Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 3

Canadian Royal Family
Even though the comments above affirmed that this article was too long, the information that was moved out to Canadian Royal Family has been moved back in, again, because of objections to the article. If anyone has any other suggestions of where else it could/should be included, please raise them. --G2bambino 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll think about the issue, but you are essentially right - the second the stuff is merged into here, the correct response is to split it back out. WilyD 12:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Canadian Royal Family section?? I thought we had 'voted' to re-direct the Canadian Royal Family article to here. This seems more like a merge, then a redirect. GoodDay 23:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does redirect. The contents were merged back here where they were before.  The material met none of the WP:DEL criteria. --G2bambino 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the AFD outcome was merge, so we put the content back here, where we immediately develop a consensus to it again means there is too much content. Only editors who didn't look at the situation and thought they were duplicates argued for deletion. WilyD 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD outcome was Redirect. GoodDay 23:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And the article redirects. Ta-da! --G2bambino 23:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [edit confict] AfD is not a Vote, please make sure you are clear on that point.
 * GoodDay, there has always been a section in this article called Canadian Royal Family, G2bambino merged it out, to make the article to fit into the Wikipedia guidelines on Articles size.
 * After the AfD, the info from the article was correctly merged into this article again, but that puts us over the article size guidelines.
 * Please stop your personal views, biasing a excellent article on the Monarchy and how it related to Canada Brian | (Talk) 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes, merged it out - meged it in. I'm getting a headache. GoodDay 23:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it... --G2bambino 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As closing admin of the AfD, I guess I should comment here. Basically what the AfD said was that we don't need a seperate artice on essentially the same subject. Create a small section in the article and there can be a disambig to British Royal Family. To be honest, it doesn't really matter what the consensus is here, you'll need to take it back to DRV to recreate the article.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-create Canadian Royal Family?? Back to square one. GoodDay 23:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we're already at square one now. --G2bambino 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you don't recreate the article. That's what I'm saying. If there's no consensus at DRV - then the AfD stands. What I suggest is a small section in this article and a disambig to British Royal Family included in that section.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you leave it with me for 24 hours - I'll sort it for you (I'm about to go to bed (had an exam today!)).  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you or anyone can sort this out, my hat's off to you. Goodluck. GoodDay 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the editorial judgement here is that some third solution needs to be found that a) keeps with the outcome of the AfD, but b) keeps with the editorial needs here. It seems apparent we haven't figured out what that is, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. WilyD 00:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, disambiging to British Royal Family isn't it; what's here deals with the Royal Family within Canadian jurisdiction, ie. the royal family of Canada, ie. the Canadian Royal Family. It's inappropriate, nay, completely incorrect, to put such content in an article about the Royal Family within British jurisdiction, ie. the British Royal Family. I have the spark of an alternative in my mind right now, but it involves creating an article on the Royal Family titled in such a way that doesn't link them to any one nation to which they belong, which would involve the elimination of the article British Royal Family, and methinks that wouldn't go down very well with some particular editors. --G2bambino 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, having a 'Canadian Royal Family' section in this article is fine with me (just keep it short & simple, for the sake of article length). Don't re-create a Canadian Royal Family article, that only leads to more headaches. GoodDay 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom? (again)
and the country was proclaimed a fully independent kingdom, via constitutional patriation, by Queen Elizabeth II in 1982.

The Queen declared Canada a "kingdom" in 1982? Can we have a source for this rather extraordinary statement? TharkunColl 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "...As a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward." The country was a kingdom prior to 1982, and became a sovereign one after that date. Perhaps the wording of the sentence in question needs some juggling for clarification. --G2bambino 20:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well again, if Canada is a kingdom, why is it never called one? What is the official name of the state? It's a toss up between "Dominion of Canada", and "Canada" (I believe the issue has been fudged in classical British fashion). Neither of those mention "kingdom", of course. TharkunColl 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a kingdom of Canada but not a Kingdom of Canada. Canada is a kingdom but apparently is not officially called such because of our southern neighbours. Charles 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What about Australia? There are no "southern neighbours" to force them to abandon the term. And indeed, why on earth would the USA have objected? The truth is that the original proposal to call Canada a kingdom was rejected. It was called a dominion instead, a newly invented legal concept. If it's anything at all, it's still that. TharkunColl 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This cause is historically documented. If you're interested, see Canada's name.  Canada is both a dominion and a kingdom, this isn't very exciting. Wily D  23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the facts are very clear. A number of leading Canadians wanted it to be a kingdom, but this was rejected by the British government (though the allegation that this was to appease the Americans is uncited, I notice). In short, Canada is not a kingdom, because this proposal was specifically rejected. These people, of course, were charting new territory. The precedent was later followed with Australia and the other dominions. And my last question is for G2bambino - if you wish to call Canada a kingdom in a practical sense (if not in law), then please go ahead. But you must also therefore accept that in a practical sense (if not in law), the Queen is Queen of the UK first and foremost. TharkunColl 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsourced, factually incorrect assertions are not particularly interesting. If you're looking to advance a position that's patent nonsense, at least find some references. Cheers, Wily D  23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all there in the article you directed me to. Some leading Canadians wanted Canada to be a kingdom, but this was rejected. Can it really be any clearer? TharkunColl 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Kingdom, in addition to being a formal title, is an ordinary dictionary word. The article says (not that Wikipedia is a reliable source) that people discussed styling Canada as a kindom, but eventually decided upon styling it a dominion.  This changes nothing .. Wily D  23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * TharkunColl is just making his semi-monthly stink about people terming Canada, Australia, Jamaica, and any other Commonwealth Realm besides Britain as anything other than "colony." The current writing of the sentence reflects the wording of the source; a government issued, educational document. This is now a non-issue. --G2bambino 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Canada is no longer a colony, but nor is it a kingdom. Please provide a constitutional document that describes it as such. You cannot end a debate simply by declaring it a "non-issue". TharkunColl 06:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There does not need to be a legal document in order to describe the nations system of government. The USA is a Republic... but it is not officially/legally called The Republic of The United States of America. Same as Canada, where the legal name may be Canada, but it is still a "kingdom" as defined by a dictionary, a state which has a monarch as its head. 24.222.62.159 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The situation is not that simple, because whilst it does indeed have a monarch as its head of state, it doesn't have its own monarch. This is presumably why the term "kingdom" was rejected in favour of "dominion". TharkunColl 14:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from being plainly false (Canada does have it's own Monarch) it's also irredeemable original research. Why not go look for sources? Wily D  16:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you joking or something? If Canada has its own monarch, then what is his/her name, and where does he/she live? TharkunColl 18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By your logic, because the UK does not have its own monarch it therefore shouldn't be considered a kingdom either. --G2bambino 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is the absence of a governor general in the United Kingdom that makes that country a kingdom but Canada a dominion. Note that the fifth schedule to the Constitution Act 1867 states that "the Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto." Canada's own constitution refers to the monarch as that of the United Kingdom, not as our own. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was in 1867. Things have changed since then. --G2bambino 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have they? Please provide a citation for this specific point. Otherwise we go with what the constitution says. TharkunColl 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is well cited; you do the work. --G2bambino 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Has that particular sentence been repealed or re-worded? TharkunColl 15:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. --G2bambino 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then it is still in force. The British monarch is the head of state of Canada - pretty obvious really. TharkunColl 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. --G2bambino 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In what way is the constitution of Canada no longer in force? TharkunColl 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not. --G2bambino 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's still in force, and that clause hasn't been altered, then the British monarch is the Canadian head of state. Just as we all knew all along. TharkunColl 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. First off, there's no such thing as a "King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."  Secondly, you ignore the Statute of Westminster, the Royal Style and Titles Act, the Canada Act, and the Constitution Act; all of which came into effect after 1867. --G2bambino 16:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But you said earlier that the clause hadn't been repealed, but now you imply that it has, through later legislation. Make your mind up. As for being monarch of Great Britain and Ireland, if such a thing would nullify the clause then Canada has no head of state. TharkunColl 16:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't imply anything. And yes, by your argument Canada would have no head of state. --G2bambino 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By your argument Canada would have no head of state, if the "Ireland" v. "Northern Ireland" statement made a difference, as you claimed. but you have contradicted yourself. You said that the clause has never been repealed, then said it had been repealed by subsequent legislation. Which is correct? TharkunColl 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. You said that because the clause has never been reworded or repealed the "King or Queen of Great Britain and Ireland" was still Canada's head of state. I never said the clause has been repealed. --G2bambino 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So it hasn't been repealed? So the Queen of the UK is still Canada's head of state? TharkunColl 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. --G2bambino 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are going round in circles. If it hasn't been repealed, then how has that clause been rendered null and void? TharkunColl 16:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It hasn't. You're just ignoring the subsequent Statute of Westminster, Royal Style and Titles Act, Canada Act, and Constitution Act, all of which are also consitutional legislation. --G2bambino 16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I shall ask again. Has subsequent legislation repealed the clause, or is it still in force? TharkunColl 16:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still in force. --G2bambino 16:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then if it's still in force, the Queen of the UK is Canada's head of state, because that's what it says. TharkunColl 16:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it says the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is Canada's head of state. That might cause a problem if the subsequent legislation I spoke of hadn't been enacted. --G2bambino 16:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you going on about the "Ireland" thing still? Either the clause is still in force, or it has been repealed by subsequent legislation. TharkunColl 16:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's you whose going on about something. --G2bambino 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep giving me evasive, monosyllabic answers devoid of content. And in our other simultaneous discussion you have said something that ought to make one doubt your sanity. There is no further point in continuing this. TharkunColl 17:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. --G2bambino 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A simple question: if the clause is still in force, then why is the Queen of the UK not the Canadian head of state? TharkunColl 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"We are thus left with only "personal union" as a possible category for the commonwealth; and in both in political and in legal discussion this is the label most commonly applied to it." The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law P. E. Corbett The University of Toronto Law Journal > Vol. 3, No. 2 (1940), pp. 348-359 Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-0220%281940%293%3A2%3C348%3ATSOTBC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

Note that the author actually wants to argue against the consensus conclusion he references among lawyers and politicians --- but that's a silly point. Cheers, Wily D 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And also note that he uses the term "British Crown" to refer to all the offices of that crown. TharkunColl 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What fun! Hard to believe that professors ban students from quoting "facts" from wikipedia! 153.2.246.30 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * TharkunColl is just re-hashing an argument brought up nearly two years ago by a user who went by the name of AndyL; a long and arduous argument that was eventually finalised with the creation of the text in the first few sections of this article and some of the content at Commonwealth Realm. If TharkunColl bothered to do any digging around here he'd find his interpretation of the facts already echoed, and soundly rebutted. --G2bambino 01:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I quote the Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2003 decision in O'Donohue vs. Canada:


 * "The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is [not was--is] united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain."


 * In the same case Her Majesty in Rights of Canada and Ontario argued: 1.) The remedy sought will have no practical effect since it cannot affect the legislation in the United Kingdom [the monarchy is beyond the scope of Canadian law] and 2.) The respondents also maintain that the applicant does not have a genuine interest in the issue and that the matter would more properly be brought before the English courts.


 * That last bit is particularly significant. The Queen in Rights of Canada and Ontario thinks that a Canadian who questions the rules of succession to the throne should have to seek remedy in the English, not Canadian, courts.


 * Jonathan David Makepeace 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rouleau ruled that Canada has control over its own line of succession (the Act of Settlement is now a part of our constitutional law) and could alter the line if the parliaments so chose to; however, this action was a) beyond the scope of the courts, and b) would be contrary to the Statute of Westminster, which he termed as a type of "treaty" amongst the Commonwealth Realms. I don't know where anyone's getting their ideas regarding taking issues of a Canadian nature to the English courts; for more than 80 years now the English courts have been directing Canadian issues back to Canada; they have no jurisdiction over us. Nobody can successfully argue that Canada still falls under the control of the parliament at Westminster. --G2bambino 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have still failed to answer how it is possible for the constitutional clause mentioned above to still be in force, yet the Queen of the UK is somehow not the Queen of Canada. TharkunColl 14:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I failed in no way what-so-ever. Please re-read my responses. --G2bambino 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then please spell it out again. TharkunColl 14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Statute of Westminster, Royal Style and Titles Act, Canada Act, Constitution Act. As you clearly have no intent of actually reading those legal documents, I suppose it would be of benefit if I summaraised for you: the result of these constitutional developments was that the UK could no longer legislate on behalf of Canada in any way, meaning the Queen of the UK has no ability to create laws for Canada, including succession laws or any other legislation touching the Crown in Canada.  Reflecting this, the Queen titled herself accordingly. --G2bambino 14:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So the Queen has changed her title with respect to Canada? Please provide a citation. And you have now claimed, by the way, that the clause has been repealed by subsequent legislation, something you specifically denied before. TharkunColl 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the Royal Style and Titles Act. I never once said the clause was repealed.  Please stop making things up. --G2bambino 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Either the clause is still in force, or it has been repealed by subsequent legislation. Will you make your mind up? TharkunColl 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been said numerous times now that the clause is still in force. Your difficulty seems to be that you're focusing your argument on semantics rather than actual legal fact. --G2bambino 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So if it's still in force, the Queen of the UK is Queen of Canada, correct? TharkunColl 15:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. --G2bambino 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There you go with the monosyllabic answers again. Please explain why, if the clause is still in force, that the Queen of the UK is not the Queen of Canada. TharkunColl 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's already been explained to you ad nauseum; it is because the Queen of the UK cannot legislate within Canadian jurisdiction. It's not my fault if you can't grasp that. --G2bambino 15:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Queen of the UK cannot legislate in Canada? On whose behalf does the governor general sign laws then, if not the Queen? TharkunColl 15:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Queen of Canada. --G2bambino 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Who, according to the Canadian constitution, is the Queen of the UK. TharkunColl 15:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. --G2bambino 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous. It's going around in circles here. The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the Queen of Canada, just like she was the Empress of India (at one time). As my understanding from what I've read on Canada, the Canadians have a right to chose their monarch, but have stayed with the English monarchy. But I've never once heard Elizabeth II called the Queen of Canada. --myselfalso 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest you do more research. Start with the articles on Canadian monarchy here at Wikipedia, and then perhaps move on to what's available from the Department of Canadian Heritage.  You'll find plenty of references to Elizabeth II being called Queen of Canada (in fact, it's in her own Canadian title). --G2bambino 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out this.  --myselfalso 15:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The title "Queen of Canada" appears all over the place if you look for it. You can also check out the oath of citizenship: I affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. .  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And what else is in her Canadian title? Does it not specifically reference the UK as well? TharkunColl 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Her official full Canadian title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, but in common useage it is just Queen of Canada. I imagine that it will eventually be changed to match her Australian and New Zealand titles, which do not mention the UK.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's the argument here? The Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom is the same person. --myselfalso 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the argument is that there is no "Queen of Canada" title and that she is only queen of Canada by virtue of being queen of the UK.  The counter argument is that this stopped being true as of the Statute of Westminster and became even less true by the patriation of the Constitution.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I'm getting the Statute of Westminster right, that means that each parliament determines what changes can be made to the UK monarchy? --myselfalso 18:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, each country can change the line of succession to it's own monarchy. Since none have them have done so, they all still share the same monarch.  But if, for example, New Zealand's parliament said that Prince Harry was next in line, then upon Queen Elizabeth's death, Prince Charles would be crowned King of the UK, King of Canada, and King of Australia, but Harry would be crowned King of New Zealand.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Each country can indeed change its line of succession, but the Statute of Westminster, a part of consitutional law in each realm, sets up a precedent that they cannot do so without the consent and similar alteration in the lines within each of the other countries; hence, any country, including the UK, could unilaterally break the convention and alter the line within their jurisdiction, but this would be contrary to the provisions of the SoW, which has been likened to a treaty amongst countries. --G2bambino 18:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is absurd to suggest that any of them would actually do this, however. TharkunColl 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And until they do so there is only one crown. Justice Rouleau made this explicit in the ruling on O'Donohue v. Canada, quoting former Prime Minister Saint Laurent:


 * “Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office .. it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . .” Hansard. February 3, 1953, page 1566.


 * In case you missed it, I repeat: "It is not a separate office." That is why there is no personal union.  There is only one office.


 * Indeed, the Royal Styles Act echoes this by listing the U.K. before Canada in the Queen's Canadian title: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."


 * Note what it doesn't say: Queen of the U.K., Queen of Canada, etc. The word "Queen" appears once precisely because it is one office, not separate ones.


 * If Canada were not united under the British crown, why would Canada so clearly place itself subordinate to Britain in its own royal style? People may refer to her as the Queen of Canada, but that is not her official title as laid out in legislation.  Even in the eyes of Canada's parliament she is first and foremost Queen of the United Kingdom.


 * The United Kingdom is the kingdom, Canada is a dominion. It says so in the constitution.  Why should that disturb monarchists?  I would have thought they'd be proud of it!  If Canada were its own kingdom we'd have our own monarch.


 * Jonathan David Makepeace 20:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An illogical argument that ignores constitutional development since 1931, and since 1953, and supposes that Canada is still in a subordinate relationship with the UK because of the Queen's title, thereby making us only one of two out of fifteen countries that remain self-governing colonies of the UK, as those others have dropped the UK from the Queen's title all-together. Further, because Scotland and England shared the same person as monarch for a near century in no way undermines the fact that they were both still kingdoms. Anyway, if you have an issue with Canada being referred to as a kingdom, take it up with Canadian Heritage. --G2bambino 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When Prime Minister Saint Laurent made that statement, he was making a partisan argument trying to downplay the way that Canada was already separating from Britain. Furthermore, statements made in 1953 to not take into account the following fifty years of changing attitudes, and do not consider the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.  For the last 25 years, the "one crown, many thrones" model has been widely accepted.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can disagree all you like, but the only Canadian court to pronounce on the matter explicitly ruled that Canada is united under the British crown and cited Prime Minister Saint Laurent's comments as reflecting the court ruling. You can cite Canadian Heritage and all the constitutional experts you like, but the constitution still characterizes Canada as a dominion, not a kingdom, and the judiciary has interpreted the law as saying that Canada is united under the British crown.  Indeed, the monarchists love to agitate to have Canada Day renamed Dominion Day.  If that is the wrong term perhaps they should be told, but we still have a governor general and still very much fit the definition of a dominion, and there isn't even one single shred of jurisprudence to suggest that Canada is a kingdom in its own right.  Indeed, everyone has consistently bent over backwards to avoid using that term.  Jonathan David Makepeace 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Canada is a kingdom because it is reigned over by a monarch that styles themselves King/Queen. The law does not need to say so, for it simply is so. Everyone can refuse to say it, but that does not make it untrue. A country need not style itself as what it is, and indeed rarely does, nor does one term exclude others. Canada can be a kingdom and a dominion, and a confederation and a parliamentary democracy. The United States is a republic, but it is not styled as such. Canada is under the British crown as much as Britain is under the Canadian crown.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please cite me a court ruling in which the court found that Britain is united under the Canadian crown.


 * Tasmania and Quebec are reigned over by a monarch as well, does that make them a kingdoms?


 * One could similarly argue that Canada is a republic because the people, through their elected representatives, have the ultimate power to replace the monarch. I don't know which is more perverse, arguing that Canada is a kingdom, when the country's political establishment deliberately avoided that term, or arguing that it is a republic.


 * Buckingham Palace and the Royal Styles Act refer to Canada as one of the Queen's realms. Perhaps her loyal subjects should follow suit and stop kicking up controversy by using the provocative term kingdom.


 * Jonathan David Makepeace 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the "Free Dictionary" a kingdom is "a country with a king as head of state" . I'm sure any other dictionary will give you a similar definition. Canada is a) a country and b) it's head of state is a king, so it should be quite obvius that it is a kingdom (although my synthesis might be contrary to WP:NOR). If you don't believe me, look here. The very first sentence describes Canada as a kingdom. And I would assume that the people who are the editors for the website of the Queen herself would know about these things. Blur4760 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Last time I looked, Canada had a queen as its head of state, not a king. Therefore, by your dictionary-driven logic, Canada is not a kingdom.  It would certainly serve the monarch's interests to characterize Canada as a kingdom, even though its parliament deliberately didn't when patriating the constitution.


 * Jonathan David Makepeace 12:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? A country doesn't have to be officially styled in law as a "Kingdom" to be a kingdom.  That's simple, elementary knowledge - any child will tell you a country ruled by a king or queen is a kingdom. --G2bambino 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But the Queen not only doesn't "rule" Canada - she doesn't even live there. This is clearly why a new term - dominion - was invented for what was in 1867 a unique constitutional development. TharkunColl 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the most basic sense, she does: the Constitution essentially makes her the Government of Canada. Of course, within the framework of established conventions her political ministers exercise executive power, but the point remains that Canada is headed by a monarch and therefore - by the definition of the word itself - is a kingdom.  The location of the Queen means nothing to this fact, nor does the application of the term "Dominion" (which was supposedly chosen for its equally monarchical connotations).  "Dominion" wasn't selected over "Kingdom" because Canada was/is not a kingdom; it was chosen for political reasons alone. And, besides, the term "Dominion" is no longer used in reference to Canada. --G2bambino 16:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So the objections against my last argument were a) that Canada's head of state is a queen and not a king. That I find rather amusing. The second point raised was that b) I only provided a source where the queen describes Canada as a kingdom, which would be in her interest. So I present source No. 2 from a 2005 Hansard, in which the Liberal leader of the government in the Senate, Jack Austin admits that Canada is a kingdom (p. 1158, third paragraph). This source is presented to you by the following Google search where I am sure you will find more. Greetings everyone, Blur4760 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this debate? Canada is, by definition, a kingdom, but it does not have the title "Kingdom", its title is "Dominion". What is so complicated about that? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that some people cannot tell the difference between "Kingdom" and "kingdom"? There is a kingdom called Canada, however there is not a Kingdom of Canada.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people wish to view Canada as still a subservient colony of the UK, either to aid republicanism in Canada or to elevate the UK as still an imperial force. Either way, of course, the idea is hideously outdated; these people should pull out the wooden dentures, take off the powdered wigs, and join the rest of us in the 21st century. --G2bambino 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A linguistics professor once taught me that no two words ever have exactly the same meaning. I suspect that most English speakers would avoid the word kingdom with regard to Canada but would be perfectly comfortable describing it as one of Elizabeth II's realms.  Why, for example, did parliament choose realm over kingdom?  Why do we refer to Commonwealth realms and not Commonwealth kingdoms? The two words are not equivalent, and, in the mind of that linguistics professor at UQAM (whose name I unfortunately cannot recall), they can't be.


 * The U.K. has a resident monarch. Not only does Canada not have one, it's monarch delegates her responsibilities with respect to Canada to a viceroy, while the monarch herself tends to the affairs of another country.  That is an important distinction, important enough that reference sources routinely list our head of state as "Elizabeth II, represented by ... "  Perhaps that is why few people would refer to Canada as a kingdom.  There is a very important distinction between Canada and the U.K. that is obscured by the term.  If Canada is a kingdom, then what is the U.K.?  There has to be a word that makes that distinction.  Canada is a dominion, and the U.K. is a ...


 * Then again, maybe the word kingdom is simply seen as sexist. Afterall, one rarely hears people using the word even for a country like Norway.  Most people would call Norway a monarchy if they wanted to refer to its form of government.


 * Hmmm. Maybe republicans should argue FOR Canada characterizing itself as a kingdom.  In any case I find it amusing that anyone would consider any of this anything but an anachronism in the 21st century.


 * Jonathan David Makepeace 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Realm and kingdom are synonymous; realm itself derives from the French royaume, which has it's root in the French word roi for king. Why, in 1953, the PM's chose "...her other Realms and Territories" over "...her other Kingdoms and Territories," I don't know.  But, if by usage the United Kingdom is itself one of the Queen's realms and is still a kingdom, then Canada can be both as well.  Further, it doesn't matter where the monarch resides or who they deligate to act in their absence: Scotland didn't cease to be a kingdom when James I & VI moved to England; nor was Norway any less of a kingdom when its monarch resided in Sweden. --G2bambino 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadian kingdom
Canada is in fact a kingdom. There is the Queen of Canada, who is Elizabeth II. As we know, she is also the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These are separate titles, like the Queen of Australia title and Queen of New Zealand.

The argument above, as I said before, is ridiculous. It's an argument over semantics. Elizabeth II, for Canada, should actually be called Queen Elizabeth I, (and as she is, in Britain Elizabeth II, much like in past history, where one monarch has had different numbered names. I believe it was James I of England who was James V in Scotland).

This was an argument over semantics, particularly the mess that we saw towards the bottom of the last section. Hopefully this will be considered resolved. --myselfalso 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Canada is a Dominion (not a Kingdom). GoodDay 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as User:Ibagli said, Canada is a small-k "kingdom" but not a big-K "Kingdom". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if Canada is indeed still a Dominion, it is a kingdom called a Dominion. --G2bambino 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kingdom of Canada? I've never heard it called that. It was never called that, in any of my past 'history classes'. It's not called that at Canada (not even in the opening line, there). GoodDay 21:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because it is not called that. It is a kingdom called Canada, but it is not styled the "Kingdom of Canada".  When it is styled, it is the "Dominion of Canada", but by definition the Dominion of Canada is a small-k kingdom.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "Kingdom of Canada." I said a kingdom called a Dominion.  Today I suppose it's a kingdom called Canada, though there is some debate over whether or not the title "Dominion" still applies. --G2bambino 21:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Canada isn't a Kingdom (though it's head of state, is a monarch). GoodDay 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right, Canada isn't a "Kingdom," it's a "kingdom." If the head of state is a monarch the country has to be a kingdom. See Arctic Gnome's comment above. --G2bambino 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you guys are correct. PS- There are non-Kingdoms with a monarchs as head of state, though. GoodDay 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I, as everybody, agree that there is no official style for Canada as "Kingdom of Canada". But to repeat myself, if it isn't a kingdom (small "k"), how come the Queen's website calls it a kingdom . Blur4760 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it is a small-k kingdom, it just isn't a large-k kingdom. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, when is the Monarchist League of Canada going to change the name of its Dominion Chairman to Kingdom Chairman? Jonathan David Makepeace 22:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question. I think we can all agree, that Canadian Kingdom is a sensative word. GoodDay 22:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I believe this particular discussion is getting absurder by the minute (no personal offence intended). What is the relationship between the name of a legal entity subject to private law (i.e. the League) and the qualification of Canada's form of government under constitutional law? Blur4760 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * None, of course. We should probably let this drop. --G2bambino 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree (about absurdity), what's even more absurd? My participation here, I'm an anti-monarchist. As long as kingdom isn't added to the relating article Canada (or that article isn't moved to Kingdom of Canada), I'm satisfied. GoodDay 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole debate was started by a line in the article which read "and the country was proclaimed a fully independent kingdom, via constitutional patriation, by Queen Elizabeth II in 1982", which I think we can all now agree is technically correct. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that I rewrote that particular sentence to more reflect the wording from the Canadian Heritage publication: "The colonies were confederated by Queen Victoria in 1867 to form Canada as a kingdom in its own right, and the country was proclaimed a fully independent, via constitutional patriation, by Queen Elizabeth II in 1982." It could be put back now that there's a further source pointing towards the country being a kingdom, but I'm relatively content with it as it stands now. --G2bambino 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Union
Anticipating this might be challenged too "The common kinship within the British group today establishes a form of personal union, the members of which are legally capable of following different international policies even in time of war."

- The End of Dominion Status by F. R. Scott

Cheers, Wily D Actually, since I've been searching through papers on the subject, I'll note for curiousity's sake that papers from 1927 or so and earlier seem to reject the personal union nature, and those after WWII or so seem to either show or take it for granted that it is a personal union -- my conclusion (which I can't cite, but may be able to some day) is that it's Statute of Westminster, with waiting a week to fight Nazi's for the confirmation. But that's just idle speculation for now. Cheers, Wily D

Charles, Prince of Wales?
There are references in this article to a person called Charles, "Prince of Wales". Who on earth is this? It's true that the eldest son of the British monarch is given this title, but as we all know the British monarchy has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Canadian monarchy. The title "Prince of Wales" in not Canadian and should therefore be removed. TharkunColl 14:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Remarkably, in his last visit to Canada, George W. Bush remained President of the United States, and could be legally styled as such. Comparably Charles Philip Arthur George can still be styled Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay or anything else that distracts from the fact that he has no last name.  Prince of Wales is probably the title he's best known by, but if you have reliable sources that suggest otherwise, please present them.  Cheers, Wily D  14:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So it would be perfectly okay to refer to his mother as Queen of the United Kingdom then, even if she was in Canada? That is clearly her most well-known title. TharkunColl 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the context of "Monarchy in Canada" the Queen of Canada has an official title given by the Royal Style and Titles act (1953). As for Charles, the Heritage Ministry uses "Prince of Wales", and the rest of what I've looked at also suggests "Prince of Wales" is the closest he has to an official title as Canadian Royalty - he almost certainly could be differently styled (as he is in Scotland, for instance) - but since he wasn't mentioned in the "Royal Style and Titles act of 1953", he isn't, whereas because Elizibeth was, she is. Cheers, Wily D  15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But how is this possible? The British monarchy has literally nothing to do with the Canadian monarchy. To use a British title implies a continuing subservience to the British. Surely there must be some mistake here? TharkunColl 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Queen's official style in right of Canada makes a point of listing the U.K. before Canada: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." I mean, she reigns directly over the U.K. but sends a viceroy to attend to her Canadian duties.  How could anyone seriously contend that Canada is equal to the U.K.?  Jonathan David Makepeace 00:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Queen contends as much, as if anyone's an authority on the subject, she is. Wily D 00:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Queen's official title in Canada lists the UK first because the Parliament of Canada (which has the sole right to style the Canadian sovereign, because it is equal in status) has chosen that it should be so (or probably more accurately, not acted to make it not so). If the Parliament passed an act calling her "Elizabeth II, Lady Wibblemamble of Nunavut", that would be what she would be called in Canada.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Canadian Monarch accords herself an official title; the other members of the Royal Family are not given a distinct Canadian style. Though Charles could be styled "Charles, Prince of Alberta" if the Queen was so advised to do by her Canadian Ministers, for the time being he, like the rest of his family, is accorded his British title as a courtesy title.  No subservience; it's the choice of the Canadian government. --G2bambino 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just like it's the choice of the Canadian government to retain the British monarch as their own monarch. No subservience. TharkunColl 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Citation? Seriously, though, Elizibeth is accorded a seperate office and title from her office and title in the UK (as we've discussed).  Charles, as far as I can see, is not accorded any office - that he has a title is of little importance - Charles doesn't even have any de jure power, nevermind de facto power.  TharkunColl, your novel conclusions aren't worth much unless you can find verifiable sources that back them up.  Wily D  18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is up to the Canadian government through the Canadian monarch to choose how he is styled in Canada. The Department of Canadian Heritage has chosen to style him with the same style used in the United Kingdom. If the Canadian government wished to advise Her Majesty to issue letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada granting him a Canadian style, I'm sure it would be used.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In Canada, he's usually referred to as only Prince Charles. Actually, there's no mention of the other members of the Royal Family (with their British titles) under the Canadian constitution, except in an informal style (it mentions the Queen and he heirs). GoodDay 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

NDP's position on the monarchy
Reference the Debate section of the article, the statement "The New Democratic Party has officially stated it is willing to 'explore' the issue, but in practice the party is not actively pro-republic and largely supports the status quo." I can't find any reference for the NDP's position on the monarchy and am adding a "citation needed" tag. Király-Seth 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm modifying the relevant section of article. If you can provide evidence that the NDP has "officially stated it is willing to 'explore' the issue" go ahead and undo the change, but please include the citation.  Király-Seth 22:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oaths of allegiance
The parliamentarians' oath in the Constitution Act 1867 makes no mention of Canada, indeed, it explicitly states that it is the name of the King or Queen of the U.K. that one swears allegiance to:

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

''Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.''

Paliament did not change that section when it renamed the act at the time the constitution was patriated.

Furthermore, the Citizenship Act allows the relevant minister to waive the oath requirement for minors and certain people with disabilities.

Jonathan David Makepeace 17:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier in an edit summary, can you actually proove that the oath is to anyone other than the Monarch of Canada? If you want to use the old "the Constitution Act says 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'" argument, then you're essentailly trying to assert that the Oath of Allegiance sworn by parliamentarians is to nobody; the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist in 1927.
 * In regards to the Citizenship Oath; that's an interesting techicality. Do you have a source?  The one I found states that the oath is "a mandatory requirement" with no mention of exemptions.  The sentence can, of course, be reworded. --G2bambino 17:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the person making the assertion who must prove their assertion. You have given no evidence of your assertion.  I, on the other hand, can quote the Canadian constitution.  Parliamentarians take their oath to the person who is the British monarch.  That's what the Canadian constitution explicitly states.


 * Regarding the Citizenship Act, my source is the act, specifically Part I, Grant of Citizenship 5.(3). The Minister can and does waive the oath/affirmation of citizenship for certain people with disabilities, but not for people with speech difficulties, as your most recent revision would mislead people to believe.


 * You won't find the word "fealty" anywhere in the act.


 * Jonathan David Makepeace 19:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, the fact that the oath can be waived in certain circumstances will make it difficult for the government to defend it from challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You may want to make a note to come back and erase this part if it is thrown out by the courts.  Jonathan David Makepeace 19:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you insert the source as a footnote then, please? That is what we do here at Wikipedia.
 * As per to whom the oath is given, I guess then you are arguing that parliamentarians, police, etc., swear allegiance to a non-existent person.
 * I'm sure you'll note I provided another word besides "fealty" for you. Perhaps in future you could edit properly instead of just unilaterally deleting what you don't like. Cheers. --G2bambino 22:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You appear to be saying that the Act is invalid because of the change of nomenclature in 1927. Yet that is not how Acts of Parliament are interpreted, otherwise any Act passed before that date would be invalid, which is not the case. TharkunColl 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Act is not invalid, it's constitutional law. But other constitutional law has since changed the situation wherein the British Monarch no longer has anything to do with Canada, regardless of titles and styles. The title was changed to reflect the reality of independent kingdoms, the independent kingdoms weren't created because of a change in title.
 * But, the crux of the matter is: what exactly is it that either of you are proposing? --G2bambino 23:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"the British Monarch no longer has anything to do with Canada" Well, apart from the fact that she is Queen of it. TharkunColl 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As much as the Belizian Monarch is Queen of the United Kingdom. But agian: what are you proposing? --G2bambino 23:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply that you try and recognise that the Queen is, first and foremost, Queen of the UK - whatever legal theory might say. TharkunColl 23:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any specific suggestions for this article? --G2bambino 23:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, not really. I think your POV is eventually going to prove counter-productive, however (assuming you're a monarchist, that is - which is pretty obvious). Through sources such as Wikipedia, if the British people start to believe that their monarchy isn't theirs to control, despite paying for it, then they will scrap it. And then where does that leave your precious Canadian monarchy? TharkunColl 23:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. Thanks for your input. --G2bambino 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the scenario TharkunColl describes is beyond the scope of the article, we should rather focus on describing the current nature of seperated and shared crowns as accurately as possible. As far as I can see, TharkunColl's POV that "the Queen is, first and foremost, Queen of the UK" does, by his own admission, not have any implications for said goal. So again, we should let the matter rest. Blur4760 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, absolutely. The details of the shared crown/monarchy/monarch have been hashed out at Commonwealth Realm some time ago. --G2bambino 23:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

She lives in the UK, her job is in the UK, and she's British. If you don't think that this makes a difference, then you have fundamentally misunderstood the relationship between law and reality. TharkunColl 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the article states that "all of the Royal Family currently lives outside of the country", so I don't believe anyone will read the article Monarchy in Canada and think otherwise, especially since there is an easy link to the article about E II. Secondly, I would argue, that as the Canadian monarch, E II is also Canadian, since members of the Royal family are equally Canadian subjects, (but not Canadian citizens). Thirdly, she does have "jobs" outside the UK. Anyhow, how any of these facts were to have any implications for the constitutional role of the Canadian monarch is beyond me. Yet describing the constitutional role of the monarchy in Canada is exactly what the article is about as far as my understanding goes.Blur4760 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What has this got to do with oaths of allegiance? -- Lonewolf BC 01:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is the same old argument which was held weeks ago at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, concerning Queen of UK and fifteen other... vs Queen of sixteen.... When will this 'schism' end? GoodDay 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Soon, I hope. --G2bambino 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dablink
Could the following boilerplate please be added to the head of the article, beneath the current dab? Cheers. --G2bambino 19:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 The composition of the disambiguation links at the head of this article and the other Wikipedia articles on the monarchies of the Commonwealth Realms is under discussion at Talk:Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation).

Oaths

 * Could the last sentence under Legal role please be replaced with the following?


 * "Most new citizens also must swear allegiance to the monarch."


 * The current statement is false in that people with speech disabilities are not exempted from the oath. The Citizenship act (Part I, Section 5, Subsection (3)) refers only to minors and "any person who is prevented from understanding the significance of taking the oath of citizenship by reason of a mental disability."


 * Also, citation 38 does not link to the Citizenship Act but to a replacement bill that never passed. My link immediately above goes to the real Citizenship act.


 * Jonathan David Makepeace 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If the stipulations are as you say they are then the only thing in the article that needs chagning is the sentence "...minors and those with disabilities of speech are excepted from this," to "minors and some with mental disabilities are excepted from this."
 * The cite never pretended to link to the current Citizenship Act; it links to a draft bill that affirms "taking the Oath of Citizenship is a mandatory part of the citizenship process." --G2bambino 22:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to request that the following sentence and citation be added following the abovementioned sentence:


 * "Toronto lawyer Charles Roach has launched a class action lawsuit claiming that the current citizenship oath violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."


 * Citizens for a Canadian Republic news release, May 7, 2007


 * Jonathan David Makepeace 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I request a see also link to Republicanism in Canada. Jonathan David Makepeace 01:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The information you request be added here is already covered at Oath of citizenship (Canada) and Debate on the monarchy in Canada, both of which are linked to this article in the appropriate sections. This is as per WP, wherein detail about a certain topic is included in that topic's specific article, if such exists. --G2bambino 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The the entire redundant bit about the oath of citizenship (that G2bambino introduced) should be deleted from this article and merely referred to. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, a summary is provided on the main article with the deatil on the sister article. Please familiarise yourself with WP standards. --G2bambino 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request. While full protection is applied, requests should only be used for uncontroversial changes. I've added the notice regarding the disambiguation discussion, however, there should be consensus for the other changes before they are made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter Phillips: member of the royal family?
This article currently states that Autumn Kelly is about to marry into the Canadian Royal Family. According to the British Royal Family article, though, Peter Phillips is not a member of the British Royal Family, by the most common definition (note, not a legal one). And however separate one might argue these two Royal Families to be, doesn't it make sense that at least they should have the same members? -- Jao 14:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Royal Family is composed only of The Queen and princes and princesses bearing the style of Royal Highness. Peter Phillips is not a member of any royal family, he is an untitled commoner. Charles 23:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there's an official royal family - of which the Canadian and British do differ slightly - and then there's the royal family that consists of extended relations of the monarch. As British Royal Family states: "there is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the Royal Family." Peter Phillips does not bear a royal style, however he is 10th in line to the throne, and the grandson of the reigning monarch.  Plus, the engagement was announced by Buckingham Palace, and the marriage will be a royal one.
 * Upon further reflection, though, the marriage of Sylvana Jones to the Earl of St Andrews seems a little more hazy. The Earl is the son of a prince who carries out official duties on behalf of the Queen and is a Counsellor of State; but, I'm not sure he'll become one on the death of his father, when he inherits the Dukedom of Kent. So, I'm not sure if the Earl, a great-grandchild of George V, would be considered a member of the Royal Family. --G2bambino 00:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He may be a member of an extended royal family, but he is not a member of the Royal Family. He is not royalty. Charles 00:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, as a member of the extended Royal Family why would he not, then, be mentioned in a section about the Royal Family? --G2bambino 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because that is chiefly a informal extension of the term and it is nothing but that, informal. Any formal notion of a Royal Family is composed of members who are royalty. Peter Phillips is not royalty; he is not royal. I, for instance, am a member of my maternal grandmother's family, but I am not a member of the Smith family (her maiden name isn't Smith, just an example). Charles 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not getting your argument. He's a member of the Royal Family, he's tenth in line to the Throne, his engagement was announced by Buckingham Palace, his wedding will be a royal one, but he's not a royal? --G2bambino 00:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (After a pause, essentially the same discussion resumed in what was originally the next section down. The two moots then briefly went on in parallel, but have been merged, below -- Lonewolf BC 19:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

What is the basis for the claim that Peter Phillips is not a member of the royal family, which is being used as a reason to remove the reference to his up-coming wedding to a Canadian? Forgive my saying so, but it seems completely outlandish to claim that the Queen's first grandchild is not a member of the royal family. How close, then, must one be? And more importantly, who says so? In the lack of some explanation and authoritative source to support this point, I can see not excuse for eliminating the material. CBC's "The National" is a pretty reliable source. In fact, everything I can find, just in some quick internet searching, is consistent in making this out to be wedding in the royal family. Is it perhaps Phillip's lack of any royal style or title that brings about these remarkable claims? If so, that is not at all the same thing as not being a member of the royal family. Please provide some backing for this claim. Otherwise, please stop reverting the article on its basis. -- Lonewolf BC 02:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The basis is HE IS NOT ROYALTY. How can you say that because he is the first grandchild, or that he is tenth in line, that he is royalty? If the first 7G grandchild of Victoria was born untitled, would he or she be royalty? First born means nothing until you have a title in that family that you are a member of the Royal Family. It is a wedding of someone closely related to the Royal Family, but not a member of it, sorry. He is not a prince, he is not a Royal Highness and he is not royalty. Members of Royal families are royalty. Repetition of error or sloppiness doesn't make something correct, as I noted with the same sources referring to Diana as "Princess Diana". These claims are not remarkable, or even outlandish. Your support of the astounding error is though. Charles 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat here what I asked above:
 * Sorry, I'm not getting your argument. He's a member of the Royal Family, he's tenth in line to the Throne, his engagement was announced by Buckingham Palace, his wedding will be a royal one, but he's not a royal? --G2bambino 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He's a member of the Royal Family? Where is his royal title and style? How is he royalty? And what exactly makes a wedding royal? Do the marrying parties have to be royal? They aren't in this case. And an arbitrary number like ten... What about the Mowatts? Are they royal? The Chattos? The Taylors? Charles 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Click here. Click "Members of the Royal Family" which brings you here. Now read down the left-hand side of the page. Charles 03:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you haven't addressed my points; you answered my question with a question. I realise he's not a senior member of the Royal Family, or even a member of the "official" Royal Family, but we well know that the Royal Family is a concept that extends beyond law and Letters Patent.
 * Perhaps it would be best if the paragraph in question simply mentions that he's a member of the extended royal family and not the "official" one. --G2bambino 18:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely rich. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not royalty. That page lists every member of the Royal Family; the people listed are all royalty and all bear royal styles and titles. Charles 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you provided a link. If this webpage was the definitive source to settle this issue, Princes William and Harry would not be members of the Royal Family either, nor Princesses Beatrice or Eugenie. --G2bambino 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add that he's royal enough that his engagement stirred more commentary against the Act of Settlement by the Archbishop of Scotland and a British Labour MP.1 --G2bambino 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, sorry. One is either royal or not. He is not royal. The fact that he is in line to the throne and he stands to lose that position is the controversy. It has nothing to do with him being royal or not. Charles 03:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He is not royal. That's yet to be indubitably established. --G2bambino 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is. He does not have royal rank, title or style and he will not (cannot) transmit royal status to his children. To state anything other than a connection to royalty, to say that he IS royal, is pure garbage. Charles 03:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So you keep saying, but have yet to provide definitive proof to support your claim. Of course, there's little to no definitive proof to say he is a royal either, but there's certainly more evidence that says he is than says he's not. --G2bambino 03:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Little to no proof saying he is royal is a very good start. The proof, however, is in the pudding: He is a female-line descendant of a sovereign and as such is not royal. It was for the same reason that Princess Maud of Fife and Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife were purposefully given titles, styles and precedence: they were previously not royalty! Their grandfather had wanted them to be. However, the incident of birth to a princess of the blood and a non-royal father obviously complicated the matter. Charles 04:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet you continue to focus on the necessity of titles to make someone a member of the Royal Family. As stated elsewhere, Angus Ogilvy did not hold any royal title but was still considered a member of the Royal Family, at least in Canada. Thus, a title or style of Royal Highness is not necessary to make someone a royal. This is what I meant earlier about an extended royal family beyond the "official" one. --G2bambino 04:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should just settle with 'Peter Phillips' being described as Elizabeth II's maternal grandson. There'd be no dispute there. GoodDay 19:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also certain we can all agree to this: Elizabeth II's maternal grandson; there's no disputing the lineage (the bloodlines). GoodDay 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the crux of the debate. Charles feels the wedding shouldn't be mentioned at all here; his beef doesn't seem to be about wording, per say. --G2bambino 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee weez; if Elizabeth II, Charles, William, Henry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugene, Edward, Louise, (Sophia & thus unborn child) & Anne were to be suddenly 'killed' simultaneously -- We'd have a non-royal King Peter. I'd say we should allow the wedding being mentioned here; we can remove it if Peter has to renounce his succession rights (which the 1701 Act calls for). At that point he'll undisputably a non-royal. GoodDay 19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he would not be a non-royal king. The moment his mother or he becomes queen/king, he will instantaneously become royal as either the child of a sovereign or sovereign himself. He is indisputably not a royal right now. My "beef" is with the prominence and inaccurate wording given to a Canadian marrying a non-royal British man. A Canadian is marrying a queen's maternal grandson, but she is not marrying into royalty. Charles 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just the same 'Peter Phillips' belongs in the article (at least until & if - he renounces his succession rights). GoodDay 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On what basis does he absolutely belong here? And what does is matter if or if he doesn't renounce his succession rights? How very selective. Charles 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, I've no solid basis. He's the Queen's legitimate grandson -- that's the best I can 'come up' with. GoodDay 22:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Howabout Hello Magazine, he's listed as a royal at that 'website'. GoodDay 22:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello! Magazine is a gossip magazine and site. I suppose I should also believe that the Casiraghis are also royalty by reading that "reliable" source. Charles 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There goes my only source. PS- try to avoid 'edit warring' guys. GoodDay 23:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Charles', "The basis is HE IS NOT ROYALTY....[etc.]" Charles, you seem to be arguing that that: a) Only people who have a royal title are royalty, and b) Phillips lacks a royal title. Therefore: c) Phillips is not royalty. d) People who are not royalty are not members of the royal family, and c) Phillips is not royalty. Therefore: e) Phillips is not a member of the royal family. That is impeccable logic, formally, but the argument fails because the world evidently does not grant some its premises. It is also problematic in that the middle portion is needless and only serves to obscure matters, equivocally: "Royalty" means various things in various contexts. I suppose that in some contexts it might mean people having royal titles. In other contexts it means members of the royal family. To assume that those two meanings are identical only begs the question. Cutting out the needless and troublesome bridge through "royalty", then, your argument is that:"a) Only people who have a royal title are members of the royal family, and b) Phillips has not have a royal title. Therefore: c) Phillips is not a member of the royal family."The second premise is a matter of plain fact (and could readily be referenced, though there is no need because no one is questioning its truth). The argument's flaw is that its first premise has not been demonstrated.  Indeed, it seems to be no more than your personal opinion.  Further, it seems to be at odds with the view of the world at large, whereas the international press has uniformly presented this upcoming marriage as a wedding in the royal family.  You must support your first premise -- and do so by finding reliable sources that assert it, not by making "original research" arguments based on other information. Keep in mind, too, that "royal family" itself does not have just one, definitive meaning, but may mean different things in different contexts. There might be some particular formal definition whereby its means exclusively people with royal titles, but that does not make it wrong to use the term in a broader sense. I think that the commonsense understanding of the term is that it simply means members of the family of the monarch (where "family", itself, has a variable breadth of meaning, depending on context). It is altogether ordinary to regard a person's grandchildren as members of their family, and by that token Phillips is a member of the Queen's family, which is to say a member of the royal family. However, what matters is that sources are uniformly presenting Phillips' upcoming wedding as a marriage in the royal family. In order to edit the article contrariwise, you need sources saying the contrary. Your personal opinion, and your personal interpretations of other facts, are not good enough. -- Lonewolf BC 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Other editorial points
"Fact" tag: other WP articles are not acceptable references. I added tag here b/c this was the article I was editing, not one ot the others, but if references are given for this on those unreferenced articles, I would be fine with lifting the tag, here. I don't particularly doubt the fact, but merely think that it needs a reference, either here or on the articles that are more concerned with it

"Sylvana Jones": It was "Sylvana Jones" who married the earl. She only became "Sylvana Windsor, Countess of St Andrews" upon marrying him. There is nothing wrong with letting a redirect handle linkage to the article of that latter title. That's what redirects are for, and they are preferred to piping, where they exist.

Other changes are just a matter of writing style -- what makes the best "flow. If disagreed with, suggest calling for a 3rd opinion. -- Lonewolf BC 23:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding - from watching the editing of others - that redirects are to be avoided in favour of piped links. I'm not positive why, but I've seen it done countless times, and I imagine it's for more organized interlinking w/in Wikipedia.  I've certainly never seen someone purposefully replace a piped link with a redirect to the page the piped link originally went to.
 * Currently, the flow of the sentences is disjointed. In order, they talk about: 1) 1st marriage, 2) 2nd marriage, 3) 1st marriage.  My revision makes it so they talk about: 1) 1st marriage, 2) 2nd marriage. You tell me which is better, and why. --G2bambino 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll check about piping versus redirects. I might be mistaken. About the wording, I think it makes better sense to begin with a summary sentence (one marriage, plus one in the offing), and then give the details of the two cases, in turn, in their order of mention (which is also their order in time), in the two following sentences.  To me, this seems like the clearest and most logical way to organise this brief paragraph.  It is also a common and commonly recommended way of organising paragraphs and of organising written works on a larger scale -- tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em about, then tell 'em about it.  This particular paragraph is so short that its organisation is not overly critical, but the principle is helpful to clear presentation, even so. -- Lonewolf BC 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:PIPE says, "It is not necessary to pipe links simply to avoid redirects." It goes on to explain a potential benefit of having a redirect, rather than a piped link. The implication seems to be, "Don't change redirects to pipes," although it is not said straight out. -- Lonewolf BC 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Redirects from alternative names says, "Do not replace these redirected links with a piped link." That seems definite enough.  -- Lonewolf BC 00:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the definitive word on this, which I was really seeking: "Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken", a section of "Wikipedia:Redirect" -- Lonewolf BC 06:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see how your composition style would work in a larger body of text, but in a small paragraph it seems a tad bit awkward. No big deal, though.
 * I'm no expert on piping vs. redirects, so I won't comment on the latter. As I said, I was merely following precedent I'd witnessed. Of course, that doesn't mean all those editors were right and all I've been doing is repeating their mistake across Wikipedia articles.
 * I appreciate the more open communication, BTW. --G2bambino 00:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd do well to reflect on what might ever have closed it, if indeed it was ever closed at this end. We'd best not argue those points, though, but both think what we will. -- Lonewolf BC 00:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Right Honourable
For some reason the fact that some members of the Royal Family have been styled The Right Honourable seems to be in question. Sir Angus Ogilvy was included in the Department of Canadian Heritage's list of Royal Family members, and he was styled "The Right Honourable." --G2bambino 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't see any reason for 'denying' Ogilvy the title, if Canada bestowed it on him. It's not like the USA, where knighted Americans are barred from using the style 'Sir'. GoodDay 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Merovingians
Whilst it is certainly true that the Queen has a collateral descent from the Merovingians, she also has a similarly convoluted descent from the early dynasties of every single other European country and probably half of the Middle Eastern ones as well. In other words, why have the Merovingians been singled out for mention? TharkunColl 17:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion should start at British monarchy, on which the text here is based. --G2bambino 17:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No. That page doesn't mention the Merovingians. Why mention them here? TharkunColl 17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably because the Canadian monarchy, as opposed to the British one, has a large number of French-speaking subjects, for whom the fact that their queen is descended from "French" kings might be more interesting than the same about "English" kings. I think that's the justification, although I don't really see it as a valid one, for the reasons you state above. Elizabeth is of course not the French-Canadians' queen because she's descended from "French" kings; whether they like it or not, she is their queen because she's descended from "English" kings. Also, the scare quotes here are really huge: there is certainly not an obvious chain going from the Franks to the Québécois. -- Jao 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It does indeed seem to be pushing an agenda. Why not appease the Muslims in Canada in a similar way by pointing out that the Queen is descended from Muhammad, or rally the support of goths by telling them that Prince Charles is descended from Dracula (i.e. Vlad the Impaler)? Unless someone can come up with a cogent reason why singling out the Merovingians is not just political POV, then I'll remove the references to them. TharkunColl 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One simple reason: Muhammad never ruled over Canadian territories. French kings did.
 * It does indeed seem that British monarchy never mentioned Merovingians; I remembered copying some text from there, but forgot I'd augmented it when inserting it here; looking back through the edit history of both articles has reminded me.
 * If I recall correctly, I did insert it because there's an ancestral link between EIIR and French monarchs; but, more important than that, was the point that large swaths of Canada were once part of the French Empire, and were directly handed over to George III. Thus, there is another link between the present day Canadian Crown and the old French Crown.  The section currently spells it out in this way. --G2bambino 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - you really need to chill out, Tharkie. Removing stuff before even giving a discussion - esp. one you started - the chance to get off the ground is what starts edit wars.  Just relax. --G2bambino 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if the Canadian monarch were descended from someone who ruled (as King of France) over territory in present-day Canada, that might be worth a mention, just like how one might mention how the later Bernadotte kings descend from the older Swedish dynasties: it may be a coincidence, but it's noticeable still. But as it stands now, it really only says that the present Canadian monarch and the early modern French monarchs share a common ancestor, which is pretty much a given, so I'm with TharkunColl on this. I totally subscribe to your view that he was too trigger-happy, though. Let people have their say before going at it. -- Jao 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it needs finessing then. I'm not an expert on royal lineage, so perhaps someone can offer greater detail, but the following might be a start:
 * The current Canadian monarchy can trace its ancestral lineage back to the Anglo-Saxon period, and ultimately back to the kings of the Angles and early Scottish kings; parts of the territories that today comprise Canada were claimed under Queen Elizabeth I in 1583. Other lands were claimed in 1534 by King Francis I, who's lineage was rooted in the Merovingian period, back to the Frankish kingdom of Clovis I, and who is also a distant ancestor of the present Canadian monarch. Throughout the 18th century, via war and treaties, the Canadian colonies of France were ceded to King George III. The colonies were confederated by Queen Victoria in 1867 to form Canada as a kingdom in its own right, and the country was proclaimed a fully independent, via constitutional patriation, by Queen Elizabeth II in 1982.
 * I think this more clearly spells out the two links that exist to the Merovingians, but gives due emphasis to that which is created by the transfer of Canadian territories from one crown to the other. I also have a reference at home that I think talks about the Treaty of Paris and how there is one unbroken line of monarchs stretching back to first European colonization. --G2bambino 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is still no logical reason to single out the Merovingians. The early medieval kings of France, through the same process of international royal intermarriage, were themselves descended from the Anglo-Saxon kings. So if you're looking for a common ancestor, you could just as easily look to the Anglo-Saxons. So again, why single out the merovingians, and specifically Clovis? Why not, say, Cerdic of Wessex? TharkunColl 21:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia seems to say Clovis was the first of the French kings; unless, either Wikipedia, I, or both, are wrong. --G2bambino 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But why do you need to mention who was the first of the French kings? You haven't mentioned who was the first of the English kings. TharkunColl 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the paragraph talks about the King of France in 1534. But add the first English king, or take out Clovis, whatever. --G2bambino 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Hugh Capet was the first true king of France, not Clovis. TharkunColl 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also... the Queen is descended from the kings and lords of the Vikings, some of whom colonised part of Canada long before the French. TharkunColl 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Viking thing has come up earlier. It was established, though, that the Norse who settled in Newfoundland were actually from Iceland, which then had no monarch, and essentially set out on their own without warrant from any chiefly leader.  So, there doesn't appear to be any link between Viking kings and the modern crown via Norse settlers in Canada.
 * As for lineages of both the current Monarch and the monarchs of France, Wikipedia seems vague on where, if ever, they meet. --G2bambino 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been intermarriage between the kings of England and France since at least the 10th century, so both monarchies are descended from both the Anglo-Saxons and the Merovingians. However, there has been no intermarriage for a few hundred years, because of the religious divide. TharkunColl 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no proven Merovingian descent to anybody, though there is much conjecture. The descents given in Holy Blood Holy Grail / Da Vinci Code are fantasies based on recently and badly forged documents.  The most detailed scholarly studies are by the French genealogist Christian Settipani, who has reviewed several conjectures and come up with a few more, all more or less plausible.  But, as he himself stresses, he has only studied possibilities:  nothing whatsoever can be proven. --Chris Bennett 01:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Carolingians (and hence the Capetians) could, by intermarriage, claim a Merovingian descent; but having looked into it, you're right - there is no documented connection. So we must scrap all references to the Merovingians. It seems that the intention was to include the earliest known common ancestor of the English and French monarchies, and for this purpose I would suggest Cerdic of Wessex, who lived around AD 500 (a near contemporary of Clovis), founded the Kingdom of Wessex in England, and is thus the ancestor of the kings of England and (through much later intermarriage) of the kings of France as well. TharkunColl 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some Anglo-Saxonists(?) are unconvinced that the connection between Egbert and earlier kings of Wessex (or, for others, between Ine and earlier kings of Wessex) given in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is authentic; some are doubtful that Cerdic is a historical character. (IMO he was -- the name is Celtic -- but his connection to later kings of Wessex is perhaps a little doubtful; the ASC itself has two different accounts.)  Certainly, much of this genealogy is unverifiable.


 * The earliest common ancestor is probably Welsh or Irish, depending on your view of the accuracy of Welsh and Irish chronicles. --Chris Bennett 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to assume that the Welsh and Irish chronicles are any more or less accurate than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (though interestingly the Welsh chronicle of Nennius preserves many of the Anglo-Saxon genealogies that match those of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle). TharkunColl 15:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to resolve this, then? Is there a link from EIIR back to both Elizabeth I and Francis I, at least, from which the line would then split to the earliest known French and British/Welsh/Irish kings? --G2bambino 15:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no descent from Francis I of France to Elizabeth II of the UK because of the religious divide between the two countries that prevented further intermarriage from the 16th century onwards. There is equally no descent from Elizabeth I of England to her current namesake because she was childless. However, all share a common ancestor. Many, many common ancestors in fact. Such as Alfred the Great of England. But you have stated that you only want to include "French and British/Welsh/Irish kings". May I ask why you don't want to include any English ones? TharkunColl 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not obvious to me why the point has any relevance at all to this particular article. Be that as it may, the earliest king of either of what later became France and Britain who is unquestionably a common ancestor to Francis I and Elizabeth I is Pepin the Short, Charlemagne's father. --Chris Bennett 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ethelbert of Kent married Bertha, a Merovingian princess, some time before AD 596. So perhaps a Merovingian descent amongst the English kings is not out of the question. TharkunColl 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * David Kelley has proposed a very reasonable conjectural ancestry based on this marriage. But the operative word in your comment is perhaps.  "Perhaps" will get you, via very reasonable but conjectural arguments, back to Cyrus and possibly even further.  See Descent from antiquity.  --Chris Bennett 16:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The point that I belive has relevance is where the origins of the present Canadian monarchy lie. Of course there's a path back to the roots of the present British monarchy, but within the Canadian context there's also the added presence of French monarchs.  I'm just trying to reconcile them all, for lack of a better term.  Perhaps the both of you, with clearly more knowledge on the subject than I, could propose a composition that would be both accurate and pertinent? --G2bambino 16:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But the French monarchs of the 16th - 18th centuries have no institutional connection with the English/British monarchy, and it is from the latter that the Canadian monarchy solely and exclusively derives. To make mention of remote ancestors in common is to seriously misrepresent the completely separate development of the English and French kingdoms going back for a millennium and a half - and far from having a common origin, the two kingdoms were wholly separate and created by completely unrelated people - it was only later intermarriage that made their rulers related. Although they came close once or twice, England and France have never shared a monarch and never been in personal union - even the Norman dukes who took control of England were enemies of the French state, and traced their royal descent to the Anglo-Saxons. And it goes without saying that even in Canada the British and French were enemies. In short, to put England and France together in this fashion, and to make it seem as if they are derived from the same source, is a gross distortion of history. TharkunColl 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with TharkunColl on this. The Canadian monarchy is entirely a descendant of the British one, and has no historical relationship to the French monarchy.  There seems no point in trying to create one where none existed. --Chris Bennett 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll have to check a source at home that, if I recall correctly, talks about an unbroken lineage from the first European colonies, that includes the French kings; but, it may be talking about the institution of the Crown, as opposed to a bloodline. --G2bambino 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You appear to have totally missed the point. As a self-declared monarchist, you don't seem to know much about the ancestry of "your" monarch. The Queen has a bloodline to every medieval kingdom in Europe, but that is purely as a result of royal marriages (see below). There is no institutional connection whatsoever. TharkunColl 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a connection of French royalty leading into English/British/Canadian royalty. Philip IV of France, his daughter Isabella of France & her son Edward III of England. Does this help? GoodDay 21:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian monarchy
Since there's an article called British monarchy, would it be a good idea to move this article to Canadian monarchy (or would that be too much trouble, with the redirects). GoodDay 20:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest, on the contrary, that this article should not use the term "Canadian monarchy" at all (and the same goes for "Australian monarchy" in its article, etc.). "Monarchy in Canada" is okay because Canada is a monarchy, but to say that there is therefore a "Canadian monarchy" is POV and requires citation. There's a Canadian Crown, under law, but the term "monarchy" implies so much more, including all the personnel and trappings, etc., and not just the legal stuff. In this sense, in what way is there a "Canadian monarchy" that is not identical to the British monarchy? TharkunColl 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * lol. What else could Canada's monarchy be but the Canadian monarchy? Besides, there are sources that use those exact words. --G2bambino 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are official government sources then that's fine, I'll withdraw my point - can you provide them please? Furthermore, can you provide sources for the Queen's official title in Canada? Surely it's "The Queen in Right of Canada", not just "Queen of Canada". Or perhaps it's "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories". TharkunColl 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Queen of Canada's title is already sourced.
 * As for Canadian Monarchy: one easily found on the internet: Department of Canadian Heritage: The Canadian Monarchy --G2bambino 18:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Her other Realms and Territories" includes the title "Queen of Canada." It states that she is "Queen of the United Kingdom," "Queen of Canada," and "Queen of Her other Realms and Territories." At least, that's the traditional meaning of commas.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If this page is moved to Canadian monarchy, I'll support it - since the sixteen Commonwealth realms are equal. GoodDay 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Origins
"others were claimed by Queen Elizabeth I in 1583; both of whom are ancestors of the current monarch"

If Queen Elizabeth I had no children, how could she be an ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II? — Rljenk 04:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what whoever wrote that tried to explain that the Queen is the rightful heir to the Monarchs of Canada through the Monarchs of the Nations that had send expeditions to Canada. I changed it to blood relatives to denote that the Monarchs as kinsmen of the Queen. nattan g 06:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian monarchy, Part II
I feel we've left this discussion open (last time), so let's try again. I feel this article should be changed to Canadian monarchy - If a republican (such as I) can accept that, why can't others? It's time to reflect Commonwealth equality. GoodDay 19:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, I agree with such a name change. --G2bambino 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead a made the move. GoodDay 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect photo
The photo in the infobox is not of the Queen "in Right of Canada". It was taken on her state visit to the USA in May 2007, for which she was acting on behalf of the United Kingdom. TharkunColl 12:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say it is, it merely shows a picture of Elizabeth II. Are you denying the corporeal existence of the Queen? Please provide a free image of the Queen acting as Queen of Canada if you want to go off on one of your colonial-subjugation tirades again.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that what you really think? Please remove the chip from your shoulder and rephrase your statement. TharkunColl 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. No.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 02:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Title format of Commonwealth realm monarchies
A discussion dealing with deciding on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms is being conducted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty if you are interested. —  AjaxSmack   00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars (again)
Is this article gonna have to be locked, too? Tharky, bring your dispute to the talk page, as the burden of proof always falls on the editor who wishes to 'change' things. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay then. The current wording states that the Canadian royal family is shared amongst 16 realms. But this is complete piffle. The "Canadian royal family" has no existence, let alone function, when not doing something relating to Canada. TharkunColl (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The citations state otherwise. --G2bambino (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What citations? There aren't any on that dablink. TharkunColl (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dablinks don't get citations. --G2bambino (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So when you said that the citations state otherwise, you were actually just making it up? TharkunColl (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. --G2bambino (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll ask again. What citations? TharkunColl (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The citations littered throughout the section in question, the ones that debunk your claim that the Canadian Royal Family "has no existence." --G2bambino (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Has no existence outside Canada, is what I said. Please provide those citations here, so that we may examine them. TharkunColl (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The British royal family has no existence when not performing duties related to the UK, then. Do you accept that?-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you deliberately trying to be offensive? TharkunColl (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you deliberately trying to make ludicrous statements such as that? If a royal family is defined solely by the moments when they are performing duties related to that country, then they do not exist any other time. If the Canadian Royal Family has no existence outside of Canada, the British royal family has no existence outside of the UK. "Offensive"? The hallmark of a person without a leg for their views to stand on is doing nothing but trashing the other views as "bad."-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think he is; I was composing essentially the same response but ended up with an edit conflict. Cheers, Ibagli. --G2bambino (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In what way, then, does a "Canadian Royal Family" exist that is not wholly dependent on the British Royal Family? TharkunColl (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In no different way than the British Royal Family is wholly dependent on the Canadian Royal Family. --G2bambino (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing better than your last statement illustrates your POV. The royal family was born in, lives in, and works in Britain, and is paid for by the British. It is a British creation over many centuries. You, an ardent monarchist, surely must appreciate this? Otherwise you are grossly insulting the nation that gave birth to and supports the institution you love so much. You really do need a lesson in history, G2. TharkunColl (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with my "POV" take it to ArbCom. --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Just because you say so? I'll continue to edit as I see fit, if it's all the same with you. To be an obsessive monarchist is quite sad in many ways, but to be one in a country that doesn't even have its own monarchy is the saddest of the sad, I'm afraid. TharkunColl (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Grossly insulting the UK? This is getting entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. He is stating that the monarchy is not British. That is a gross insult to the nation that created the monarchy over 1500 years. TharkunColl (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're over-reacting; G2? causing a diplomatic incident? GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was merely highlighting his ridiculously illogical attitude. He loves the monarchy, but takes every opportunity to belittle the nation who created that monarchy. It makes no sense at all. TharkunColl (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO there's no evidence that G2bambino has been trying to belittle the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What we're witnessing here is a prime example of how Canadian monarchists have attempted to rebrand a foreign institution to make it look Canadian. TharkunColl is absolutely correct. There is no such thing as a Canadian royal family. We have a British royal family that has legal status in our constitution. They can call it Canadian, or the Maple Crown or whatever they want, but it's all fabricated in a basement in Oakville for one reason: To conceal its foreigness in the eyes of the public. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister - MC Rufus (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the Queen lived in a basement in Oakville. Interesting. --G2bambino (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Luv these passionate discussions. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Challenges to successon
Has there ever been legal challenges to the Canadian royal succession's 'male preference' & 'anti-Catholic' rules? If so, should it be mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see O'Donohue v. Canada. 64.228.70.220 (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And it is mentioned already. --G2bambino (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha!, I see. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PS- A republican (O'Donahue) was interested in the succession? What's next? a republican editing & discussing monarchy articles? GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was just a lame ploy to undermine the monarchy and draw attention to a pretty weak republican group. Strangely, though, O'Donohue actually garners my support in the idea that the law should be changed; I don't see any need for the 300 year old sections of the AoS that bar Catholics to remain, or even the succession by primogeniture. But the monarchy need not be removed to do this; that's akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --G2bambino (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah ha ha! Mr. O'Donahue you sneaky guy, love your style. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I only see the O'Donohue case referenced in the footnotes. I don't see any reference to it in the body of the article or a link to the related article. These probably should be added. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in the body of the text, in the section on succession. I don't think there's any need to cover that particular topic in any more detail in this article. --G2bambino (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So it is. I've just made it a bit clearer. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Monarchy x British Monarchy
I would suggest, on the contrary, that this article should not use the term "Canadian monarchy" at all (and the same goes for "Australian monarchy" in its article, etc.). "Monarchy in Canada" is okay because Canada is a monarchy, but to say that there is therefore a "Canadian monarchy" is POV and requires citation. There's a Canadian Crown, under law, but the term "monarchy" implies so much more, including all the personnel and trappings, etc., and not just the legal stuff. In this sense, in what way is there a "Canadian monarchy" that is not identical to the British monarchy? TharkunColl 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the British monarch cannot (since 1982) make laws for Canada, nor can the British monarch appoint Canadian judges and ministers, dissolve and summon Canadian legislatures, make treaties between Canada and other foreign nations, or declare a state of war between Canada and other sovereign countries. The Canadian monarch on the other hand can do all things listed above. In fact, the Queen of Canada could, if so advised by her Canadian ministers, even declare war on the Queen of the United Kingdom! The fact that the Queen of Canada and the British Queen are physically the same person is irrelevant from a legal point of view as both remain two separate sovereigns in international and domestic law. As I said before, by law, the British monarch has no jurisdiction or authority over Canada! 200.177.33.138 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VictoriaCrossSilverDollarCanada.jpg
Image:VictoriaCrossSilverDollarCanada.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit details Feb 21

 * Removed: "From time to time the sovereign or another member of the Royal Family will represent Canada abroad. On these occasions they are acting as monarch of Canada and members of the Canadian Royal Family, and will regularly carry out two types of duties: official duties involve the sovereign representing the state at home or abroad, or other members representing the sovereign in Canada or elsewhere. For example, the Queen, Prince Charles, and Princess Anne have participated in Canadian ceremonies for the anniversary of D-Day in [France]]."   There is no supporting evidence for this claim. The Canadian Heritage reference link supplied only indicated that the Queen attended D Day (Britain participated in DDay as well). Officially,  the governor general, who also attended, was representing Canada at the event. Protocol stipulates that both the GG and the Queen cannot publicly perform ceremoinial duties simultaneously. See 2 Jun 2004 Governor General of Canada - Governor General to attend D-Day and Battle of Normandy ceremonies in France


 * 'Removed: "Presently, the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for organizing events wherein members of the Royal Family represent Canada." There is no supporting evidence for this claim. The reference link supplied is simply a retail link to Canada Post where a stamp of the Queen is being sold.


 * Replaced deleted quotation from former External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp's memoirs: For example Mitchell Sharp, Canada's External Affairs Minister in the 60s and 70s, recounts in his memoirs a ministerial trip to Latin American he took to promote Canadian products and develop diplomatic goodwill. After the trip was arranged, it was learned that the Queen was going to be there at the same time to promote British goods. He writes: "We couldn't ask Her Majesty to perform the function she was performing for Britain on that Latin American trip because the Queen is never recognized as Queen of Canada, except when she is in Canada."

- MC Rufus (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are selectively choosing only one example where the Queen was present to represent Canada; confusion does not equal fact.
 * From the cited source: "the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is responsible for the organization and delivery of Royal Visits to Canada by Her Majesty The Queen and Members of the Canadian Royal Family."
 * The quote has been returned, though it is now a near duplicate of what appears at Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've successfully proven my point; that the Queen is Queen of Canada when in Canada and that when she's not, she's Queen of the United Kingdom (excepting, of course, her non-constitutional ceremonial duties as Head of the Commonwealth). On the other hand, you have provided only your opinion and provided useless citations in support. Provide the documentation from a federal government source or an academic who cites a government source that the Queen represents Canada extraterritorially and I'll eat crow and not refute it. You have my word. - MC Rufus (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Government sources are not the sole pool of references for Wikipedia. I need not meet your personal requirements.
 * Though there are probably more sources, for the time being this should suffice to quell your concerns: "As a constitutional monarch, The Queen abides by the decisions of the Canadian Government, but she continues to play important ceremonial and symbolic roles. In all these duties, The Queen acts as Queen of Canada, quite distinctive from her role in the United Kingdom or any of her other realms." No distinction between in Canada and out of Canada, merely that when acting on the advice of her Canadian ministers she's acting as Queen of Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading between the lines and, based on that, making up your own mind doesn't count. Absolutely nothing in that quotation says the Queen acts as Queen of Canada outside of Canada and nowhere in your new citations does it mention it either. You have reached your maximum number of reverts under Wikipedia's 3RR policy. As an act of good will, I won't report you or change what you have there now. However, if new references to confirm your assertations don't appear there within the next few hours, I will be editing them out and submitting my report of vandalism and 3RR violation. - MC Rufus (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. You're such a sweetie. Ah, anyway, it doesn't say she doesn't act as Queen of Canada outside of Canada, either. It simply states that when on the advice of her Canadian ministers, she's acting as Queen of Canada. So, when at a ceremony abroad at the direction of Ottawa, who do you think she's acting as? According to the source: the Queen of Canada. You can't dismiss the source simply because you don't like what it says. --G2bambino (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection
I'ver put in a request for this article to be 'protected'. All of you (G2, MC & Tharky), have a right to repeal, if page gets protected. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsupported claims should be removed first. Check out G2's "citations." The two I removed have nothing to do with the statements to which they're associated. I have no problem with leaving it as he likes, as long as it's shown to be true and not just something he wishes were true. - MC Rufus (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys will have to work it out on the discussion page. Like it or not, you've got to work together. Remember that famous saying We must all hang together or.... GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has been protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please remember that protection is not an endorsement of the current version ([ protection log]) . nat.utoronto 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nat; this move was prudent. --G2bambino (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! what about me? GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: MC, neither of you can breach 3RR here, now. The page protection will see to that. Please note gentlemen, I do these things not just for article stability, but also to protect you from each other (as I consider you 'both' my wiki-friends). GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why aren't you insisting that G2 provide proof that his edits are sound? With all due respect, sitting back and letting us duke it out obviously isn't working. I've supplied valid citations for my edits. Where are his? All he's provided so far is fluff, totally lacking any substance. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I choose not to get deeply involved with the dispute, because? - sooner or later you'll both tire out & begin compromising (which would be delayed if I made this a three-way riot). I'm certain 'neither' of you want this article 'protected indefinitley'. Heck, even Ali & Frazier eventually became friends. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Insisting that he back up his claims isn't taking sides. I'd expect you to do the same in regards to my edits. But locking this page wouldn't have been necessary if the rules were being followed here. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well. G2, will you back up your claims? GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to say, really, what I'm supposed to be backing up. Rufus is never terribly clear. --G2bambino (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well. MC, will you clarify? GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: MC, will you please ease off on the 'conspiracy' charges. It's not helping the discussions move forward. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarify
Unfortunately, Rufus is never terribly clear about what exactly he sees the problem to be. Generally there is a lot of crowing about monarchist propagandists hiding behind every corner and a conspiracy to bring down the mighty and noble republicans, but, well, none of that assists us in editing an article. I'd like to then take the above explanations of Rufus' edits and break them apart for, hopefully, more clarity.
 * From time to time the sovereign or another member of the Royal Family will represent Canada abroad.
 * This sentence has already been altered to read: From time to time the sovereign or another member of the Royal Family carry out ceremonial duties on behalf of Canada. There is no longer any reference to duties undertaken abroad.


 * On these occasions they are acting as monarch of Canada and members of the Canadian Royal Family...
 * A reference for this has already been provided, which states "The Queen abides by the decisions of the Canadian Government... In all these duties, The Queen acts as Queen of Canada, quite distinctive from her role in the United Kingdom or any of her other realms." Perhaps the sentence could be rewritten to read: On these occasions when the Queen or other member of the Royal Family are abiding by the directions of the Canadian Cabinet, they are doing so as monarch of Canada and members of the Canadian Royal Family.


 * ...and will regularly carry out two types of duties: official duties involve the sovereign representing the state at home or abroad, or other members representing the sovereign in Canada or elsewhere. For example, the Queen, Prince Charles, and Princess Anne have participated in Canadian ceremonies for the anniversary of D-Day in France."
 * The Canadian Heritage reference provided lists the Queen's participation in Canadian events; the 1994 D-Day anniversary is listed as one of those. Further, there was also the rededication of the Vimy Memorial last year. There is no mention in your cite of the Governor General being unable to participate in the same ceremony as the monarch. Precedent also proves this assertion wrong.


 * Presently, the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for organizing events wherein members of the Royal Family represent Canada.
 * This sentence has been altered to read: Presently, the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for organizing ceremonial events in Canada involving the Royal Family, as part of the State Ceremonial and Canadian Symbols Program.


 * For example Mitchell Sharp, Canada's External Affairs Minister in the 60s and 70s, recounts in his memoirs a ministerial trip to Latin American he took to promote Canadian products and develop diplomatic goodwill. After the trip was arranged, it was learned that the Queen was going to be there at the same time to promote British goods. He writes: "We couldn't ask Her Majesty to perform the function she was performing for Britain on that Latin American trip because the Queen is never recognized as Queen of Canada, except when she is in Canada.
 * This overly-lengthy and disjointed paragraph has been merged into the preceeding and slimmed down to: This situation, however, can mean the monarch and/or members of the Royal Family will be promoting one nation and not another; a situation that has been met with criticism, such as former External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp's comments on a situation wherein Elizabeth II was in Latin America to promote British goods at the same time a Canadian ministerial trip to the same area was underway to promote Canadian products. Sharp stated: "We couldn't ask Her Majesty to perform the function she was performing for Britain on that Latin American trip because the Queen is never recognized as Queen of Canada, except when she is in Canada."


 * However, the Queen subsequently represented Canada abroad on a number of following occasions.
 * This has already been dealt with above.


 * Thus, all-together, the paragraphs in question would read:
 * From time to time the sovereign or another member of the Royal Family carry out ceremonial duties on behalf of Canada; the monarch may also undertake constitutional duties. On these occasions when the Queen or other member of the Royal Family are abiding by the directions of the Canadian Cabinet, they are doing so as monarch of Canada and members of the Canadian Royal Family. The royals will carry out two types of duties: Official duties involve the sovereign representing the state at home or abroad, or other members representing the sovereign in Canada or elsewhere. For example, the Queen, Prince Charles, and Princess Anne have participated in Canadian ceremonies for the anniversary of D-Day in France, and the Queen has undertaken duties in the United Kingdom on behalf of Canada. Presently, the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for organizing ceremonial events in Canada involving the Royal Family, as part of the State Ceremonial and Canadian Symbols Program. Unofficial duties are performed by Royal Family members on behalf of Canadian organizations of which they may be patrons, through their attendance at charity events, visiting with members of the Canadian Forces as Colonel-in-Chief, or marking certain key anniversaries. The invitation and expenses associated with these undertakings are usually borne by the associated organization. In 2002 members of the Royal Family were present at a total of 117 Canadian engagements, 57 events in 2003, 19 in 2004, and 76 in 2005.


 * Apart from Canada, the Queen and other members of the Royal Family regularly perform public duties in the other fifteen nations of the Commonwealth in which the Queen is head of state (see, for example, List of Commonwealth visits made by Queen Elizabeth II). As the Crown within these countries is a legally separate entity from the Canadian Crown, it is funded in these countries individually, through the ordinary legislative budgeting process. This situation, however, can mean the monarch and/or members of the Royal Family will be promoting one nation and not another; a situation that has been met with criticism, such as former External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp's comments on a situation wherein Elizabeth II was in Latin America to promote British goods at the same time a Canadian ministerial trip to the same area was underway to promote Canadian products. Sharp stated: "We couldn't ask Her Majesty to perform the function she was performing for Britain on that Latin American trip because the Queen is never recognized as Queen of Canada, except when she is in Canada." However, the Queen subsequently represented Canada abroad on a number of following occasions.

I hope that we can now pick out where any specific issues might still lie and focus on them instead of broad generalisations. --G2bambino (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Unfortunately, Rufus is never terribly clear about what exactly he sees the problem to be. "
 * Well, obviously I was clear enough. You seem to have touched on most of the problems. I've been skiing all day and I'm too tired to respond to each item. I'll take a shot at it before the Oscars on Sunday. - MC Rufus (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was mostly a guess on my part as to what you found offensive. Obviously my guesses were perdominantly accurate. --G2bambino (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The proposed revisions are a positive step but still fall short of the facts. I'm not going to do a rewrite of everything (yet) - in fact, tonight, I'll comment on just one glaring point: There's still no valid evidence to prove that the Queen 'officially' carries out duties "on behalf of Canada," "represents Canada" or is even permitted to do so when not on Canadian soil. The DDay and Vimy examples only prove that the Queen was there at the invitation of the Canadian Government, taking part in a ceremony beyond her official capacity. The DDay event was even attended by the GG, raising the question: If the Queen were representing Canada or there on Canada's behalf, what was the GG doing there? According to the GG's website: "The Governor General represents Canada on state visits abroad at the request of the Prime Minister." Did we have two heads of state there?

For Vimy; the same applies. It's the GG's job to represent Canada abroad and had she been in France, protocol would have required the French President to also attend. The GG was not there, instead, presiding over a ceremony in Ottawa. Therefore, since no head of state was present on behalf of Canada, the Prime Minister of France represented France and the Prime Minister of Canada represented Canada. The Queen was there as a guest at the request of the Prime Minister. At the time, your own Michael Valpy commented in the Globe that Britain's participation in Vimy (the third nation involved in attempts to take Vimy Ridge, at great cost to life, by the way) was systematically erased from the history books by "Canadian propagandists" (his words), so perhaps inviting the Queen was a way to reconcile that fact.

I'm not being intransigent here. I sincerely would like to get to the bottom of this. In fact, I spent several hours tonight going through my poli-science texts and Googling every possible source to find 'anything' that proves your claim that the Queen represents the state "at home or abroad." I used every imaginable search term. The only thing I came up with was a 1959 BBC archive news item Queen and Eisenhower open seaway,where the Queen was mentioned "representing Canada" with US President Eisenhower during the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. I found nothing saying that she's done any kind of 'international' duties in this regard.

As well as the above-mentioned description, the GG's website also had this on international duties:"At the request of the prime minister, the Governor General travels to foreign countries building bridges of friendship and understanding." No mention of the Queen.

I found nothing on The Department of Canadian Heritage's website on the Queen's official duties either. Even when the Queen visits Canada, she comes here at the request of the government and her itinerary is rigidly controlled by Canadian Heritage. As far as I can see, there's no list of the Queen's so-called "official duties", even while in Canada.

That means so far, all we have to validly argue any side of the argument are two quotations by two very high profile cabinet ministers:


 * "We couldn't ask Her Majesty to perform the function she was performing for Britain on that Latin American trip because the Queen is never recognized as Queen of Canada, except when she is in Canada." - External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp, That Reminds Me ... A Memoir 1997

And a new one that I can also add if it helps clarify the situation:


 * "I do believe when most people think about it and realize our head of state is foreign — when she travels she doesn’t represent Canada, she represents Great Britain — I think they kind of realize this is really an institution that’s a bit out of date for Canada to continue with." - Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, October 2002

So that's my main problem. Find something that irrefutably states that when the Queen attends an event such as DDay or Vimy that's she's there performing an official duty to represent Canada as our head of state, than I'll drop my objection to it. Otherwise, she's there as a guest by invitation in an unofficial capacity. The only way I'll agree to keeping any reference to the Queen's international activities where Canada is concerned is if you point out that it's done unofficially and that she is not, either by constitution, convention or statute permitted to officially represent Canada or act on Canada's behalf while not on Canadian soil. - MC Rufus (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is inconsequential. What we have at our disposal are the following facts:
 * The Queen is the personification of Canada; the human representation of the Canadian state.
 * The Queen is recognised as the Canadian head of state.
 * The Queen always acts, in matters pertaining to Canada, on the advice of her Canadian Cabinet.
 * When the Queen acts on the direction of her Canadian Cabinet, she does so as Queen of Canada, not of another country.
 * The Queen was directed by the Canadian Cabinet to participate in the 2004 D-Day anniversary in France.
 * At the ceremonies in question - save for the 2004 D-Day anniversary - the Queen was front and centre, not relegated to the side or behind as a foreign or lesser dignitary.
 * At Vimy in 2007 the Queen was attended by Canadian ministers, not British.
 * None of the events in question was a state visit.
 * Two former republican cabinet ministers hold the personal opinion that the Queen never represents Canada abroad.
 * So, it follows that if the Queen is representative of Canada, and was at these events abroad at the direction of her Canadian government, then she was in attendance as Queen of Canada. Though it's neither here nor there at this point, if the Governor General is there it would be as represenative of the Queen - as she always is - and the PM there are representative of the government - as he always is. Really, this isn't rocket science. --G2bambino (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Next week I have another important and pleasant duty to perform. When I go to the United States I shall be going as the Head of the Canadian Nation to pay a State Visit to the Head of our great neighbouring country." - The Queen in a speech to Canadians in 1957.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, the Queen obviously forgot to mention that to the Americans. The impression when she arrived in Virginia seems to be that it was a British State Visit. In this archive photo of the US visit, I don't see many Canadian Red Ensigns flying. Actually, I don't see any. Oh, but wait, is that the British Union Jack? And does that newspaper headline really say "Britain's Queen Elizabeth visits ...?" If it's a Canadian state visit, shouldn't there be some mention of Canada? The "Text of Elizabeth’s Speech at Dinner" is also quite good.  The Queen: "We are particularly happy to begin our visit to the United States here in Virginia. It is a very pleasant gateway for anyone coming from Britain." What? Didn't she arrive from Canada? A "Canadian State Visit" and no mention at all of Canada? There's more: Here's a 1957 photo from the Washington Post: "Britain's Queen Elizabeth and her husband Prince Philip.". Absolutely shocking. Canada's External Affairs department should be ashamed of themselves. Sending the Queen (with Diefenbaker in tow, no less) on a "Canadian State Visit" and neglecting to tell them.
 * Conclusion: The Queen's comment was for Canadian consumption only with no constitutional basis. (A little propaganda maybe?) - MC Rufus (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that really your only attempt to refute what's been presented? A fall back on American media captions and a personal interpretation of the Queen's words? Pathetic. Try again. --G2bambino (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Queen is the personification of Canada; the human representation of the Canadian state." - Sounds like a cult to me. Whatever ... it has no bearing on the discussion of whether the Queen officially represents Canada when attending events abroad. Funny, one of your links even supports my argument: www.royal.gov.uk says: "The Governor-General's role is built on four major themes: representing the Crown in Canada; -->representing Canadians abroad<-- and promoting their sovereignty; celebrating excellence and bringing Canadians together." "At the request of the Canadian Prime Minister, the Governor-General -->travels to foreign countries building bridges of friendship and understanding<--." There's no mention anywhere that the Queen's duties include this role for Canada.


 * "The Queen is recognised as the Canadian head of state." - Again, unrelated to the discussion. You don't need me to tell you that we have a kind of head of state fairly unique in the world that doesn't have many of the characteristics typical of other countries' executive. One of them is that the Queen's capacity as our head of state begins and ends at our shores. You know, you monarchists are always taking pride in how the international community's definition of head of state doesn't always apply when describing the Queen and her role in Canada. ie: "We have a Sovereign, not head of state," "head of state is a republican invention," and so on. Yet, you have no qualms about using the international formula to back your argument.


 * "The Queen always acts, in matters pertaining to Canada, on the advice of her Canadian Cabinet." - I agree, and it simply backs up what I've said; that the only real "duty" the Queen has is to reply yes or no when asked to add her presence to events or ceremonies.


 * "When the Queen acts on the direction of her Canadian Cabinet, she does so as Queen of Canada, not of another country." - Canadian Cabinet "direction" only applies to matters regarding the operation of our government. The signing of the Constitution Act 1982, was one. She could not refuse to sign it. Ceremonial matters are an entirely different subject. She is asked and has the option of saying no.


 * "The Queen was directed by the Canadian Cabinet to participate in the 2004 D-Day anniversary in France." - You have proof she was "directed?" In reality (expanding on the previous point), she was "asked." As with all ceremonies in which members of the Royal family take part, there was no obligation. A request is sent to the Private Secretary's Office and a decision is made as to whether the Queen is able to attend. Nothing is carved in stone. Once she leaves Canada, there is nothing in our constitution, laws or conventions obligating the Queen to do anything other than stay alive and/or on the throne until her successor is firmly in place. As Head of the Commonwealth, she also gets similar requests from member states that are republics. Her presence at those functions has the same significance.


 * "At the ceremonies in question - save for the 2004 D-Day anniversary - the Queen was front and centre, not relegated to the side or behind as a foreign or lesser dignitary." - Again, you're straying from the point. I didn't say she was a less important dignitary. I said she wasn't there as an official representative of Canada. And speaking of D-Day, both the UK and Canada took part in the invasion. Which country was the Queen representing when she attended the ceremonies? I can only be one.


 * "At Vimy in 2007 the Queen was attended by Canadian ministers, not British." - So what. The Queen travels abroad representing the United Kingdom all the time without government ministers. Besides, I was only speculating on one possible alternative to why she was there. There could be others. I don't see any contradiction in saying that the Queen was invited because of her special relationship with Canada but that officially, she wasn't there on our behalf or as a representative of Canada.


 * "None of the events in question was a state visit." - Excuse me. Allow me to revise that to "state visits and officially representing Canada and Canadians abroad."


 * "Two former republican cabinet ministers hold the personal opinion that the Queen never represents Canada abroad." - Yes, two former senior cabinet ministers, one of them a long-time former external affairs minister, the other a former deputy prime minister, who were directly involved in the operation of our government and external affairs ... versus you with a biased monarchist agenda with nothing to support your claims. Hmm, who to believe?

"So, it follows that if the Queen is representative of Canada, and was at these events abroad at the direction of her Canadian government, then she was in attendance as Queen of Canada. Though it's neither here nor there at this point, if the Governor General is there it would be as represenative of the Queen - as she always is - and the PM there are representative of the government - as he always is. Really, this isn't rocket science."

Correct, it's not. Yet you still obtusely refuse to get the point: On the state level, the Queen represents Canada solely on Canadian soil and the United Kingdom both at home and internationally. On the other hand, officially, the GG represents the Queen but also Canada and Canadians while abroad. Despite being our head of state, you have no documentation to prove that the Queen has any international "official duties" outside of what she has as the UK's head of state and Head of the Commonwealth. On the contrary, I have. Canadian Heritage, the GG's website and www.monarchy.gov.uk sources all clearly outline the governor general's international role and responsiblities regarding Canada yet fail to mention anything about the Queen's. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad you agree there's no real complexity to this. You're quite wrong, though, in the rest of your assertions. You have no evidence to dispel that which was provided to affirm that the Queen does indeed act as Queen of Canada off of Canadian soil, and therefore represents Canada abroad. Acknowleding this fact does nothing to dispel the Governor General's role in foreign affiars, so we can leave that red herring behind. If you're going to be obstinate about this, I suppose we'll have to take it to the next level of dispute resolution. Your call. --G2bambino (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that ironically, you're using republican logic to give validity to your case. Everything you've said about the Queen's alleged ability to represent Canada abroad, as far as most republicans are concerned (I would think), are fundamental tenets to what a head of state should be. If she only held that position for one nation or, ideally, if the UK also had their own office comparible to the governor general, then you'd likely have some success in defending your point of view. However, the Queen can't possibly represent Canada abroad one day and the GG do it the next. a) Who gets to decide when that would be and, b) what happens when their paths cross? (as with D-Day) Nor can she represent Canada on one trip and then New Zealand or Barbados on another. It's bad enough that the Queen represents the UK (the Mitchell Sharp observation is one example of how it doesn't work) but to have that responsibility for all 16 nations that have her as head of state leaves too much potential for accidentally promoting or compromising one nation's interests over another's. The solution to the problem is, for the other 15 nations, to just plain not do it - which is exactly what she does quite skillfully. She treads a fine line but, at best, that's all that can be said. Does the fact that you've not put forth a single piece of constitutional evidence to support otherwise not send up a flag?
 * Dispute resolution may well be the only way out of this. I'm the only party here that's showing any kind of flexibility. I don't object to an alternative viewpoint on the page. I just prefer that none of the monarchy - republic pages do so while promoting fantasy over facts. So again, I'll repeat: "The only way I'll agree to keeping any reference to the Queen's international activities where Canada is concerned is if you point out that it's done unofficially and that she is not, either by constitution, convention or statute permitted to officially represent Canada or act on Canada's behalf while not on Canadian soil." - MC Rufus (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So in other words, the only acceptable article is the one that fits your worldview, even though it has been proven to be false. The Queen herself stating that she represents Canada abroad is a pretty strong statement that the Queen represents Canada abroad. Flags and choice American newspaper headings are not valid refutation of that claim unless they themselves cite where they got their information on the Queen from. If you want to state that the Queen is "not permitted" to do so, especially if by statute or constitution, then you must provide detailed and irrefutable citations detailing that explicitly. One quip by a minister about how most people outside of Canada view the Queen (I'm pretty sure that's what "recognized" means in that quote) is interesting (and should be in the article), but it does not actually make anything law. When the Queen went to Washington in 1957, she went as Queen of Canada. She said she was going as Queen of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada was her Minister-in-Attendance. The Canadian arms were displayed on lecterns from which she spoke. Her return banquet was given at the Canadian Embassy. How is that somehow not the Queen of Canada? Refute that or admit that you are being deliberately contentious.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 02:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; everything Rufus relies on is his own personal interpretations of weakly sourced sources. The best he has to go on are the musings of two ex-ministers, which are themselves personal opinions on the matter. It's all conjecture whose failings are covered behind a thin veil of threats and bombast.
 * The Queen most certainly did represent Canada abroad in 1957, as did her parents in 1939, and as she did at various times in the UK and France over the ensuing years; that the Queen is commonly referred to as "British" - especially by the mass American media - for "reasons historical, political, and of convenience" is of no bearing on which country the sovereign was acting on behalf of, and therefore representing.
 * Enough of this pointless charade. --G2bambino (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's sad enough that we have to go back 50 years for an inkling of an argument for your claim so I definitely won't comment on the 1939 visit other than to say that it preceded the Letters Patent 1947 which I've already included as evidence of the GG's assumed role as Canada's official representative abroad. As far as the Queen being the Queen of Canada, I've never said she wasn't. My point is that officially, she doesn't represent Canada or Canadians abroad and, for that matter, has no obligatory official duties outside of her constitutional role in Canada. The suggestion has been made that the 1957 royal visit was proof otherwise. To further my argument to the contrary, I'm going to ignore the arogance, bombast and name-calling and simply paste some quotations from Buckner, Phillip Alfred - Canada and the End of Empire, Page 67-69 - UBC Press 2004 ISBN: 0774809159 along with my observations. Buckner is a retired University of New Brunswick professor of history.


 * "St. Laurent and Pearson also felt that it was important for the Queen to come to Canada to perform her constitutional functions in person whenever possible, which is why the Liberal government enthusiastically encouraged the Queen to visit Canada en route to the United States in 1957 so that she could open the Canadian Parliament, the first time a monarch had done so in person. (...) However, neither the brief 1957 visit (which was tacked on to the visit to the United States) nor the lengthy 1959 tour had any imperial significance (...)."

This refutes the statement that the Queen's visit to the US was a Canadian "State Visit." In fact, there was initially no plan at all to have the Queen visit Canada in 1957 because she was already scheduled to visit in 1959 to open the St. Lawrence Seaway. The 1957 US Royal Tour was planned from the beginning in Britain as a "British" tour marking the 350th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, VA and also to repair strained relations from the Suez crisis. Visiting Canada was an afterthought which newly elected PM John Diefenbaker exploited to promote his own vision of Canada as a part of a larger British Empire:


 * "During the 1957 and 1958 elections Diefenbaker castigated the Liberals for being pro-American and anti-British, and promised to take measures to strengthen the British connection. He saw Queen Elizabeth's visit in 1957 as an opportunity to emphasize the significance of Canada's British heritage, and he eagerly anticipated her return to Canada in 1959."

Once the Queen was in Canada, Diefenbaker successfully managed to insert Canadian officials and presence into the tour. At the last minute, he even volunteered to become the Queen's senior adviser in order to be part of the scheduled visit with President Eisenhower in Washington. This more detailed passage regarding the 1959 tour reiterates Diefenbaker motivations:


 * "During the 1959 tour, Diefenbaker insisted that the Queen be accompanied at all times by a Canadian cabinet minister in case she needed advice on any pressing matter - in other words to maintain the fiction that while the Queen was in Canada she was an active part of the constitution. Diefenbaker was also determined to make it 'quite clear' to the Americans that the Queen was visiting the United States as Queen of Canada and that 'it is the Canadian embassy and not the British Embassy officials who are in charge' of the Queen's itinerary. The Queen's speeches in Chicago, written by her Canadian ministers, stressed steadily the fact that she had come to call as Queen of Canada."

The point of all this is to prove that the Queen's comments, her speeches and the Canadian presence in the US legs of both the 1957 and 1959 tours were made at the direction of a prime minister (by his own admission) obsessed with promoting a personal anglo-centric view that even then, had no constitutional basis. No prime minister since then has attempted anything remotely similar.

If there's still question as to who the Queen was really "representing" during her tours to the US, this should prove enlightening:


 * "There was a great deal of unofficial British interest in the 1959 tour, which was extensively covered in the British press, but this was more a reflection of the continuing British fascination with the royal family than with the empire or with Canada in particular. British official interest in the 1959 tour was confined largely to the one-day visit to Chicago, which was included on the tour because a British trade fair was being held there."

There's no doubt the 1959 tour was heavily staged-managed to promote the Queen as "The Queen of Canada," the PM even going so far as to put those very words in the Queen's mouth. Yet on the one day she crosses the border to the US, she immediately assumes the role of Britain's head of state concerned not with promoting Canadian trade, but Britain's. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for further affirming that the Queen has represented Canada abroad. --G2bambino (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

-

It appears you've got a different interpretation than I do. Let me walk you through it line by line, adding relevancy to my previous points:

1) St. Laurent asks to have a Canadian visit "tacked on" to the US royal tour in 1957 originally planned as a celebration of the anniversary of the Jamestown settlement founding.

2) Diefenbaker campaigns in 1957 on an anti-US, pro-Britain platform and is PM when the Queen visits.

3) Once the Canadian leg is confirmed, Diefenbaker manages to convince Buckingham Palace to allow Canada to exploit the rest of the tour in the US as a tool to promote his personal view of the monarchy and his campaign promise to "emphasize the significance of Canada's British heritage."

4) The plan falls flat. The Americans don't buy into it. The tour is widely covered as British not Canadian, the royal couple are referred to as British not Canadian and Union Jacks fly instead of Red Ensigns, reinforcing my previous point (and External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp's) that the Queen is only viewed as the Queen of Canada while in Canada.

5) The Queen returns to Canada in 1959 for a cross-Canada tour and while here, takes a one-day side trip across the US border to Chicago. Despite Diefenbaker going to great lengths to bill the trip as a visit from the "Queen of Canada", even going so far as to have the Queen's speeches written by Canadian officials, Time Magazine's coverage said Chicagoans waved Union Jacks with no mention of Canada or "Queen of Canada" . The Queen even fails to shed her role as British head of state by using the occasion to visit the Chicago International Trade Fair. Here she is in a photo with Prince Philip at the British Automobile Manufacturer's Association's exhibit promoting Triumph cars - just a few hour's drive from Canada's auto manufacturing heartland. This example of the Queen promoting British goods at the expense of Canada - right on our doorstep, no less - parallels Mitchell Sharp's similar experience in Latin America - which again, was previously mentioned.

So no, I'm not affirming that the Queen represented Canada abroad at all. There was a very pathetic attempt by a prime minister widely known for being insecure, egocentric, hostile, emotionally immature, mentally unstable, neurotic and paranoid to do so, but it failed - miserably. The Americans didn't fall for it for a second and the Queen, who made a valiant effort to go along with it at first, failed to resist the temptation to resume her role as British head of state once she detoured off Canadian soil for just a single day.

On the contrary, I feel I've made my case very clear: Everything I've raised reinforces the view that The Queen is Queen of Canada while in Canada or Queen of Australia while in Australia, and so on. Despite the isolated and self-serving efforts of a prime minister generally considered to be Canada's worst, even by many members of his own party (his dramatic exit in 1967 as proof), elsewhere, the Queen is recognized internationally as a British queen and conducts herself as British head of state (even when prompted not to). She may accept invitations to attend ceremonial Canadian events in other countries but there is nothing in our Constitution or statutes that says she's obliged to do so or is officially representing Canada when she does. Instead, in Canada's case, both convention and the Letters Patent 1947 grant the role of representing Canada, its interests and people abroad to the governor general. Again, if you have proof of any legislation that says otherwise, I'd like to hear it.

Now, unless you or your monarchist league pal have anything new to add, I have better ways to waste my time than this. I suggest ending this debate now in order for it to be resolved through mediation. - MC Rufus (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I welcome the wider community to come and read your personal opinions and creative interpretations. --G2bambino (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya know MC? Having read you postings, it does appear to say Elizabeth performs her Canadian duties only in Canada. PS- Who's this monarchist league pal, you're speaking of? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Infact, If my memory serves me right - Elizabeth II, when making trips to non-Commonwealth realms? does so as the UK monarch. I can't recall her visiting any of these countries as Canadian, Australian, New Zealand monarch. Even though one can argue, she represents all Commonwealth nations on these trips, she does seem to be commonly called UK monarch on these trips. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, please don't confuse matters. Of course Rufus' arguments make it appear the Queen only performs duties on behalf of Canada in Canada; that's his mission. However, his arguments are of little merit to this project, wherein we have to deal only with the sources provided. Regardless of Rufus' take on the matters, we have sources that state the Queen travelled outside of Canada as Queen of Canada. Further, what she's "commonly called" has little bearing on what she's actually doing. --G2bambino (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But Rufus's pts can't be totally dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of this article they can; they're just personal opinions. --G2bambino (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Canada abroad?
Summary of dispute: Has Queen Elizabeth II represented Canada, as Queen of Canada at any venue outside of Canada? --G2bambino (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can't recall. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's some sources that assist us in the matter:


 * Looks factual to me? Well, MC? GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say Rufus, that it looks like you're trying hard to ignore some pretty good evidence.--Gazzster (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

spelling
Vicegerent's -> Viceregent's Lonestarnot (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ - compare vicegerent with viceregent. Please establish consensus for this change if it really is necessary. Happy‑melon 09:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How many times has the Queen represented Canada abroad?
And how many times has she represented the UK? TharkunColl (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In a fifty-six year reign? qood question. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the relevance of the question?--Gazzster (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's relevant because it gives a good indication of were her priorities lie. It also begs the question as to why some people in former colonies are willing to put up with a second class status under an absentee monarchy. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm experiencing deja-vue, here. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds rather harsh. If you are yourself a monarchist, as I assume you are, you must be more than willing to be second class also (to HM The Queen and fam). Most people who live in monarchies are second class both to the royalty and nobility of the country. Although Canada doesnt have a nobility, does it? --Camaeron (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people anywhere are "willing" to be second class; I don't think anyone in any country tries to really convince themselves that they aren't second class behind politicians, celebrities, professional sports players, and other VIPs. --G2bambino (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt her Maj's priorities, if there is a conflict between a Canadian or UK state function, would be to listen to her UK prime minister first. I still don't see the relevance; it doesn't help us edit this article better.--Gazzster (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have no desire to put up with an absentee monarch. I wish my nation would politely ask her to donate her crown to a museum. But my opinion is neither here nor there.--Gazzster (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks rather likely under your new PM. But I can't imagine the Queen handing over the Imperial State Crown to Australia somehow. Especially as British taxpayers pay for things like crowns etc. Neither Australian or Canadian taxpayers pay for Her Majesties excellent services. --Camaeron (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless HM is providing those excellent services on behalf of Canada or Australia, either in those countries or abroad; the latter, of course, being the source of the dispute that got this page locked in the first place. --G2bambino (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is a pretty silly reason to have the article locked in the first place.--Gazzster (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was a good idea for a while. When is it going to be unblocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaeron (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Guess we could request protection be lifted.--Gazzster (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The stuff in the green box looks pretty indisputable.--Gazzster (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Request the page be unlocked, if yas want. From this time forward, if edit warring breaks out again? my guess is the warriors will get blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A little conflict is good for the blood. And sometimes, the truth will out!--Gazzster (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there's more truth to be told! :) I've been out-of-town for a long weekend. Before the page is unlocked, I'd like a consensus on what stays and what goes as far as the Queen representing Canada is concerned. On Monday, I'll be providing some comments in regards to G2's "indisputable" references above. - MC Rufus (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hardly think that you can deny that Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada (or of New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea, etc) can and does act on behalf of her respective states extraterritorily. Besides the references G2 has provided, consider the logic if that is not the case. It would mean that a Commonwealth realm cannot exercise its sovereign rights outside of its own borders (because its head of state has no authority to so act).In turn that must mean that its sovereignty is limited by another power. What power? If the Queen acts as monarch of Britain whenever she is outside a Commonwealth realm that must mean that power is the United Kingdom. Which is evidentally an absurdity.--Gazzster (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And therein lies the problem: not only will Rufus dismiss the sources with reams of his own personal views on what the Prime Minister at the time was thinking, or political motivations, or what the Queen wanted, he'll take his own sources and write a small essay arguing how the Queen never has been Queen of Canada outside of the Canadian borders. Sources? Even logic? Hmm... don't hold your breath. I can see that this is going to have to go to mediation, unless Rufus relents to what you, GoodDay, Camaeron, and I support. --G2bambino (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But most of the time that is precisely the case. Even if she acted for other realms occasionally, those times a few and far between. TharkunColl (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true Tharky, that she acts more on behalf of the UK than other realms. But she still does. Either she is Sovereign of each and has the power to act as any head of state would on behalf of her country; or the UK still exercises sovereignty over that country.--Gazzster (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is it you have agains Canada and HMs other realms? The Queen herself certainly loves Canada as her realm. I am referring to the famous "Im going home to Canada" quote.. --Camaeron (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing.--Gazzster (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really mean you... = ) --Camaeron (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you meant me, then I must inform you that I have nothing whatsoever against the other realms - quite the contrary in fact. If they want to continue to recognise the British monarchy as their own then that's really nice as well. TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go again. The monarchy is a shared monarchy, why do object so vehemently? I assume you are English and probably even object to the Scots "sharing" "Your" monarchy? --Camaeron (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I object to misrepresentations of fact. Whatever else the Queen might be, she is primarily Queen of the UK. Not necessarily in law, but in fact. Remember that law does not always describe reality. TharkunColl (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been recently having trouble with this topic. Legalisticly? G2 & Cam are correct; but Common Usage wise? Tharky is correct. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother. Now, the rights of Commonwealth realms to exercise their sovereign rights extraterritorily? Pretty obvious, right? Well, that must mean that the head of state must be able to represent each of the realms outside that realm. Therefore she acts as Queen of whatever, not of the UK--Gazzster (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I too and more of a de facto than de jure kind of person. I totally agree: The Queen is most directly involved in the UK, over which some parts of the country her ancestors have reigned for over 1000 years (Wessex). Nevertheless "UK supremacy" neednt be brought up in every monarchy related page, need it? --Camaeron (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, of course not - and I wouldn't call it "supremacy" either. Perhaps the best word is "seniority", which can be used in a purely chronological sense if one wishes. TharkunColl (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * POV. Unless, of course, you have a source. --G2bambino (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I must admit though to being intrigued about the idea that the Queen in right of a particular Commonwealth realm cannot represent that realm outside its borders. That suggests that only the UK monarchy has extraterritorial rights. It's just bizarre.--Gazzster (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know; it's like the President of France being barred from representing Andorra whenever he's out of that country. I give you credit, though, for being a republican while still recognising the Queen's ability to represent your country abroad. --G2bambino (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's so much a question of "rights", as practicalities. She's only one individual and is bound to concentrate on the UK, where she lives and is directly involved in government. TharkunColl (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tharky. But Rufus is claiming, if I understand him correctly, its a matter of law as well. Which is patently not true.--Gazzster (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While you are all here: Are any of you admins? --Camaeron (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should split the monarchy. Each of the Queens children and grandchildren should inherit a throne of their own! That way each monarch would have enough time for "their" country! --Camaeron (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya know that is a possibilty, really. It is legal for each 'realm' to change their 'line of succession'. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course Im looking forward to Charles reign (and Camilla of course). The coronation will be brilliant. But I will also be sad about the Queen! --Camaeron (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I bags Harry! The last monarch of Australia should be a red-haired rebel rouser!--Gazzster (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW I improved the article Most Gracious Majesty. When am I allowed to delete the merger template? --Camaeron (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A similar idea was mooted in the 1950s I believe, when there were still only a handful of realms and the idea might have been feasible. Of course, the idea that Australia, Canada, or New Zealand taxpayers would support a royal establishment of their own is pretty ridiculous I think. And such a monarch would have nothing to do, anyway, unless they changed their constitutions and got rid of the GGs. How likely is that? TharkunColl (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Canadians would I think, they are rather pro monarchy. We will see about the Australians at the next republic referendum! --Camaeron (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows the personal contempt, I have for the office of GG (not to mention the monarchy). GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas, not for a while.Not high on Mr Rudd's priorities.--Gazzster (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added my comments to G2's green box above. To sum up, there's no verifiable proof that the Queen officially supercedes the governor general and represents the Canadian state while abroad. What little support there is for the argument is overwhelmingly contradicted by the Letters Patent 1947, the Department of Canadian Heritage's Order of Precedence and the complete absence of any other official guideline, convention, statute or constitutional reference. Aside from this, my argument is also based on jurisdiction: The Queen cannot simultaneously act as the official head of state of all 16 realms due to the possibility of conflicts in the national interests of those states. The Queen's international role is therefore restricted to her duties as UK Head of State, Head of the Commonwealth or ceremonies conducted unofficially as a courtesy to the requesting nation. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" or what an editor assumes to be true. All of the arguments for the Queen representing realms internationally are based on preconceived assumptions of what is universally expected of a head of state and then citing ceremonies or events to back up those assumptions. Again, in contrast to domestic protocol, in Canada, there is no official policy on the Queen's status as an international representative of the state. Therefore, in its absence, the documentation that is available that clearly spells out the GG's role should be taken as official policy. - MC Rufus (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your pivotal argument seems to be that the Sovereign 'cannot simultaneously act as the official head of state of all 16 realms'. As I've explained above, if you follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion, you must say that Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc cannot exercise their sovereign rights outside of their borders (because the head of state cannot). This is evidentally absurd. And in any case, they do. If they couldn't, they could not have sent troops to Iraq. Nor could they send ambassadors to other nations. And it concerns me that you have dismissed some pretty strong evidence to the contrary without evening considering it. --Gazzster (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Imagine this scenario: The prime ministers of the UK, Canada and Australia are in an international setting attending a ceremony of vital and conflicting relevance to both of those countries. The Queen is also in attendance. Whose head of state is she and which one is she representing? - MC Rufus (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting scenario. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. She'd be each PM's head of state. But, really, enough with the conjecture. Are you going to keep this up, Rufus? If so, we'll have to take this to mediation. Your call. --G2bambino (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with G2 and Gazzster. The evidence really is incontrovertible. You seem to think the Queen is somehow political. Strictly speaking the Queen can't even be classed as a political person. While many things are carried out "by the Queen" and "in Her Majesties name" she doesn't really act politically at all! It would be a catastrophe is she were political. Just look at her three "most imporant" PM's UK = Labour, CAN = Conservative and AUS = Liberal!!!!--Camaeron (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! I forgot about that, the Monarch must be 'above politics'. I remember Diana on video explaining how being a monarch would be restrictive for Charles (in terms of his pension for making political comments). GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The examples given in my argument and demonstrated in Mitchell Sharp's observation weren't political in nature. They were related to the promotion of a nation's interests in regards to trade - an area in which the Queen engages herself quite often. I submitted the Queen's visit to Chicago in 1959 as proof that it's impossible for the Queen to divide her loyalties while outside of Britain or the realms. She spends a week touring Canada as our head of state but the one day she crosses the border to the US, she resumes her duties representing Britain and its trade interests at the expense of Canada. To put this particular example in more clear perspective; she visits a trade show and allows herself to be photographed at the British Automobile Manufacturer's Association's Triumph exhibit - an obvious endorsement of their products. This act would be more than acceptable had the trade show been in the UK, but it's inexcusable during a tour of Canada, a nation that even in 1959, was more reliant on the auto industry than any other for the strength of its econemy. So, forget about political matters. Imagine if the Queen finds herself in the company of the PMs mentioned above and a trade matter has come up. Does the Queen recuse herself? If so, the job cannot be performed effectively by her. Only the Governor General is able to do so. - MC Rufus (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OR, OR, OR. Oh, and POV. If Rufus isn't going to heed the opinions of four other editors, I guess it's to mediation, then. --G2bambino (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's go to mediation, yes. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

State visits to Canada, Australia etc. are as much an instrument of British "foreign" policy as anything else. Why should it be shameful that she promotes British firms in Canada? What else would one expect her to do? That is after all one of her most important modern roles. TharkunColl (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, Thark, you're certainly consistent. --G2bambino (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I really don't see the issue here. Why should it be regarded as extraordinary that the Queen should promote her country abroad? TharkunColl (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see why it's extraordinary either. Rufus, though, seems to think it is. --G2bambino (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is certainly extraordinary (very unusual) for the Queen to represent a different country abroad, though occasionally, and informally, I believe she may have represented Canada. TharkunColl (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that unusual. The Queen may not have undertaken a state visit to anywhere on behalf of Canada since 1959, but she has represented the country - i.e. acted in her role as Queen of Canada - abroad on a few occasions. I don't think this article tries to claim otherwise. --G2bambino (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not just a difference of numbers, but of degree. The occasions when the Queen intervenes in Canadian government are so rare as to be newsworthy, yet she speaks to and advises the British PM every week. Same with visits abroad - it's a difference in kind. TharkunColl (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're getting at. --G2bambino (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Queen's role in the dominions is extremely limited, virtually non-existent, compared to her role in the UK. And yet these articles try and make out that her roles are equal. TharkunColl (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Only where that's the case. As you can see, this instance is not one of them. --G2bambino (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl, again I find myself most in line with your reasoning. The Queen should have every right to do what's expected of any responsible head of state, to represent her country, people and culture both at home and anywhere abroad. The problem arises out of having a head of state shared by more than one country, each with its own interests. The argument amongst some here is that the Queen can effectively do that for the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Barbados, Jamaica, and all the rest of the realms at the same time internationally without overlap or conflict. My point is that it's patently impossible for the Queen to represent Canada and its trade interests while simultaneously promoting Britain's trade interests. We're not part of the British Empire any more so Britain and Canada now compete economically. As does Britain, Canada trades all over the world. So when the Queen visits our trading partners and promotes British products, she does so at our expense. Therefore, the Queen does not represent Canada or its interests. The best that can be said is that she responds when asked to perform ceremonial duties, something I've already pointed out (with citations) that she does for nations who don't have her as head of state. She also clearly represents the Canadian state when she's in Canada. This is what I've been saying consistently from the beginning of this debate (again, with plenty of references and citations to back it up) and this is the point I want made clear on this page. - MC Rufus (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That statement's fine, but you can't apply it to the article as it's complete original research. Has anyone said anything about the Queen travelling simultaneously as multiple monarchs? There are foreign visits that she goes on that have nothing to do with "promoting Britain's trade interests." I sincerely doubt that the Queen was promoting trade when she went to Vimy last year, where, recall, she was accompanied by Canadian ministers, escorted by the RCMP, and was greeted by a Canadian Forces honour guard. She also flew her Canadian standard on the flagpole. How is that the Queen of the United Kingdom promoting "British interests"? There are times (admittedly very few and almost all of a completely ceremonial nature) when the role of the Queen is crystal-clear as being Canadian or whatever other country (though I think Canada is the most common, Australia and New Zealand happened once or twice maybe, and it never happened for any other country). So far your argument against several things consists of a completely contrived need for "constitutional obligation" (which is utter tripe, by the way) and the view of American newspaper editors. You're perfectly right to argue that a great majority of the time, the Queen only travels abroad as Queen of the United Kingdom. However, you have brought merely one vague source from a Canadian minister not speaking officially to advance the view that she can't. You tried the "not permitted by law" aspect and the and failed to provide a law, as well. You also tried the "not Constitutionally obligated" claptrap and failed to show how that's relevant to the article at all. That, to me, shows that you're more worried about promoting your POV on the monarchy (and how it "isn't Canadian") than you are on making Wikipedia a better place.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 06:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How is it original research whan I have citations for all that I've mentioned? I suggest you read the following, which clearly articulates the role of the governor general as Canada's international representative of the State. There are no such citations describing the duties of the Queen while outside Canada. Only events that have taken place due to agenda-driven prime ministers stretching the limits of legislation and protocol. - MC Rufus (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have responded in the table to the "citations," most of which are completely off-topic. Nobody is arguing that the Governor General does not commonly represent the Queen of Canada and Canada in other countries. Nobody is arguing that that does not happen most of the time. Most of those merely state that the Governor General went on a state visit. Whoopdedoo, we know that and nobody doubts it. Somehow you've managed to take the clearly cited and as of yet unrefuted facts of the Queen's actions abroad and twisted them so that you think that we're arguing that the Governor General is irrelevant.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 07:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, monarchists lose their ability to read when thay see facts they don't like. Try reading the title - as well as my comment that preceded it. The list is meant to illustrate the innumerable government references to the GG's international role. Feel free to cite those that do the same for the Queen. I tried and found none, zero, zip, nada. All you've got is Vimy and that does nothing to change the fact that it, like the Diefenbaker fiasco, was an abberation that had no legal basis. Your argument that they represent proof of the Queen's status is equivalent to stealing a loaf of bread and then arguing that since you got away with it, it's now legal to do it again. - MC Rufus (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are citations provided above that you chose not to believe. Luckily they are relevant and you still have yet to refute them with contradictory sources (the Governor General going on state visits does not do that). You agree also, I see, that the Queen has, in the past, performed international functions as Queen of Canada. "Aberration" or not, it has happened and you say so yourself. Citing numerous state visits by the Governor General is still irrelevant in determining the possibility of the Queen doing it too. How can the Queen not be allowed to exercise powers that the Constitution grants solely to her to be delegated as she (through her ministers) sees fit? The Constitution gives vests executive power in the Queen. Foreign trips are an exercise of that power. It's almost nonsensical at this point for you to go on. Whether or not you believe it is right, sane, or good, it has happened and it is pedantry to say that the article should deny it. Even the most ardent republicans on here agree. You are the only one left spewing these unsupported statements that are based solely on your creative interpretations.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 09:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you monarchists would prefer Canada to be ruled by Disneyland fairy princes and princesses who don't have to answer to governments but Canada is, after all, a constitutional monarchy. Meaning: The monarchy is limited and defined by our constitution  and its associated statutes  and conventions. Therefore, because it's a government institution, citing news reports of controversial events, POV by monarchist columnists and newsletters or a link to a postage stamp of the Queen (??) are no match whatsoever for government sources that clearly articulate government policy on who represents the Canadian State abroad. All of my citations, ranging from the offices of the Governor General and Prime Minister, evidence at parliamentary hearings, a Hansard quotation by the Senate Opposition Leader ... all state that it's the governor general's jurisdiction. Conversely, nothing anywhere says it's required or expected of the Queen. Therefore, any participation by the Queen in ceremonies outside of Canada is done by good-will in an un-official capacity and usually by special invitation by Canada - which, by the way, the Queen also does for nations of which she is not head of state.  - MC Rufus (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rufus, you should ease off on the you monarchist... line. I don't hear editors calling us you republicans...? Just some friendly advice. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As always a very prudent idea. Someone could take offence...--Camaeron (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording
While this page remains locked, from the one party that has shown themselves to have an issue with some of the wording here there has been a lot of commentary, speculation, and opinionating, but very little in the way of concrete, and verifiable demands.

So, I was thinking that perhaps before we take this to mediation, those users who've been involved here might collectively come to a conclusion about how to formulate the paragraphs in question.

Presently, the wording it thus:
 * From time to time the sovereign or another member of the Royal Family carry out ceremonial duties on behalf of Canada; the monarch may also undertake constitutional duties. On these occasions they are acting as monarch of Canada and members of the Canadian Royal Family, respectively, and will carry out two types of duties: Official duties involve the sovereign representing the state at home or abroad, or other members representing the sovereign in Canada or elsewhere. For example, the Queen, Prince Charles, and Princess Anne have participated in Canadian ceremonies for the anniversary of D-Day in France, and the Queen has undertaken duties in the United Kingdom on behalf of Canada.  Presently, the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for organizing ceremonial events in Canada involving the Royal Family, as part of the State Ceremonial and Canadian Symbols Program.  Unofficial duties are performed by Royal Family members on behalf of Canadian organizations of which they may be patrons, through their attendance at charity events, visiting with members of the Canadian Forces as Colonel-in-Chief, or marking certain key anniversaries. The invitation and expenses associated with these undertakings are usually borne by the associated organization. In 2002 members of the Royal Family were present at a total of 117 Canadian engagements, 57 events in 2003, 19 in 2004, and 76 in 2005.

Taking into account the above discussion, it might be constructed as something along these lines:


 * Though the monarch and the rest of the Royal Family live predominantly in the United Kingdom, they will, from time to time, carry out ceremonial duties related to Canada; usually important milestones or anniversaries will warrant the presence of the monarch, and other royals will be asked to participate in lesser occasions. In these instances, when acting at the direction of the Canadian Cabinet, they are doing so as monarch of Canada and members of the Canadian Royal Family, respectively, and will carry out two types of duties: Official duties involve the sovereign representing the state at home or abroad, or other Royal Family members participating in a government organised ceremony in Canada or elsewhere. For example, the monarch and/or his or her family have been involved in events in Canada such as various centennials and bicentennials, Canada Day, the openings of Pan American, Olympic and other games, anniversaries of First Nations treaty signings, award ceremonies, D-Day commemorations, anniversaries of the monarch's accession, and the like. Presently, the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for organizing official events in Canada involving the Royal Family, as part of the State Ceremonial and Canadian Symbols Program.  Also, while the sovereign and his or her family more frequently represent the UK abroad, as directed by the British Cabinet, and typically the Governor General, as representative of the monarch, will undertake state visits and other foreign duties on behalf of Canada,  the Royal Family have taken part in Canadian events overseas: King Edward VIII dedicated the Canadian National Vimy Memorial in France, George VI and his wife visited the United States as King and Queen of Canada,  and Queen Elizabeth II has undertaken duties on behalf of Canada in the US,   the United Kingdom, and France.   Other royals have participated in Canadian ceremonies abroad such as Prince Charles at the anniversary of D-Day in France, and Prince Edward at the anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele in Belgium.  Unofficial duties are performed by Royal Family members on behalf of Canadian organizations of which they may be patrons, through their attendance at charity events, visiting with members of the Canadian Forces as Colonel-in-Chief, or marking certain key anniversaries. The invitation and expenses associated with these undertakings are usually borne by the associated organization. In 2002 members of the Royal Family were present at a total of 117 Canadian engagements, 57 events in 2003, 19 in 2004, and 76 in 2005.

Along with this, I'd also rename the section "Embodiment of the state" to "Representing the state," and would delete the section "Royal presence" as much of it is now duplicated above, as well as, perhaps, merge in "Symbols."

Thoughts? --G2bambino (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have just said. Brilliant work! --Camaeron (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes, add it to the article. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we get this page unlocked, then? --G2bambino (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone not party to the earlier "dispute," would you mind putting in the request, GoodDay? --G2bambino (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider it done (I've put the request in). GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the edit wars then = )! --Camaeron (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain, but after a page is unprotected, the unprotecting Administrator may keep it on his/her watchlist for awhile (incase of edit wars). Then (I assume) the next step would be 'blocks' for warring editors. Again, that's all up to the individual Admins. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, GoodDay; I forgot to say thanks for putting in the unlock request. --G2bambino (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob; you're quite welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement Tag
I assume MC, you still feel this article is heavily 'pro-monarchist'? GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's not. It is facts in their purest form. --Camaeron (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family article
Wikipedia has advised us that this (Monarchy of Canada) article is too long. I recommend we take out the 'Royal Family' section & make it the Canadian Royal Family article. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms project to re-create Canadian Royal Family article
WikiProject Commonwealth realms are planning to re-create the article Canadian Royal Family to shorten this page somewhat. Any comments, advice or criticism can be voiced here. As we value your opinion highly, we shan't start anything before you have had enough time to voice any concerns or worries. Thank you for your cooperation...--Camaeron (t/c) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Vimy photo copyright infringement
G2bambino, you have deleted comments about this issue. Hopefully, this one will last more than a day. So, I will repeat here: The image EIIR-DofE-Vimy.jpg at Monarchy_of_Canada originated from WireImage.com (now owned by Getty Images), a commercial photo website and its usage and copyright are controlled by the original licensing agreement likely granted to the owner of the blog where it was illegally taken. Wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines clearly state: "binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights." May I also point out that I contacted Getty Images to clarify how they administer copyright-protected photos obtained from their websites. These are their comments: I would highly recommend that you sort this out with them before you continue to steal photography from them or other sources: Copyright Agent, Getty Images Legal Department, 601 N. 34th Street, Seattle, WA 98103 (206) 925-5000 copyright@gettyimages.com - McRuf2 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "None of the images on our site are available for educational use without a license. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Anyone using images from our site must comply with the copyright terms that govern the images. Your email has been forwarded to the appropriate department for investigation."
 * I think you better get someone more knowlegable on the subject to weigh in here; frankly, given your motives and your lack of legal expertise I can't just take your word for it. I'm no copyright lawyer either, but by my reading of the fair use guidelines, this image is perfectly acceptable for use in Wikipedia; the word may in your quote from the guidelines is key. --G2bambino (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is moved to Image talk:EIIR-DofE-Vimy.jpg. --G2bambino (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that this image has been deleted by Wikipedia, I trust the reason for their decision is clear and that my alleged "motives" and assumed "lack of legal expertise" are no longer an issue. In this regard, I will only say I couldn't care less whether the image stayed or went since it did nothing to further the argument that the Queen was Canada's official representative at the Vimy ceremony. However, I will admit to being committed to making sure you, G2, are held to the same strict standards you have established for my editing. In the future, you may want to follow the advice at Requesting copyright permission before acquiring copyright images. - McRuf2 (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reasons for the decision were not clear; a request to the deleting admin for clarification went unheeded. As for your claims, I reiterate: given your past actions, I can't just take your word for anything. I'm glad, however, that you've finally opted to have some standards. That is, at least, a step in the right direction. --G2bambino (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you being funny or just plain stubborn? Jeepday explained it pretty clearly at your Talkpage User_talk:G2bambino. Re; standards; are those by any chance the same standards you ignored? - McRuf2 (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore his message, no. Perhaps, though, you should be. --G2bambino (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn
I have withdrawn the recent FAC nomination as premature, based on the current state of the article, the nominator's lack of participation and the significantly principle contributor's feedback at FAC. I suggest taking the article through peer review before another run at WP:FAC. Good luck! Maralia (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)