Talk:Republicanism in Canada/Archive 1

Split from republican page
This whole article was included on the main Republican page, which was out of proportion and it would have gotten worse, as people added more to it. So it now appears rightly as its own page.

Whoever wants to update this page, should consider writing a better summary on the Republican page -- but best to keep it just to a one paragraph summary, like the other countries.

Relevance of Monarchist Links
I see no point in having external links to monarchist pages if this is going to be a page on Canadian Republicanism.-I eat cake! :-&gt;
 * See Neutral Point of View or External links as to why this is. --Lholden 05:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict:] They are needed for NPOV Brian | (Talk) 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So have them seperated as "Links against a republican government" or something. MikailMoolla 06:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken Links
The link [1] at the bottom of the Constitutional implications section is broken, the article to which it linked has been removed. Patadragon 07:23, 7 March 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 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Polls
Let's have the dispute here, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems Rufus isn't really one for discussion. --G2bambino (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented 10 minutes ago but it's not here - so maybe I didn't Save Page (?). Anyway, to repeat: the LATEST polls (not all) belong here because a] they add to the readers' insight about contemporary republican sentiment as a compliment to the historical and b] current polling appears on the Republicanism in Australia page under Current status without any objection whatsoever and no interest at all in removing it. It's obvious to me what the motivation is here. A known monarchist is doing his best to downplay the poll results, which show very low support for the monarchy.MC Rufus (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing; I apologise if I misjudged the reason for your lack of earlier comment.
 * As for the poll, I don't see how it specifically relates to republicanism; nowhere does it gague respondents' feelings on a republic, only the monarchy. Republicanism in Australia is, of course, another article all-together and this one need not be identical to it, however, the polls you point to there do focus precisely on the question of a republic. Perhaps the 2002 Ipsos-Ried poll which found 48% of Canadians said that "the constitutional monarchy is outmoded and would prefer a republican system of government with an elected head of state" would be more apt here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you should take up the issue of poll wording with Ipsos-Ried. In the meantime, I think it's safe to say that the phrase "ending its formal ties to the British monarchy" is universally acknowledged as becoming a republic. If you have data to disprove this, I'd like to see it. MC Rufus (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's safe for you to say in talk pages all you like, but not to insert into Wikipedia. You must provide the data that affirms your statement that the respondents were thinking of a republic when answering this question on the monarchy. --G2bambino (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nuts. I agree with MC Rufus. You would have to be living under a rock not to know that "ending its formal ties to the British monarchy" is the same as becoming a republic. Also, the fact that current public opion polls appear without contest on the Aus republic page is significant fuel to keep it. Jaye Peghtyff (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it isn't. There's the possibility of a monarchy not in personal union. I'm not saying that's what respondents were thinking, but then there's nothing to say they were thinking of a republic either; I imagine most Canadians don't know enough about constitutional structures to know that no monarchy equals republic. --G2bambino (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've little faith in polls (remember Diefenbaker quote), but since they're at the Aussi republican articles? it won't hurt to have them here. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The point, GoodDay, is that the polls at the article Republicanism in Australia specifically asked respondents about a republic. Only one Canadian poll has ever done so, the rest just being about "cutting ties" to the present monarchy, which leaves the option of a purely Canadian monarchy.
 * Oh yes, "Dief the Chief." Better known as the Canadian PM who almost wiped out the Canadian aircraft industry by killing the Avro Arrow and who fought to the death against Canada's new Maple Leaf flag. He probably didn't like polls because they were always against him. - MC Rufus (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. Yep, the Chief was a monarchist. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Head of State
It's often assumed that if Canada became a republic? It would create an office called President of Canada to be Head of State. Has there ever been suggestions of simply bestowing 'Head of State title & duties' on the Canadian Prime Minister? Now, more so with 'fixed' Federal Elections? If so, these suggestions should be added aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember this being a topic of discussion in Australia before their referendum. It has precedent in the Commonwealth - South Africa. They went from const. monarchy to republic in the early 60s and at first had a prez and PM but then revised their constitution and merged the 2. I'll see if I can dig up anything about Canadian republicans with similar thoughts. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Restored Republicanism in Canada
Apparently this page was merged with the Debate on the monarchy in Canada page without sufficient debate. Issues that need discussing:


 * What the argument is (if any) for not having a Canadian equivalent to Republicanism in Australia and Republicanism in New Zealand,


 * The need for a page to answer searches for republicanism in Canada. Without this page, there is none.


 * Moving all material from Debate on the monarchy in Canada to this page that relates to the history of republicanism and the republican movement as well as the contemporary political and cultural ramifications. Then, if Debate on the monarchy in Canada is to remain, it can do so as an extension of this page to further only the debate over the pros and cons.

McRuf2 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder what you mean by "sufficient debate."
 * Regardless, to address each of your points:
 * Canadian articles need not mirror other countries' articles.
 * This page was made as a redirect, therefore a search on republicanism in Canada would take one immediately to Debate on the monarchy in Canada
 * It would be rather difficult, I imagine, for readers to get the jist of the debate when it's split into two separate places. Further, there would necessarily be an awful lot of repetition in order to maintain context in each article. If the debate on the monarchy is the history of republicanism, then why have two articles that say the same thing? --G2bambino (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that this page should describe the republican movement in Canada and its history, but the arguments pro/against monarchy should be on the common debate page. --zorxd (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Governor of the Church of England (in England only)
I think the "(in England only)" is irrelevant to the article. It must have been added by a monarchist who wanted to minimze the republican argument that the queen, being the head of a specific religion, can't be representative of Canada. And still, if the queen visit Canada (or any other country), she is still the head of the church of England, so we can't say that this is only true in England. Is there an other Chuch of England than the one she is governing? Does the pope stop being the head of the roman catholic religion if he vists a muslim country? --zorxd (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And you removed it because you're a repubican who wants to maxiimise the republican argument that the Queen, being the head of a specific religion, can't be representative of Canada? I only ask to point out the fallaciousness of pointlessly ascribing imaginary motives to other editors.
 * Perhaps the sentence in question isn't worded properly, but Elizabeth II is Head of the Church of England only in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom. As the totally separate Queen of Canada, she is head of no church; this was explicitly laid out in the Canadian parliament during the debates on her title in 1953. Republicans can focus on Elizabeth II's role as Head of the Church of England in their arguments against the Crown, but they're complaining about the Queen of the UK, not the Queen of Canada. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, though: I can't understand why you're focusing on this minutae after opening up the possibility of merging this article and Monarchism in Canada together into Debate on the monarchy in Canada. Whatever work you do here may well be undone should it be combined with other material. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What you said (distinction between queen of the UK and queen of Canada) is a monarchist argument, I thought you said that it should not be included in an article about republicanism? The republican argument here is that the queen (the person, not the function) happens to be the head of the church of England even if it was chosen by an other country. Clearly, the fact that you reverted my edit shows that you want both of monarchism and republicanism in canada to be pro-monarchy. --zorxd (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. But it doesn't matter if this article's going to be merged anyway. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it get merged, it still need more balance. And if it doesn't get merged, well, this article needs even more to be freed of monarchist bias, because its counterpart is very monarchist. Tell me what the parenthesis add to the article? Is there a source for this? Do republicans make the distinction? At a bare minimum, it is badly written, because as it is, it is plain false : the queen is still head of the church of England outside England.--zorxd (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no sense in caring either way until the decision to merge or not has been made. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Even if we merge, this will have to be done. If it's that case, we could then add that monarchists answers that we must make a distinction between the canadian monarch and the UK's, and that it is the later who hold that title. This would be a valid counter-argument to insert in the common debate page as I see it. --zorxd (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you don't understand that some republicans view the fact that the person who is the head of Canada is also the head of a Church as an argument against the monarchy. You can counter this argument by saying that it is important to make the distinction between the Queen of the UK and then Queen of Canada if you want, but the republican argument should still be presented with all its strength. In the article, "the sovereign" should refer to the person, not the institution. Unfortunately, I don't see a better word as all of sovereign, monarch, queen, etc. can refer to both the institution or the person. Still, it is not false to say that the sovereign has a role as a head of a religion, and that's what should be in the article, without the parenthesis. --zorxd (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

pro-monarchy biased paragrah
Saying that it isn't a valid claim is a monarchist POV. Also, I don't think republicans care that much about if the monarch is a citizen or not once on the throne. The problem they see it that it isn't a Canadian, and that it shouldn't be above laws. It is irrelevant if the Queen has a special status in the UK which makes her a citizen of the UK or not. Like it or not, she is born in a foreign country, represent (most of the time) a foreign country, and lives in a foreign country, which is more than enough for republicans to claim that she is foreign. Finally, it is giving undue weight to acts of vandalism by anti-monarchists to discredit the opposition to the monarchy. It should be replaced with something like :
 * Republicans view the Canadian monarchy as "outdated and irrelevant,"[12] and an undemocratic institution because the incumbent sovereign is neither elected and nor a citizen once on the throne; republicans will phrase this argument as "no Canadian citizen can become head of state," though this is technically not a valid claim. Without the democratic legitimacy they personally desire, some anti-monarchists refuse to recognize the authority of the Crown, expressing this through, for example, vandalism of royal symbols or ignoring the enforcement of traffic law by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.[14]
 * Republicans view the Canadian monarchy as "outdated and irrelevant,"[12] and an undemocratic institution because the incumbent sovereign is neither elected and nor a Canadian citizen. Monarchists reply that technically, the monarch is no less Canadian than British as it is not considered a citizen by any country. Without the democratic legitimacy they personally desire, some anti-monarchists refuse to recognize the authority of the Crown. --zorxd (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not ask a Canadian republican (such as me)? Personally, I see all monarchies as a hypocracy to democracy. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to fix alleged POV with more POV isn't really very productive. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Monarchism is a PoV, Republicanism is a PoV. Combine them (i.e this article & Monarchism in Canada) & you'll have a balanced article. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with that they should be merged. --zorxd (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not behing coherent. You said that republican statements weren't allowed on the page about monarchism, and now you want to leave monarchist POV in a republican article. --zorxd (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's your incoherence you must deal with: I never said there was monarchist POV, let alone that I want to keep it. Perhaps you've too many debates on the go at the same time? I said: trying to fix alleged POV with more POV isn't really very productive. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could instead point the problems in my current formulation? --zorxd (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you mean. The fact that it isn't elected should be separated from the fact that it isn't a Canadian citizen. What about :


 * Republicans view the monarchy as "outdated and irrelevant,"[12] and an undemocratic institution because the incumbent sovereign is not elected. In the particular case of Canada, republicans view an added lack of democracy from the fact that the monarch isn't a citizen of the country. Monarchists reply that technically, the monarch is no less Canadian than British, as it is not considered a citizen by any country. Without the democratic legitimacy they desire, some anti-monarchists refuse to recognize the authority of the Crown. --zorxd (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to get 100% balance on any political article, particularly if ya lack the sources. For example: if you edit in at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom & Monarchy of Canada (or any Monarchy of... article), her position was established hundreds of years ago, via dictatorial means? you'll need sources. Concerning Liz's page you gotta be mindful of WP:BLP. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes little sense. No sovereign is elected, not just the incumbent. The only elected sovereigns occupy their office for life, which is not advocated by Canada's republican organisation. I believe the contention to the republican claim r.e. citizenship is not a monarchist one but one of logic: a Canadian citizen can become the king or queen of Canada via a change to the laws of succession. And "some" is a weasel word. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a partially-elected sovereign (the Pope). There's also republican PoV on republican related articles. I doubt you'll find anything about American pro-monarchists at Barack Obama or President of the United States articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have said: The only elected sovereign occupies his office for life. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New proposal :
 * Republicans view the monarchy as "outdated and irrelevant,"[12] and an undemocratic institution because the incumbent sovereign is not elected. In the particular case of Canada, republicans view an added lack of democracy from the fact that the monarch isn't a citizen of the country. Monarchists not particularly loyal to the British royal familly reply that technically, the Canadian succession law could be changed so that a Canadian becomes the successor{citation needed}.  --zorxd (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

National identity
I think this section lacks neutrality mostly because of its tone, balance, undue weight to monarchist arguments, and its reliance on monarchist sources.

1st paragraph
This paragraph fail to show the real republican arguments. Almost all of them are minimized or refuted to show that they are wrong compared to a subtle, but persuasively written, monarchist argument. Wrong. It is not representative of Canada because it is first and before everything else a British tradition. It is associated to the UK and republican do not care that the association is "popular" or not. Republican do not care either that a distinct legal concept called the Canadian monarchy was created or not. They have nothing about its shared nature. If other countries want to select an hypothetical elected head of state as their monarch, they won't care "sharing it" this way. For example, people in France do not see its elected president as foreign even if it is a co-prince of Andora. People in Andora probably do, however. Why? Because he's French, elected by the French, live in France, and spend most of his time working on French issues. Likewise, republicans in the UK probably don't use the "foreign" argument, as they all know that it isn't valid in their country.
 * Republicans in Canada assert that their country's monarchy, due either to its popular associations with the United Kingdom, its shared nature, or both, cannot be representative of the Canadian nation.

see dedicated comment about that part
 * Their position is that because of its hereditary aspects, the sovereign's role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England (in England only), and the provisions of the Act of Settlement, 1701, that currently bar Roman Catholics from the line of succession, the monarchy is inherently contrary to egalitarianism and multiculturalism.

Way too much emphasis on the opposing position. Republicans don't care what the official position of the government is, what the member of the Royal Family are told to say, and know that in the law there is a distinct Canadian monarchy, but still see the monarchy as British and foreign. It should not be presented as if it was a mistake only because the author of the article disagree. Also, "some" is a weasel word here.
 * Further, though it diverges from both the official position of the Canadian government and the opinions of some judges, legal scholars,[4][5][6][7][8] and members of the Royal Family themselves,[9][10][11]  republicans deem the King or Queen of Canada  to be either a solely British or English individual representing a British institution foreign to Canada.

Why do we care that the full independence was achieved or not in 1982? Seems like an other sentence to show that republicans are wrong (why would someone want more independence from the UK by putting an end to the monarchy if the full independence was achieved already?)
 * Founded on this perception is the republican assertion that national pride is diminished by the monarchy,[13] its presence negating the country's full independence achieved in 1982

true, but also "is a constant reminder to our francophone population of their defeat and subjugation". Something about the francophone population should be added.
 * and makes Canada appear colonial and subservient to the United Kingdom, under which they feel Canadians suffered "military, economic, and cultural subjugation."[14] 

That must have been written by a monarchist again. Republicans do not care about a "locus of allegiance". Only monarchists do, and they see the flag or the country as a ridiculous one (hence the quotes around "country"). So the objective of this sentence is again, to make fun of republican arguments.
 * Instead, equating anti-monarchism with patriotism,[12] they desire a Canadian citizen to act as head of state,[2]  and promote the national flag and/or the "country" as a more fitting locus of allegiance.

2nd paragraph
What better than a monarchist source to say that the Quebec separatism is "the major impetus of political controversy around the Crown" in an article about republicanism in Canada?
 * This questioning of the monarchy's role in Canadian identity arose as a part of wider cultural changes that followed the evolution of the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations, the rise of anti-establishmentism, the creation of multiculturalism as an official policy in Canada, and Quebec separatism began to blossom; the latter becoming the major impetus of political controversy around the Crown.[15]

Yeah right, all anti-monarchists are anti-Anglophone separatists, and we need to put the emphasis on a marxist terrorist group as representative of them, as well as other criminals or immoral Quebecers.
 * Quebec nationalists agitated for an independent Quebec republic – such as the Marxist form desired by the Front de libération du Québec[16] – and the monarchy was targeted as a symbol of anti-Anglophone demonstration notably when assassination threats were in 1964 made against Queen Elizabeth II and Quebecers turned their backs on her procession when she toured Quebec City that year

While some parts are true, others a questionable (such as the need for change for the sake of change). Is a former representative of the monarch the best spokesman for making a summary of republican arguments? Of course not.
 * In a 1970 speech to the Empire Club of Canada, Former Governor General Roland Michener summed up the contemporary arguments against the Crown: From its opponents, he said, came the claims that monarchies are unfashionable, republics – other than those with oppressive regimes – offer more freedom, people are given greater dignity from choosing their head of state, the monarchy is foreign and incompatible with Canada's multicultural society, and that there should be change for the sake of change alone

3rd paragraph
Wow, an other monarchist argument again. This one is not very subtle however. But the question is : why should the quiet revolution have inspired Canadians, as it happened only in Quebec?
 * However, though it was later thought the Quiet Revolution and the period beyond should have inspired more republicanism amongst Canadians, they did not

Who is Reg Whitaker and why do we care about his view? That said, he probably forgot all those Quebec nationalists who are federalists.
 * Reg Whitaker blamed this on a combination of Quebec nationalists having no interest in the monarchy (as full sovereignty and their own form of government was their ultimate goal) with the remainder of the population simultaneously struggling with "bilingualism, dualism, special status, distinct society, asymmetrical federalism, sovereignty-association, partnership, and so on."

Should it have been different? What is so surprising? Not very neutral tone here. Also, some polls probably contradict the statement that it "did not inspire any desires to alter or remove the role of the Crown in Canada".
 * Even the rise in multi-ethnic immigration to Canada in the 1970s did not inspire any desires to alter or remove the role of the Crown in Canada, the ethno-cultural groups not wanting to push constitutional change over a matter they had little concern for.

4th paragraph
Now we have a very strange paragraph : Right, we now understand that the author is a supporter of Harper. Because, of course, making efforts to diminish the stature of the monarchy is wrong. Also, the statement about Harper is not sourced. And the source provided (why is it there, we don't know?), is, of course, a monarchist one.
 * Instead, until the appointment of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, successive governments made subtle efforts to diminish the stature of the Canadian monarchy

Who is David Smith and why do we care about what he said? This is very vague. What past are we talking about?
 *  — as David Smith said: "the historic Crown with its anthem, emblems, and symbolism made accessible a past the government of the day rejected"[24]

Vague reference to something Trudeau did. The reader probably won't understand. But what he will maybe conclude from the whole sentence is that previous governments tried to weaken the monarchy without openly admitting it (meaning that they were hypocrite to do so).
 *  — though never, since the reaction to some of Pierre Trudeau's proposals for alterations to the monarchy and its role in Canada, publicly revealing their stances on the Crown

Now we understand. The whole idea of the paragraph was to introduce this monarchist POV. I think it should all be removed.
 * All Canadians were being encouraged to "neglect, ignore, forget, reject, debase, suppress, even hate and certainly treat as foreign what their parents and grandparents, whether spiritual or blood, regarded as the basis of Canadian nationhood, autonomy and history," including the monarchy

5th paragraph
Then, the beginning of the next paragraph seems fine until : Why do we care about the golden jubilee? This is only trying to show that Manley is a bad man (only a stone heart would talk about republicanism when the queen celebrate her Golden Jubilee). Of course we then insists on the opposition from other cabinet members. The same sentence about Manley is then repeated again, that must be a mistake.
 * Then, just prior to the Queen's pan-country tour to celebrate her Golden Jubilee the following year, Manley (at that point the designated minister in attendance for the sovereign's arrival in Ottawa) again stated his preference for a "wholly Canadian" institution to replace the present monarchy after the reign of the Queen;[33] he was rebuked by other Cabinet members, a former prime minister, and the Leader of the Opposition,as well as a number of prominent journalists

6th paragraph
Wow, how to show again that a republican is stupid: only a stupid man would cite a constitutional monarchy as an example of republic. And the linked source doesn't work. Why do we care about Lawrence Martin, by the way? At least his name is linked to a wikipedia article saying that he is a journalist, but that should be added here too.
 * Lawrence Martin called for Canada to become a republic in order to re-brand the nation and better its standings in the international market, he cited Sweden – a constitutional monarchy  – as an example to be followed

7th paragraph
The (monarchist, again) source doesn't say that the Globe and Mail began a campaign against the monarchy. This is a POV.
 * In 2002, the group Citizens for a Canadian Republic was established to promote the abolition of the Canadian monarchy in favour of a republic, at approximately the same time The Globe and Mail newspaper began a campaign against the monarchy,[37] with three republican journalists on staff – Margaret Wente, Jeffrey Simpson,[38]  and Lawrence Martin[39] – though the editorial board argued Canada could dispose of its monarchy without becoming a republic.

8th paragraph
Why do we care about the view of this monarchist? Is it really more important than talking about the republican calls issued in 2009, which aren't even described? --zorxd (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Such calls issued in 2009, at the time of the tour of Canada by Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, were critiqued by Maclean's journalist Andrew Coyne when he wrote: "The [anti-monarchy] view is on parade again, in all its preening, modish finery, as it is on the occasion of any royal visit. It is a kind of custom, a ritual show of disloyalty as hoary in its way as any gathering of the Daughters of the Empire. Scarcely have the Queen or Prince Charles set foot on Canadian soil before they are greeted with a 21-gun salute of newspaper columns complaining at the outmodedness of it all. Here we are in the 21st century, and still a monarchy? Well, yes. And while we're at it, isn't democracy getting a little long in the tooth as well? How long has it been, 2,000 years? And that system of English common law, whew, isn't it time we replaced the liner on that?"[23]

Recent edits
An IP added the words "contrary to" to an existing statement which maintains that republican views diverge from the federal government. I removed that POV addition. My edit was then reverted and finally the earlier word, "diverged" was removed for being "redundant". If using both words is redundant, why not use the original text as is?  freshacconci  talk talk  00:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the original IP diffs for reference. The sources were for the original wording, not "contrary to".  freshacconci  talk talk  00:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Diverges from", "contrary to"; there's little difference between the two phrases. The position of the government, scholars, and the like is sourced and the position of republicans is sourced, and the two are clearly divergent, or contrary. We just didn't need the same thing said twice. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so let's keep it the way it was. That's all I'm saying. And there is a difference between the two words, but since you feel there isn't, "diverges from" will do, correct?  freshacconci  talk talk  00:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Annexation is not the same as Republicanism
Just below the opening paragraph is says - Since the American Revolution, there have also been various, less popular movements advocating joining the United States. This shoould be removed as this article is about Republican movements in Canada, not Annexationist movements in Canada, like the sentence provided is about, if there needs to be any mention of annexationist movements than mention it in the "See Also" section of the article.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Republicanism in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115220824/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/backgrounder/queen/stories/related02.html to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/backgrounder/queen/stories/related02.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708032249/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2004/Sum04PDFRepublicanism.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2004/Sum04PDFRepublicanism.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708033423/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2003/CMN_summer_2003_Update-11.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2003/CMN_summer_2003_Update-11.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116025529/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/1998/12/18/monarchy981218.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/1998/12/18/monarchy981218.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120127145352/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/15/pol-liberal-convention-sunday.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/15/pol-liberal-convention-sunday.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Republicanism in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708001344/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/1998/manley.htm to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/1998/manley.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)