing in one simple sentence. trackratte (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD's idea at 00:29 is fine except for the important point those challenging the act weren't against the changes in succession, merely the way the government was trying to change them in Canada. Maybe it would be better as "Parties who saw the act as unconstitutional unsuccessfully challenged the law in Ontario and Quebec superior courts." -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. (I originally posted my reply in a section below.)  TFD (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Revised proposal
In view of above comments, I would now propose instead removing out of date information (which had been inserted pending the outcome of the judicial review) as done and undone, letting the Perth Agreement article keep the record. Qexigator (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. There is far too much there as it stands now in my opinion. For this article I think it would be sufficient just to have the current state of affairs and that is it. How things were done 100 years ago, what changes occurred in the 1930s, and the current back and forth and which parties brought which to court, where, and when, belong in a more specific article and does not need to be repeated here. trackratte (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur that there seems to be too much detail (though, that may change as the current original research is dealt with). However, I don't see where the section covers anything from 100 years ago in particular. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to, in a very broad sense, the section speaking to "Act of Settlement and Royal Marriages Act 1772" and how it seems to jump around and get into unnecessary detail from there, especially concerning the past few years. trackratte (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There may be excess detail in that paragraph, but, overall, the information in it is pertinent and reliably sourced. The Act of Settlement, Royal Marriages Act, and such are laws related to succession. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If we can remove all the stuff that was speculative or no longer applies then it should read much better. trackratte (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Will go ahead with "revised proposal", but if not acceptable at this stage, I see Mies.'s version as best so far: Parties who saw the act as unconstitutional unsuccessfully challenged the law in Ontario and Quebec superior courts., and look forward to any further removal of  "all the stuff that was speculative or no longer applies" and any improving rewrites clearing away junk. Qexigator (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mm... I'm not sure what you mean by stuff that no longer applies, or how we'd be the ones to determine that, but, let's see how it goes. Right now, the main issue, as I see it, is some blatant OR (which is focused on below). -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  14:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When the dust settles, all I request is that you & others allow me to put in a clear/plainly written opening sentence. Then yas can have your legal beagle stuff after it :) GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the Quebec ruling, according to at least one constituational scholar, has implications for the status of the monarchy in Canada overall in particular in regards to whether and the degree to which there is a distinct Canadian monarchy. It is prudent to wait until there is some published scholarship on the matter or at least some better news sources but once there are it will need to be discussed in the article notwithstanding the POV of some editors. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then again, we may surmise that many well-informed and respected scholars, legal practitioners, and elected government and other office-holders with relevant responsibilities, and members of the higher judiciary, will see the ruling as making no change, and confirming the validity of the Act. Qexigator (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's unlikely given what Prof. Lagasse has already written in anticipation of the ruling and his informal comments in the wake of the judgement. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How about we just pump the brakes here a bit, before placing one person's twitter feed over four court decisions from both countries I can name off the top of my head, not to mention the weight of official and academic opinion. trackratte (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there is sufficient material to surmise that not all scholars "will see the ruling as making no change" but if you wish to cling to the hope that this won't be the case, feel free. Lagassė article in Policy Options is a credible academic source and not a twitter feed.Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. 1. It's not a credible source on this ruling as it is purposefully speculative and written in advance of the actual information coming to light, and 2. He says that "Or so it will be unless the courts find that the Queen of Canada is a separate and distinct office", which they did. So, I fail to see your point. You're making an assumption based on an assumption. trackratte (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lagasse has read the decision and his comments thus far do not concur with your conclusions. Again, we'll see what he says when he writes on it formally. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's see what he says. Some may see Lagassé's Roundup: De-Canadianizing the Crown (February 17, 2016 ) as surprisingly alarmist, unless they notice that it is posted in Dale Smith's blog, "Routine Proceedings, The adventures of a Press Gallery journalist". Qexigator (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Alleged OR in Succession and regency
User:Miesianiacal has put an OR tag on the section. I ask that he specifies which passages, precisely, he considers to be OR (ie quote the sentences in question). Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 17 "Until 2015, succession to the throne... Monarchs were also barred from marrying Catholic [sic]..." The use of past tense is not supported by a source.
 * "UK's Succession to the Crown Bill, 2013, which implemented a system of absolute primogeniture..." The location of implementation is left vague when it is a cited fact the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 has effect only in the UK. Omitting that allows the whole first paragraph to imply the British law had effect in Canada, which is an unsourced claim. (Additionally, bills don't implement anything.)
 * "Succession in Canada is now determined by absolute primogeniture" is not supported by the cite provided. Toffoli argued at length that the Canadian act was ineffectual. Your own source says "However, the assent of the Parliament of Canada to the British Bill (and subsequent Act) is, in itself, insufficient to change the rules of Succession for Canada." -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  01:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that the court ruling does not concur with Toffoli and as Canada's parliament has assented to the British legislation and that action has been upheld in two court cases, I think your arguments (and his) have been superceded by events.Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a source regarding the Catholic passages (one that justifies use of the past tense) and corrected the grammatical error. The rest of your objection is, as far as I can see it, a matter of your own OR being in conflict with the court ruling. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also added a source re absolute primogeniture (yes, it refers to the Commonwealth rather than Canada but I think it's clear that this applies to Canada as well). Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding sources doesn't correct original research. You haven't addressed the OR and unsourced claims. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see what you call OR is sourced and your objections are based on speculation, your own preferred interpretation and ideological framework, and what are now out of date sources that have been overtaken by events e.g. you object to it being said that the British law has effect in Canada but that is exactly what the court ruling has confirmed, regardless of your (or my) preferences (I too would thought the court should have ruled the other way). Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, on etiquette, while there's always a temptation to score points on the internet by pointing out the grammatical or typographical errors of others, it's more polite, and helpful, if wikipedia editors simply correct the error. In future, instead of trying to embarrass other editors (or leaving others with the impression that you're rude) by adding [sic] when you're repeating a sentence, why not just make the correction yourself? I can see not doing that if the other editor is likely to object but in this case the correction would have been non-controversial and adding the article "a" would have only taken a second. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't read WP:OR. Or, you simply don't understand it. The jist of it is: collecting sources and/or interpreting them in a certain way to support your personal opinion is original research and not allowed.
 * You've added claims to the article that are based on your assemblage of certain sources and a misreading and/or misunderstanding or at least some of them. For example, this source you've used says "The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 replaced male preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture" and "The alterations to succession laws in Canada were made by the country's parliament assenting to an Act, which agreed to change the way the line of succession works." Neither assertion supports the idea that absolute primogeniture is in force in Canada; the former refers to British legislation and the latter is itself unsupported--not only does the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 not claim to alter "succession laws in Canada", no more authoritative source says it did, and the government was clear on its opinion that there are no "succession laws in Canada" to alter. This source says nothing about succession in Canada being "now determined by absolute or equal primogeniture". -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  14:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the sentence, it says " Succession to the throne" and doesn't specify Canada. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about the monarchy of Canada and the section about succession and regency in Canada. If you mean that sentence to refer to succession elsewhere, you should make it more specific. Otherwise, context will lead any reader to conclude the sentence refers to succession in Canada. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  14:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC):
 * If you are suggesting that the succession to the throne in Britain has no bearing on who is the occupant of the "Canadian throne" (if we can even still use that term) I'm afraid that Justice Bouchard disagrees with you and you are engaging in Original Research and POV-pushing. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What does anyone's suggestion have to do with anything? The onus is on you to insert into Wikipedia information that is supported by reliable sources and is not a theory of your own devising. You haven't yet provided an authoritative, reliable source to back up the claims that succession in Canada is by absolute primogeniture. (That lack of sources is precisely why the section didn't make any claim about whether the succession is by absolute or male-preference primogeniture until you came along and shoved your OR in there.) -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * + I will say the section has been somewhat improved, though an unverified claim still sits at the opening. Also, the remarks by the previous government about there being no succession laws in Canada seem to have disappeared. They rather helped illustrate the present state of confusion by contrasting with the other sourced info about there being succession laws in Canada. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I just like to point out, according to the Perth Agreement, all the Commonwealth realms have to be in agreement, for all 16 successions to be changed. Let's remember, this succession dispute here, effects (or should effect) the Monarchy of the United Kingdom & the other Commonwealth monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: Considering the Perth Agreement & the Satute of Westminister. I think this discussion should be linked to the other Commonwealth monarchy articles, for a wider input. After all, it involves them as well. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I concede that their opposition was to the process. GoodDay, the nature of common law is that we will never know anything for certain.  "But even in such cases the subsequent judges do not pretend to make a new law but to vindicate the old one from misrepresentation." (Blackstone)  We can only "represent[] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  That means that whoever is sovereign of the United Kingdom is sovereign of Canada, according to the best opinion.  The Perth Agreement btw got the agreement of all the realms, but it was not a legal requirement.  TFD (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't be having all this commotion, if Canada were a republic ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see any commotion except on Wikipedia talk pages. There is scant news coverage.  TFD (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant on Wikipedia talk pages ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we going to need another Rfc? :( GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For what?trackratte (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The write up in the opening. There appears to still be a dispute over whether the succession to the Canadian throne is Absolute primogeniture / Catholic ban lifted & Male-preference primogeniture / Catholic ban not lifted? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, Wikipedia does not determine truth by consensus or vote. You can have an RfC on wording. But you cannot have an RfC on what's truth. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll give us the rest of this month, to reach a local consensus. However, if this dispute hasn't been settled by then? we're gonna have to open up another Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll "give" us? Honestly, you're too much. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mies, you are confusing "truth" with your personal opinion and desire to push a particular POV. You are not the arbiter of "truth" when it comes to articles royal. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Mies, you are confusing "truth" with your personal opinion and desire to push a particular POV." Incorrect.
 * "You are not the arbiter of "truth" when it comes to articles royal." Straw man. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC

I've made adjustments so as to avoid the use of the technical term in question, inline with British lead combined with phrasing from the Canadian Act, so it reflects the facts and is readily verifiable. trackratte (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Why won't anyone let me put a 'plainly written' opening sentence into the section-in-question. PLEASE, let the readers know easily & immediately, the status of the royal succession & whether it's been effected or not, by the 2013 Act. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is plainly written and factual as it stands at the moment: "The current heir to the Canadian sovereign is Prince Charles...The relationship between the Commonwealth realms is such that any change to the rules on succession to, and possession of, their respective Crowns requires the unanimous consent of all the realms...In 2011, Canada committed to the Perth Agreement with the other Commonwealth realms, which proposed changes to the rules governing succession to remove male preference and removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic. As a result of the Perth Agreement, the Canadian Parliament passed the Canadian Succession to the Throne Act, 2013." trackratte (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not clear enough. We need a one sentence opener & then elaboration. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The first thing that should be mentioned is who the successors are, which as it stands is abundantly clear. The second thing in priority is how succession works, which is done via 'consent of all of the realms" sentence. Third is what the actual rules are, which is covered in the third sentence outlining all of the rules (via links to the Acts). Fourth is the most recent change, which is the results of the Perth Agreement and the Canadian 2013 Act, which is there in the fourth sentence. Your wish to have the fourth sentence put first doesn't make sense to me from an editorial standpoint, as it would then not flow in a clear logical progression, but would jump around. trackratte (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the third time you've inserted "It's currently unknown as to whether the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, has any effect on the royal succession to the Canadian throne" which is simply 100% false. The Act is in effect. Pending court cases do not have any effect on this, which doesn't matter anyways, as there are no current disputes in the courts. trackratte (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When it's decided which gets inserted (Absolute/Catholics allowed or Male-preference/Catholics banned) in the sub-section body. Then can I write up a clear laymen's opening sentence? GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How is "male-preference primogeniture" a 'clear laymen's term'? It is incomprehensible jargon to 99.9% of readers, including myself, or would be the case if I wasn't part of this conversation ha. Also, in response to your either/or scenario it appears to be neither in that it's "absolute"/catholics banned. Third, it's already clearly outlined in the first paragraph what the effects of the Perth Agreement are, in actual layman's terms without the jargon. trackratte (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then, I'll use eldest son or eldest child. Again, when ya'll settle the content dispute, I'll write up a clearer opening. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing reference to the fact that Catholics are barred from sitting on the throne. This is both relevant and an issue that's been adjudicated on (twice). Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it looks much better now, given our recent collaborative efforts, as it's not interrupting the lede and flows nicely in the third para. If further details need to be added, they can be placed there in the same spot and should work quite smoothly. trackratte (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already covered within the lede in the third sentence. If you want to go into actual details of what rules each act lays out, then feel free to put in the third paragraph. trackratte (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Changes to the succession do not require the agreement of the Commonwealth realms. Each realm is free to change its own succession laws, even if that requires a constitutional amendment.  And a unilateral change in the UK affects all the other realms, except possibly Australia and NZ.  There is only a convention that they be consulted, and a convention in Canada, Australia and NZ only that their national parliaments agree.
 * Miesianical, you seem to be re-litigating the Quebec case. The reality is that the inheritance rule written in the UK applies to the Queen's crown in Canada.
 * TFD (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD, that's a good point. It is true in the same way as any agreement is only binding until one chooses otherwise. Canada, and the other 15 countries, have agreed that no changes can be made without unanimous consent. Of course, Canada, as a sovereign state can choose to break or extract itself from that agreement, but until then, it is bound by it. And in speaking of convention, core tenants of our constitution, such as democracy, are rooted in convention as well. I'm not equating the two, I'm just saying that all of the Commonwealth realms have voluntarily agreed to adhere to joint succession rules, notwithstanding the fact that like any rule, agreement, treaty, alliance, or law, it is subject to change at some point in the future. trackratte (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's an international and a domestic way of looking at this. Internationally, there is a freely agreed upon convention that all realms must approve and adopt themselves any change in succession. However, in Canada, at least one court (if not two or three) has ruled the convention is binding on Canada. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying, I'm just adding that the agreement (or the courts) cannot bind a sovereign state, not truly. If a sovereign state wishes to withdraw from an agreement, it will. Other states may impose consequences, but that's up to the state to balance the risks and decide on what best course of action suits its interests. Although it's more of a philosophical discussion not really pertinent to the subject at hand... trackratte (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so is the second sentence of the first paragraph worded correctly, then? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mies, when you say the "Succession to the Crown Act effective only in Britain", you are saying that the Succession to the Throne Act is not in effect, as that's all the Canadian Act does. The fact of the matter is the current Act is in effect, and that fact has recently been upheld. While personally, I find the reasoning for this to be highly suspect, my take on the situation is really irrelevant. Although I find the argument for why no constitutional amendment is needed, the logic presented is straightforward, I cannot see how, since 1982, Canada can assent to the law of a foreign country such as the UK any more than it can assent to a law passed in the U.S. congress, however like I said, it doesn't really matter here. Perhaps if it proceeds on appeal and it's accepted into the Supreme Court they will do a much better job of tieing it all together and presenting it. But it certainly isn't up to us to decide what laws are or not in effect in Canada. trackratte (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You must have misunderstood something, because I never said any such thing. The Succession to the Throne Act is in effect; it assents to the Succession to the Crown Bill. The Succession to the Crown Act is British legislation and, as has been repeated here and by the previous governments and various courts, British legislation has no effect in Canada. The past government was quite clear on the Succession to the Crown Act being law only in the UK. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * + Here is one instance: "The laws governing succession are UK law..." And here: " The laws governing succession are United Kingdom laws... The United Kingdom Parliament is not making law for Canada, and there is nothing in the United Kingdom bill that purports to extend to Canada. The British bill is amending the United Kingdom laws that define who may become the sovereign of the United Kingdom in the future."p.9 --  ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, but the Canadian legislation doesn't say anything, essentially only serving as a redirect page, and it's very clear that what is written in the British legislation is legally binding in Canada at the moment. Does it make sense? Like I said, not to me it doesn't, and I'm not going to defend the logic, because I can't. At the moment, Canadian succession law is restricted to "symmetry" and that is it, there is only one single rule. According to the Court, none of the succession acts are part of Canadian law, not a single one, they are only British law. Our law states that whomever occupies the throne in the UK, Canada will have as their sovereign, and thus the personal aspects of the corporation are shared with the UK, while the institutional aspects are separate and distinct. Like I said, does this jive with precedent, other decisions, or common logic? Maybe not, but we can't write whatever we like. If certain things are irreconcilable, then we just don't mention them I guess. We could just get rid of the sentence with all of the names of the Acts entirely and say that the person occupying the position of Queen of the UK will also occupy the position of Queen of Canada in accordance with the constitutional principle of symmetry and footnote the recent decision, but I'm not really comfortable with that, and I think it's too soon without having word on whether it will proceed and be accepted for appeal. trackratte (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, it's late and I'm getting increasingly long winded! My point is, as a broad Wiki principle, if we can't reconcile the logic, and the sources are not clear, then it's fine to just remove it for now. trackratte (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We seem to have consensus on the point with one dissenter. That's good enough. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see where the Canadian legislation says what's in the British legislation is binding in Canada. Aside from that, what you write aligns with what the previous government said about there being no succession laws in Canada. The section used to say that, but it has been removed today.
 * I don't know who's writing whatever they like, though. Everything I've been adding is sourced and what I've been challenging isn't. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have modified the wording so that it states "and the United Kingdom's Succession to the Crown Act 2013, to which the Canadian parliament has assented." Certainly we can all agree that this statement is factual given that this is what the Canadian legislation says and what the courts have upheld. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But, once again, you've ignored context. The preceding sentence starts by referring to the Commonwealth realms, thereby setting the whole group as the context from then on to at least the end of the paragraph. The Succession to the Crown Act isn't a law in all the realms. Not even all the realms assented to it or purported that it decided their succession, too. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "no succession laws in Canada" There's a difference between there being no indigenous succession law and there being no succession law at all. Clearly, the "Canadian monarchy" per se is governed by succession rules. All the statement that there are "no succession laws in Canada" means is that the succession rules are determined not by Canadian law but by laws that have been drafted elsewhere ie the UK. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * were drafted in the UK based on the agreement made by all 16 countries, including Canada's input. The only indigenous Canadian succession law right now is that of "symmetry", that is it. In effect, the court stated that the British laws and rules therein are completely irrelevant to Canada. I honestly think that the political solution would have been to draft one law and have it passed in all 16 parliaments, or for Canada not to have drafted a law at all and left it at that. Barring that, for Canada to have passed a proper succession law, as Canada cannot "assent" to a British law anymore than an American one. However the court's decision says that it was actually completely unnecessary for Canada to "assent" via legislation, as the British laws are irrelevant to Canada because Canada's law is simply to be symmetrical with the others in the first place. So really the crux of the confusion is that the government passed a law that doesn't make any sense, and as Senator Joyal stated, the Act is more of a statement from Parliament than a 'law' in the commonly understood sense. trackratte (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, to say, as you have, that the Succession to the Crown Act is "UK only" is clearly factually incorrect both because Canada has assented to and also because several other realms have allowed it to take effect without even passing their own legislation.o say, as you have, that the Succession to the Crown Act is "UK only" is clearly factually incorrect both because Canada has assented to and also because several other realms have allowed it to take effect without even passing their own legislation. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See the quote from Rob Nicholson I provided above.
 * I'm also beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what "assent" means. It certainly doesn't mean "make this foreign law into domestic law" -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think that you aren't able to sustain an argument without resorting to insults or condescension. Regardless, which one of us doesn't grasp the meaning of assent is immaterial as the article only says that the legilsation has been assented to without interpreteting the word "assent". Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What the article says now is not what you had it saying earlier. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC

Gents, if we can keep the wheels on the dialogue here. Everyone's been doing well in actually improving the article. I think we're all saying the same thing more or less. The British law is not part of Canadian law, and as the Court acknowledge, doing so is a legal impossibility given the 1982 Constitution Act. The Parliament of Canada essentially said "we're good with this", which once again, as the Court stated, all that was required was basically a thumbs up from Canada and not legislation. I think the fact that they decided to pass legislation in the first place is the root of all of this confusion. Previously, it was generally accepted that the previous succession acts were part of Canadian law in that they were inherited prior to 1982. Now this has changed, and Canada it seems never did inherit these laws, only the principle of symmetry. A bit of a pretzel, and of course we can debate if this should be the case, but there you have it. trackratte (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the Cambridge children. If Charlotte were the eldest & George next eldest, who would be next in line after William for the Canadian throne? GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The answer is whoever is next in line to the British throne. The courts have effectively said that the only Canadian succession law is that succession will be symmetrical with the UK. It's actually stupid simple, and it seems the only reason why it's confusing is we're thinking too much. Maybe it'll change, but for now there are no Canadian succession rules beyond that single one. trackratte (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With that, I'll prepare something in an opening sentence, mentioning eldest child & cathoclic ban lifted. Again, ya'll can help me on that, when I offer my proposal :) GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, based on our current interpretation: does Canada bar Catholics from the throne? No. Does Canada have male preference primogeniture? No. Absolute primogeniture? No.
 * The only rule is, whoever is next in line in the British succession will also, independently inline with Canadian law, also be next in line in the Canadian succession. I think this is the first time in history that succession has been determined in this way for a sovereign state, although apparently this has always been the case for Canada. trackratte (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 19 A court has said that (I think). The Supreme Court, on the other hand, ruled the Bill of Rights 1689 is part of Canada's law. And the Ontario superior Court (and the Quebec Superior Court, less explicitly) has said the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian constitution.
 * Regardless, the line of succession is the same in Canada and the UK, at present. At least for the top three generations. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, which is why I'm against us actually saying what I just said in the mainspace. You're right, which is why I do hope the Supreme Court will be able to reconcile everything and put it into a coherent ruling without any "loose ends" so to speak. Regardless, I think we have what we need for now for the article. trackratte (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mm, yes; it isn't up to us to resolve the discrepancies. We can only reflect what the sources we have say. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll write up something along the line of "British succession is 'eldest child' etec & therefore the same with the Canadian succession etc...". GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, track. and Mies. for explaning above how the current position can be understood: now, if you ould do as well with explaining the strange use of "symmetry", more difficult in this context than "primogeiture" (when and why did it first come into use for lines of succession?), that may help anyone who is proposing to make changes to the current version, and will be gratefully received by....Qexigator (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * trackratte, the convention is not the same thing as a law or treaty. If the UK had failed to consult Canada and/or the Canadian parliament had not acknowledged agreement, the succession laws still would have changed.  In contrast, the 1982 Act is a law.  No British law after that date has any validity in Canada even if it were specifically written to have force in Canada.  TFD (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD: that seems to be the logic of it, and if there is a reliable source, perhaps this or another article could use it? Qexigator (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD, which convention? trackratte (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The convention that the UK obtain the approval of Canada before changing the succession. TFD (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I wasn't sure to what comment of mine you were responding to. The UK is bound by the preamble of the Statute of Westminster as an Act of Parliament in the same way as to the preamble of any other Act of Parliament I would imagine. The latest court decision seems to say, in paragraph 109, that no legislation on Canada's part is required for the changes to take effect. In the same paragraph the judge states that in the hypothetical case where Canada disagrees with the proposed changes, it could simply refuse to provide assent. In para 142, it states that the required consent of the other dominions is a constitutional convention. I would imagine that if Canada were to refuse to agree to any changes in the rules governing succession, it would require the introduction of a domestic Act of succession, as well as a constitutional amendment to break the rule of symmetry expressed within the Constitutional Act 1867. However, inline with my interpretation of this recent ruling, such a constitutional amendment would not be under the unanimity amendment formula, since it is not a change to the office of sovereign according to this ruling. trackratte (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As the layman in this. I understand the passage of the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 by the Canadian Parliament, as just being that Parliament's written acknowledgement & consent that the British Parliament could change the Canadian royal succession via changing its own (the British) royal succession. Just an acknowledgement & agreement that the individual who is the Canadian monarch has to be the same individual who is the British monarch, but not the other way around. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The agreement was obtained via the Perth declaration I believe, otherwise the British legislation would never have gone ahead in the British Parliament in the first place, in accordance with constitutional convention. From what I understand, the Canadian Act was wholly unnecessary but I guess was done "just to be sure" I imagine. Another interpretation might be that the pertinent British laws are part of Canadian law through inheritance so had to be amended by the 2013 legislation, although these laws were inherited into Canadian law, they were never a part of the constitution (thus no constitutional amendment), although the recent court case states that no modification to Canadian laws are necessary. I only mention it, as it may be been a possible theory when they decided to put forward the 2013 Bill, even though the recent decision has rendered it unnecessary. trackratte (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A preamble to an act has no legislative power, it is just there to explain the purpose of the act. A convention is a rule that is not legally binding.  So the change to the succession is legally binding, even if the convention referred to in the preamble to the 1931 act is not followed.  That the Canadian parliament should express agreement is also part of the convention.  The 1931 Act says, "it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."  Note it says the convention already existed.  Canadians would have been irritated if the UK changed the succession rules without consultation and it would have been offensive for Canada to not acknowledge its assent in its Parliament.
 * Note too that it is the Queen who changed the succession, but she followed the convention or law of obtaining the consent of Westminster.
 * TFD (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said the preamble had "legislative power", which I think you mean "legally enforceable", I said it was binding, which if it were not, it wouldn't be considered a constitutional convention. A preamble to an act may be legally enforceable to the extent that it's cited by courts to justify their decisions, even if not explicitly legally binding, as they are a declaration of parliament on the reason why the Act is being made along with any reconciliation or historical background (which is why it can be properly understood as having "legislative power" in stating the aim of the legislation, but is not legally enforceable). For example, the preamble to the 1867 Act is routinely cited by the courts, including providing the source for the recently enforced principle of succession symmetry. Another example is Provincial Judges Reference where the preamble was used to justify the ruling, although it was controversial it was a Supreme Court ruling, so there's not much anyone can do about it. In any event, a bit of a sidetrack, as this doesn't necessarily reflect how British courts or more importantly Parliament would treat the dominion consent convention in a hypothetical scenario. In the hypothetical scenario the UK wished to embark on unilateral change, then it seems that the changes would affect Canada automatically unless Canada refuses assent, amends the constitution, and passes domestic succession law, as the only current law apparently is that of symmetry.
 * As for the second point, yes, and interesting, in that it was the Queen of Canada who gave assent to the changes via the 2013 Act based on advice of the QPC, and the Queen of the UK that enacted it based on the advice of their QPC, both based on the (assumed) personal preferences of Elizabeth II. trackratte (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not binding, which is why it is a constitutional convention not a law. The only way Canada could have prevented change in succession would have been a constitutional amendment, but of course that would have to be proclaimed by the Queen's governor-general. Indeed preambles are citing in courts because they provide the intent of legislation. As explained in the American Law Dictionary, edition 2, "Generally a preamble is a declaration by the legislature of the reasons for the passage of the statute, and it aids in the interpretation of any ambiguities within the statute to which it is prefixed. It has been held, however, that a preamble is not an essential part of an act, and it neither enlarges nor confers powers." However the reference to succession in the preamble does not explain the body of the act. TFD (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can read this from the Parliament of Canada. Conventions are binding, for example responsible government, the need for the government to maintain the confidence of the house, and a government falling on the loss of such confidence, the principle tenants for how democratic government in Canada works, etc are all conventions. The Supreme Court ruling things to be unconstitutional based purely on conventions found in the preamble have forced governments to change their actions. A convention is, by definition, politically binding. The preamble of the 1867 Act provides the foundation for the entire ruling at discussion. In certain situation it can be easier for a government to go against legally binding rules than it is to go against politically binding ones, and even more so for politically binding rules (conventions) that are recognized by the courts. The office of prime minister itself is a constitutional convention, but that doesn't mean that the governor general can simply not have one, or appoint me as prime minister even though they could de jure do so, even though such action would be immediately found unconstitutional due to binding convention. If such a hypothetical event were to occur and proceed to the courts, it would be found unconstitutional based on the preamble of the 1867 Act. trackratte (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your source says "conventions are not laws....It is generally accepted that the penalty for breaching a constitutional convention is political, not legal." But while the Supreme Court cannot overrule a breach of convention, it may comment on it if requested.  And governments frequently violate conventions.  In "Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution" 1981 the Supreme Court decided there was a convention that the government obtain the consent of provinces before seeking to amend the constitution in ways that affected the provinces.  The government went ahead with only nine provinces.  However the convention was written into the revised constitution so that no further changes can be made without consent of the provinces.  No Supreme Court ruling things to be unconstitutional based purely on conventions found in the preamble have ever forced governments to change their actions.  TFD (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a peculiar habit of attacking arguments I've never made. I never said the source states that conventions are laws, so why do you mention it? I also said above that "A convention is, by definition, politically binding", so your quoting back to me that "the penalty for breaching a constitutional convention is political" is just proving what I've been saying all along. I said that conventions were binding (Oxford: "Obliged by law, circumstances, or duty to do something") which as the source states "Conventions are rules of the Constitution". Rules by definition (Oxford: "regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity: 'those who did break the rules would be dealt with swiftly'") are binding and enforceable. You are conflating the word binding with legally enforceable. One can be bound by law ("obliged by law"), or by duty (professionally bound) or circumstances (ie politically bound). The political consequences of breaking convention can be severe. For example, if a minister were to break cabinet solidarity (a convention) they would find themselves out of a job with no legal recourse. If a government were to lose a confidence motion they would be forced to resign, which itself is a convention. Just because something is not legally enforceable doesn't mean it isn't enforceable at all. And yes, governments have ignored conventions in the past, just as they've been able to ignore legal rulings as well. The Government in Quebec in particular has not been afraid to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Just because a government has shown that it can break rules, political or legal, does not mean that those rules do not exist or that they are not binding in one way or another. trackratte (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on what one means by bound. If Parliament breaks a convention when it passes a law, it is still a law.  In your example, while it may be a convention to not use the notwithstanding clause, a law that used the clause would still be enforceable.  As for political consequences, if there was public support to pass a law that the Supreme Court deemed contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then there might be political consequences for not using the clause.  Conventions are nothing more than expectations of how the executive and legislature will behave.
 * This discussion arose over the issue of whether or not Cameron was required to obtain Canadian consent to change the succession rules. I said it was a convention and therefore the changes to the succession rules are binding on Canada regardless of whether or not consent was provided.  Do you disagree with that?  Otherwise we are arguing semantics.
 * TFD (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the British parliament is required (in the political/convention sense, not legal) to achieve agreement prior to introducing changes. If they went ahead anyways, I would actually have to reread the decision, as we're basing all of this on the most recent ruling. I recall the judge saying that if Canada disagreed with a unilateral change, all it would have to do is refuse to give assent, which to me suggests that refusal to give assent invalidates or breaks the symmetry, necessitating (one would assume) the introduction of domestic succession laws and a constitutional amendment. It is the hypothetical space in between the refusal to give assent and the passing of new laws that hasn't been explicitly clarified as far as I'm aware. We can probably assume a unilateral change, if it immediately changed who was sovereign, would have effect in Canada, although like I said I don't recall it being very clearly laid out in the decisions.
 * And much of our discussion revolves around semantics! Generally if I feel we're basing arguments on different definitions of the same word I'll post the dictionary definition I'm using in an attempt to clarify. In this case I think it was simply the difference between binding in the general sense versus legally enforceable. trackratte (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Another way of looking at it is that, upon a demise of the crown, the succession as determined by the UK act which is currently the law of the UK, will take effect in Canada at the same time, and that it is unnecessary to propose that this is the result of a convention, or that the UK statute is binding in Canada in the way that it is binding in the UK. We may surmise that in practice the governor general and prime minister will proceed with issuing the customary proclamation in accordance with their oaths of office and of allegiance, which, taken together, bind them to the "Queen of Canada and her heirs and successors". Numerous other office-holders will also have sworn allegiance to the "Queen of Canada and her heirs and successors". Qexigator (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it. The Canadian & British monarchies are still somewhat tied together, but with the British monarchy pulling the strings, as far as the succession goes. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The court's decision seems to say that Canada has its own domestic succession law, but that it just consists of the symmetry rule, so Canada's succession laws are not connected to the British succession laws at all, in that one is not controlled, connected, or dictated by the other, as that would be a legal impossibility and unconstitutional. However, in practical terms, it means that all 16 realms jointly decide how they wish their joint succession to go, and each implement it according to their own domestic realities. In Canada's case, due to the only rule being that of symmetry, all that has to happen is for Canada to have said yes, we have all jointly made this decision and we agree. The United Kingdom is bound to make this decision regarding any changes jointly with the 15 others as well, so in this way you could say that their succession is connected to Australia's for example, but the fact remains that the decision remains a joint one. Of course, any single one of the 16 realms could choose to break with this convention and unilaterally change their own succession, or become a republic, however. Specifically to Canada and the UK, as long as both countries are committed to maintaining the same line of succession, the decision must be jointly made, and any break in this would necessitate either or both breaking with convention, and Canada having to introduce succession laws a little more detailed than the simply rule of symmetry. trackratte (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Track: The subtlety is that given Canada's law requiring the oaths of allegiance and of office, nothing further is needed to let the succession take effect. The prime minister, the cabinet, all the members of parliament will have had personal knowledge of that when the assenting bill was passed. Now, Track, can you give a link to something which explains this curious use of "symmetry", is it in the meaning a sense of harmonious and beautiful proportion and balance? Qexigator (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure what would happen if Canada did not give consent, as I haven't seen an explicit mention of it in a reliable source yet, but yes we can make logical assumptions. For "symmetry" it was quoted in the Bouchard decision:
 * "...tout en reconnaissant par ailleurs le principe de la symétrie, à savoir que la Reine du Royaume-Uni est aussi la Reine du Canada" (para 104)
 * "...it is axiomatic that the rules of succession for the monarchy must be shared and be in symmetry with those of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries."(para 104)
 * "des effets quant à la règle de la symétrie"(para 107)
 * "...to preserve that constitutional principle of symmetry..."(para 126)
 * "Au demeurant, la règle de la symétrie faisait en sorte que la personne désignée Roi ou Reine du Royaume-Uni l'était aussi pour le Canada."(para 146)
 * So the court makes continuous reference to the "principle of symmetry", the "rule of symmetry", and the "constitutional principle of symmetry" throughout to mean that the succession must be in symmetry within all of the Commonwealth realms, which as I understand it, is essentially Canada's only domestic succession law and is rooted in a constitutional principle found within the preamble of the 1867 Act. trackratte (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The UK and Dominions agreed on symmetry and acknowledged a convention in the 1931 Statute of Westminster. But the reason the succession rules are the same is that the Canadian constitution recognizes the Queen of the UK as Queen of Canada.  So Canada's assent by order in council and by parliamentary resolution had no effect at the time of the abdication and would have no effect in the future.  As Bennett was quoted as saying, it was "declaratory," i.e., it acknowledged the changes that the King had enacted.
 * There is a clear distinction between intent and law. The intent of the minimum wage law for example is to ensure employed people receive adequate pay.  But of course what is adequate depends on circumstances.  But one cannot argue in court to change the prevailing rate.
 * TFD (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence
I'll write up a brief & clear opening sentence, when the related content dispute is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What content is under dispute? trackratte (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't Miesianiacal opposed to showing in any way, that the 2013 Act has amended the Canadian succession? GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. I think the sticking point is how it was amended and the fact that the word "primogeniture" isn't in any of the references. As it stands now, it explains the changes of the Perth Agreement, doesn't get bogged down in the "how" bit, and explains the 'non-male preference, catholic marriage not barred' bit without using the term. So, we're sticking just to the facts, what you want expressed is there just without the technical jargon, and so I don't see any content issue. Of course Mies and Qex won't hesitate to let us know if I'm wrong. Overall though, I think we've incorporated everyone's major points, and drastically improved the flow and content of the section, so see no reason why, with perhaps a little more copy editing, consensus can't be achieved going forward. trackratte (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When things are settled, I'll write up a clear opening. Please, stop fighting me on this. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, unless you're taking my outlining of how there is no current content dispute as me fighting your desire to offer a suggestion on how to improve the lead. In which case, I still don't see any logical connection. I think everyone's been remarkably collaborative up to now, so I see no reason for that to stop. trackratte (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When it's clear to me, that you've all reached an agreement. I'll write up an opening sentence, that'll reflect what you all have agreed on. Whether it's eldest child/catholic ban lifted or eldest son/catholic ban kept. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Track: Now that the Quebec decision has been delivered, and the position is as clear as it can be just now (!), that reads pretty well (best so far, and subject to c/e or informed and cogent comment of others), including leaving out the awkward obstruction in the flow of "primogeniture", which immediately appears via the Perth Agreement link for the information of anyone needing to be informed. Qexigator (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll write up an opening sentence tomorrow, using eldest child. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The World Is Waiting for the Sunrise (Toronto 1918), conceived by a twelve year old lad. Qexigator (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You will, of course, require reliable supporting sources, GoodDay. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Those sources will be splattered throughout the section-in-question. Again, I won't be going forward with a write up, until you all come to a consensus. BTW - I don't think an Rfc will be required, as you appear to be the lone objector to eldest child/catholic ban lifted, at this time. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I've yet to see what you'll write. But, if it's what you're threatening, then it will require a supporting source. Any original research based on what you think other sources say won't cut it. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Due to all the reverts earlier, I'll be presenting my proposal here. Hopefully, you all will help me out with it. It's best that the opening clear sentence, be a collaborative result. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Mies has attempted to remove reference to the Succession of the Crown Act from the opening sentence, however the (Canadian) Succession to the Throne Act clearly reads: "The alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne set out in the bill laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and entitled A Bill to Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes is assented to." Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * By the time ya'll reach an agreement on the content, I'll be too old to type anything ;) Seriously though. There's no hurry for me, so I'll be patient & wait until ya'll reach a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In the context, there's no specific reference to where the legislation listed has effect, though the legislation listed is relevant to the succession in all the realms. The only one not relevant to all the realms is the Succession to the Crown Act. It is a law in the UK only. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To which Canada has assented. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC
 * I don't think we need to sort out the logical pretzel that has been created, only acknowledge the fact that the rules are in place. trackratte (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And the version now in the article is close. It just still contains some info of dubious relevance and repetition. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've modified the wording so it states that this is UK legislation to which Canada has assented. That is a factual statement without any interpretation of what "assented" means so I hope we can agree to it. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is all true. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

We appear to all be in agreement, that the succession to the Canadian throne is identical to the succession to the British throne, which now means eldest child & marriage to Catholics allowed, since March 2015. Am I correct about this? GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever GoodDay may think it means, in my view it would be acceptable, if others agree, to let wording be added, somewhere, similar to the inline link to Succession to the British throne: succession to the throne of Canada is determined by descent, legitimacy, and religion. Under common law, the crown is inherited by an individual's children and by a childless individual's nearest collateral line, but male-preference primogeniture continues to apply for persons born after October 2011. Qexigator (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, your interpretation is that the succession remains male-preference, as opposed to gender regardless in the UK and the other 14 commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he meant before Oct 2011. trackratte (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I cancelled the Rfc. I thought Qex was favouring "male preference", which contradicted the British succession/Canadian succession setup. My big blunder, so sorry folks. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

First draft
Howabout this for a opener?
 * "Succession to the Canadian throne is identical to the British succession. As such, it's under absolute primogeniture, which means the eldest child (regardless of gender) can't be surpassed in the line of succession by the birth of a sibling".
 * Of course, I may be wrong, but that is unlikely to be found acceptable as a presentation of the information for the article, in point of accuracy or style. Qexigator (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just a draft. I'd appreciate it if you & others would help me with it, via tweaks or suggestions. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, enough has been discussed for you to make your own improvement of what it is you think is needed. Since you ask, perhaps I may say that your proposed "draft" is, so far as I am concerned, irreparable, and I am not sure that a better version is needed, anyway, but then, I do not quite see what you are trying to do with this or why. Qexigator (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to write up a plainly written intro sentence for the section. For some reason, I can't seem to get the rest of you to come to a conclusion on how to present the Canadian royal succession. It's looking more like an Rfc will be required after all. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Dang it, Qex. Your write up is much better then mine & it's put in a better place in the article :) GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Does that mean the problem as you see it is settled? Qexigator (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's settled. PS: Thank goodness, we've got ya here ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where we really need to mention the Catholic ban being lifted. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Continuing dispute over 'Succession/Regency' content
To those who are currently having an edit spat. I recommend you both bring your disagreement 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I could tell, Mies was acting based on an objection to the suggestion that the British line of succession was in place in Canada because I attempted to, out of common sense, link the word "Succession" to the article Succession to the British throne. Perhaps the solution is to create 15 new articles, Succession to the Canadian throne, Succession to the Australian throne, Succession to the Jamaican throne etc with all articles identical except for the word "British" in order to maintain a Potemkin villagesque fantasy that our monarchies are somehow distinct and separate? Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying all that your main purpose here is to disprove what's already been sourced, at your request, no less. (I also give you kudos for your persistence. More than 10 years; it's certainly,... Impressive.) -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  18:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think your wording is superior as it, unintentionally, makes explicit what was otherwise only implicit. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, thank you. Feel free to undo your changes, then. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  18:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it is fairly clear, by the text you've written, that we're talking about the succession to the British throne, certainly clearer than in my text and a point that we would be remiss not to have in the article, so thank you for making it so explicit. I suspect had I been so bold you would have reverted it on the spot. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That one sentence does, yes. Unfortunately, the section is about succession and regency in Canada. So, while the sentence is clear and accurate, its relevance is unknown. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevance is clear since, as per the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 and subsequent legal rulings, succession in Canada is the same as in the UK (and, possibly determined by the UK at least in law). That some may wish to pretend otherwise is quaint, but not particularly important. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're free to hold your own interpretations. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's seems to me, an Rfc on this matter might be required. I'll leave that up to you both. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Alexander's Hood, it is not strictly speaking the UK that changed the succession, but the Queen. TFD (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Update - This edit by Miesianical (which has since been reverted), suggests there's still an ongoing dispute. Again, best to iron out any difference 'here', per WP:BRD. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Mies' most recent edit and comment is miselading as it overlooks the fact that he's obliterating references to the Canadian succession being the same as the British. If there are repititions then the later ones should be removed, not the earlier ones. It would appear he is on an idiosyncratic campaign to ignore recent court rulings and prevailing constitutional interpretations in order to push his POV that the Canadian monarchy is entirely distinct from the British. I think it's time for the article to reflect reality rather than reflect the idiosyncratic and quaint views of an outlier group. I've reverted Mies' latest edit (ironically, to the previous edit which was also written by Mies but which he seems to have had second thoughts about) and suggest that further edits to the section be hashed out and decided upon in Talk first. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Mies' most recent edit and comment is miselading as it overlooks the fact that he's obliterating references to the Canadian succession being the same as the British." In what way, exactly? The section opens "As in the other Commonwealth realms, the current heir apparent to the throne is Prince Charles, with the next three in the being the Prince's eldest son, Prince William, followed by William's two children, Prince George and Princess Charlotte." The UK is quite obviously among "the other Commonwealth realms". Ergo, the succession described is the succession for the UK, as well as every other Commonwealth realm. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, the UK is bound by convention to seek consent from all of the Commonwealth realms, just as every Commonwealth realm is bound to seek consent for any changes they wish to make by the 15 others. To say something like 'shared with the other Commonwealth realms' or to that effect seems to me to be more accurate. trackratte (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the exact status of the "convention", then or today, in terms of intent, binding force or political impact, is problematic, it is best for the article not to fuss too much about it. Of the two, Mies.'s version suffices, saying succinctly and acceptably all that needs to be said in that context, and is is undoubtedly the better . Qexigator (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. trackratte (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see that the changes make any differences to the meaning. And the ruling does not affect the distinction between the office of sovereign of the UK and Canada.  If a person in the UK has properties in Canada and the UK and wills their estate to one person, that does not mean that the two properties are not distinct, just that the heir is the same.  TFD (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice analogy. trackratte (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Monarchy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://194.203.40.17/output/page4120.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120331024514/http://www.parl.gc.ca/about/parliament/senatoreugeneforsey/book/assets/pdf/How_Canadians_Govern_Themselves7.pdf to http://www.parl.gc.ca/about/parliament/senatoreugeneforsey/book/assets/pdf/How_Canadians_Govern_Themselves7.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120714043622/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/30/4/30n4_07e_Neitsch.pdf to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/30/4/30n4_07e_Neitsch.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111212233128/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/27/2/27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/27/2/27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Monarchy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110529142445/http://194.203.40.17/output/page4120.asp to http://194.203.40.17/output/page4120.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120714061554/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/32/1/32n1_09e_Roberts.pdf to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/32/1/32n1_09e_Roberts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)