Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

NPOV

The article is biased towards a monarchist interpretation. I attempted to make the lede NPOV, based on nothing less than the source that the lede cited, and this was reverted. see [1]

The source cited for the first sentence says in the section "concept of the crown" (see [2] "The responsibility for governing at the federal level is shared by the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Technically, all three powers flow from the Crown." The opening line however lacks this nuance and equivicality by saying "The Monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism and its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy,[2] being the foundation of the executive (Queen-in-Council), legislative (Queen-in-Parliament), and judiciary (Queen-on-the-Bench) in the federal and each provincial jurisdiction".

My suggested change was to "The Monarchy of Canada, in the form of the Crown, is part of Canada's constitutional strucure. Technically, the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the state flow from the Crown which is represented federally by the Governor General of Canada and provincially by lieutanant-governors.[2] being the foundation of the executive (Queen-in-Council), legislative (Queen-in-Parliament), and judiciary (Queen-on-the-Bench) in the federal and each provincial jurisdiction" which, while a reflection of a monarchist viewpoint, lacks nuance and also is contestable as many political theorists would contend that this concept is merely symbolic and does not represent the actuality of how federalism, let alone parliamentary government work. My change was reverted on a fairly weak ground, the claim that the lede is not for "technalities." Cute, but simply using the word "technically" is quite different from going into technicalities in detail. 199.212.67.226 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about "bias", but otherwise, as I understand it, while the rest of the comment is not far off the mark, something more concise than the undone edit would be better suited for the lead. Qexigator (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Although the sovereign does not personally get involved in administering Canada, the various branches act on the authority of the Crown. That is actually different from a republic where they act on behalf of the people and is more than a technical distinction. If you want to change the article (1) don't start by insulting other editors and (2) provide a source for your changes. TFD (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the proposed lead is, 1: "The Monarchy of Canada, in the form of the Crown" does not make any sense, as the monarchy is the Crown. See the Interpretations Act. 2: "Technically, the powers of the executive..." is problematic, as it is not a mere technicality but a fact enshrined in both practice and law. All Orders in Council, Instruments of Advice, and legislation must be signed by the sovereign or their representative to have any legal effect. The function of Canada's monarchical system of governance is, by definition, a "monarchist viewpoint" as Canada is a monarchy. To suggest that Canadian experts should have a "non-monarchical viewpoint" regarding Canada's monarchy is nonsensical gibberish. 4: Your assertion that the entire foundation of Canada's constitutional system is merely symbolic and "does not represent the actuality of how federalism, let alone parliamentary government work" is unsubstantiated opinion, and is clearly contradicted in numerous legal decisions, legislative acts, official publications, academic and expert sources, and the operation of government itself. trackratte (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't insulted anyone and I gave the source for the change at the time, it's actually the source that was originally claimed as support for the sentence - except what the source said was more nunaced ie "The responsibility for governing at the federal level is shared by the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Technically, all three powers flow from the Crown." 199.212.67.12 (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My original change was [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&type=revision&diff=707567045&oldid=707474588] and my edit note at the time was "Previous opening did not [reflect] what the source actually said and overstates the case in a POV manner. Source actually says "Technically, all three powers flow from the Crown", not the monarchy is at the "core"." 199.212.67.12 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. One of the problems with this article is an over-reliance on government and (as you would agree) monarchist literature. We should be using academic writing for example The Invisible Crown If you were to say that the Queen Elizabeth's role is technical, that is correct, and that has always been the case. That is actually consistent with the monarchist view. But the consequence of applying a medieval institution to a modern state is that it operates in practice differently from a republic or a Scandinavian monarchy with a clearly defined role for the Crown. TFD (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the proposed change acceptable (ie the change that was reverted)? It's more neutral, more accurate, and is neither republican nor anti-monarchist. 199.212.67.12 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is better than what's there now; right now it reads like a love letter to the Queen. Maybe something about the symbolic nature of the role of the Monarch, with all of her constitutional powers being exercised by either her vice-regal representatives or the governments? Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

IP, define your conception of "monarchist interpretation". Canada is a monarchy, thus its entire system is inherently monarchical. So, to accuse Canadian authorities' and scholars' "monarchist interpretation" as biased is nonsense, in the exact same way as saying that "republican interpretations" of the office of the President of the United States are somehow POV. It is doubtful that adding monarchical interpretations to the President of the United States page would be adding "balance" or further a neutral point of view. The same can be said about adding non-monarchical interpretations to a page about the monarchy of Canada.

Your main issue seems to be that you feel that the lead was not adequately substantiated. I've since added two academic references from Canada's (arguably since the passing of Eugene Forsey) most respected and well-published constitutional expert. I can dig up more when I have the time. As you haven't mentioned anything else, I consider the matter at hand resolved, since the fact that the Crown is at the root of/foundation of/core of Canada's entire constitutional order is not a matter of dispute in any serious official, academic, or legal circles. trackratte (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. My problem with the intro is that it does not reflect the reality of the monarch's status. I'm a monarchist myself, but reading the first paragraph makes me blush. Let's change it to something that reflects the political reality of the role of the crown, not the impression you'd get reading the written part of our constitution. You know as well as I do that in practice the powers of the monarch are executed through her governments and representatives, so I think the intro of the page should reflect that fact, rather than making it seem like the Queen is the #1 most important part of Canada (again, correct according to the written constitution, but clearly not the practice - and part of our constitution is the unwritten practices that can change and evolve over time). Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not a monarchist, making this conversation perhaps a bit ironic, but in this case perception does not make reality. No one is saying that the "Queen is the #1 most important part of Canada", a lot of people may think their morning Tim's is much more important. What is being said is that the Crown forms the core of Canada's constitutional system, and is the foundation (or source) of the executive, legislative, and judiciary, which is thoroughly well-referenced and is simply fact. Also, as outlined in numerous sources, the Crown can and must be able to impose its will in extremis, thereby "safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and democratic system of government of Canadians, and reinforcing the fact that 'governments are the servants of the people and not the reverse'", essentially providing a circuit-breaker function. Just because the circuit breaker has rarely ever "gone off" does not mean it is useless or non-functional, only that the systems of power are in good order and properly functioning. So, there is a reason why the role of the sovereign is still a legal reality, although quite rightly almost never acts upon these reserve powers as Canada is a stable, functioning democracy. If what you are advocating for ever became a complete reality, then the entire principle of the "sovereign acting as a custodian of the Crown's democratic powers and a representation of the 'power of the people above government and political parties'" would be completely destroyed. As we've seen in numerous instances throughout the world, democratically electing leaders can and has lead to despotism and tyranny, and so the pros and cons of aristocracy, monarchy, and republicanism were all carefully weighed by the fathers of Confederation in an attempt to mitigate the cons of each, and maximise the pros. Thus, the balance of the commons, the aristocracy (original intent for the Senate), and the Crown within Parliament for example. Of course the constitution has organically evolved in several ways, but the core concepts remain unchanged, particularly as it comes to the role and status of the Crown. trackratte (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Secondly, the fact that "within a constitutional monarchy the sovereign's direct participation in any of these areas of governance is limited, with the sovereign normally exercising executive authority only on the advice of the executive committee of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and with the sovereign's legislative and judicial responsibilities carried out by Canadian parliamentarians and judges and justices of the peace" is already mentioned in the lead. trackratte (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem could be that the monarchy of Canada could refer to the Crown, or to the mortal persons who wear it and their representatives. While the latter are play a largely ceremonial role, the Crown itself is central to Canadian government. We might say for example that theoretically the Queen owns the parliament buildings, we would not qualify the statement that it was crown property. we might begin the article by drawing the distinction and consider separate articles. TFD (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If I properly understand your proposal, we would be getting into tricky and largely unsupportable territory by dividing the monarchy or the Crown and the sovereign into separate articles, as the monarch and the Crown are one and the same, both in terms of machinery of government, and Canadian law. While it is useful to conceptually differentiate the natural versus the corporate person for theoretical discussions, such as the Crown Estate in the UK, it remains only a theoretical concept unsupported by Canadian law. If you mean a separate article for the present person, then that is already done with the Elizabeth II article. trackratte (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As you agree the person and the corporation(s) sole are distinct. But we could have an article about the people who wore the crown, their families, and their relations with Canada. For example talk about how the Queen has an honorary dental surgeon or that the Duke of Kent and Strathearn lived in Canada has no relevance to the Canadian constitution. OTOH where or not the governor-general should have accepted the PM's request to prorogue parliament or should have appointed another PM seems more than theoretical. TFD (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

For a discussion on how different property estates are dealt with, or why taxes are voluntarily paid on some funds but not others the theoretical division of the corporation sole is a very useful conceptual tool, however as a very particular corporation sole they are indivisible in law. Which is all to say I cannot see how dividing the two into separate articles would be anything but a big messy nightmare.

As for breaking out the 'dignified' elements from the 'operational' elements of the Crown, it seems like a great deal of article consolidation to me. For example I believe a lot of honourary appointments could have their own pages or a brief mention, such as the list included at List of post-nominal letters in Canada. As for whether or not the GG should have accepted the PMs advice, that can only be found in articles such as the King-Byng Affair, and 2008–09 Canadian parliamentary dispute for example, so any mention of them here seems a bit much. trackratte (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue with the King Bing Thing and similar disputes is whether the Crown can choose the government at its own discretion or whether it must (or should) act on the advice of the current prime minister or parliament. IOW it is about the role of the Crown in the Canadian constitution, about how the Crown is at the core of the Canadian constitution, and distinctions between the Crown exercising its discretionary power, the Crown-in-Council and the Crown-in-Parliament. While the awarding of honours, why lieutenant-governors wear ostrich feathers and why the sea is boiling hot are all interesting indeed more interesting to some readers, they can be treated as separate topics.

Indeed a corporation sole is indivisible. But each office is a different corporation sole and each is distinct from the incumbent.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Good. trackratte (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The NPoV concerns brought forward, seem to be based on the practical side of the Canadian monarchy's role. In effect, the prime minister is boss in that neither the monarch or governor general veto his/her recommendations. Am I correct in my observations of your concerns, IP & Ajraddatz? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Essentially yes. The current wording doesn't reflect the political reality of the Monarch's role. I think the lead section should be changed to something closer to Monarchy of Australia or one of the other articles about commonwealth constitutional monarchies. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The political reality is that the sovereign absolutely has a veto, that's precisely the entire point of why our constitution is structured as it is. The legal reality is that the sovereign has a veto. The political repercussions of the use of that veto are situationally dependent, and where the political costs of abuse of reserve powers is purposely extremely high as we have a constitutional democracy. Just because the system is working and the government (ie cabinet) acts according to convention and law does not mean that the role of the Crown simply disappears, in the same way that a circuit breaker doesn't simply disappear because the power system in your house is working properly. For any bill to become law, any order in council to have effect, or any instrument of advice to have effect requires the sovereign's approval, or that of their representative. For the PM to make an appointment, change a law, issue an order, send the military overseas, make an international treaty, call an election, etc, etc the sovereign or their representative must approve. That's both the political and legal realities, and is clearly articulated in government procedures, as well as cabinet and PCO manuals. Now, due to the tenets of responsible government, the Crown only 'says no' in extreme circumstances, as it is the politicians who bear the political risks and responsibilities for their decisions (ie the actions of the Crown), and so normally it is left to the Commons to decide on who governs and for how long.
As we saw in 2008, the PM had to request prorogation from the GG, which was only granted under certain conditions which had to be met, and where these conditions were attached by use of the Crown's authority via reserve powers. We know that a potential veto in this case was absolutely a 'political reality' because the PM openly stated that if the GG vetoed his advice to prorogue, he would appeal directly to the sovereign, leaving it abundantly clear that absent the Crown's permission, the PM was ultimately powerless to prorogue.
The LG of Saskatchewan reserved a bill in 1961, to which virtually everyone disagreed with his reasoning, however the bill was reserved regardless because he possessed both the legal and political authority to do so.
The GG of Australia dismissed the government in 1975, despite the government retaining the confidence of the Commons. It was certainly a political and legal veto in this case, as the government was dismissed and was not reelected. Once again demonstrating how the Crown absolutely has a veto and can use it, and such a veto is both politically and legally binding.
The core tenets of the constitutional system have been designed in a very specific way, for very specific purposes. The lack of need for a circuit breaker to constantly go off, or the Crown to constantly intervene to keep the system on track, simply means that the system is functioning, not that the role of the Crown has somehow fundamentally changed. Just because you have not seen or experienced the use of such powers, or are unfamiliar with these roles and purposes behind them, does not mean that they do not exist.
As for the Australian monarchy article, it has no bearing here, and for the most part its lead seems overly sparse, simply stating that Australia is a monarchy (which goes without saying, or else the article wouldn't exist and is more suitable to the lead of the Australia article), that the Queen is Elizabeth II (once again, Australia article), and that the Queen of Australia is independent and distinct from the others. In other words, that lead does not really add any detail on the actual topic of the article itself (the Australian Monarchy) that is not already covered in the lead of the Australia article. trackratte (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That's an idea, the Australian model, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The governor general can veto the PM's recommendations, as happened in the The King Byng Thing. The role of the Governor-General has sparked constitutional arguments during minority governments, for example of Clark and Harper, or in Ontario on the selection of Drury and Peterson. Would the governor-general have allowed Campbell to remain PM after the election had she requested a new election? More often though the Crown will persuade the PM not to introduce legislation or an OC, which apparently happens in the UK frequently. The Queen rejected some of the constitutional proposals that Trudeau made, and also Australian proposals on the role of state governors. Government actions can also be quashed by prorogative writs, taking in the form of the Queen ex parte whoever brings the case v. whatever minister is responsible. TFD (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I reckon it's more like for example, it would've been surprising if Michelle Jean had rejected Stephen Harper's prorogation of Parliament, in 2008. Such a veto, might've led to Constitutional changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

And purple elephants might've rained from the sky. Or maybe the Queen would have granted the prorogations but only allowed the Conservatives to carry on as a care-taker government, meaning that the GG would not approve any orders in council to further any government objectives, allow any appointments, etc, which was one of the ways forward recommended to the GG by one of her personal constitutional advisers. Or maybe the PM would've simply had to resign when rebuffed by the Palace. The point is, engagement in such personal contemplations on what might've happened in a given political event isn't entirely productive for an editorial discussion on a specific point. Although certainly enjoyable as a chat group. trackratte (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Merely making an observation on what the IP & other editor were possibly concerned about. Whether or not any changes are made to this article, will be decided by others. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

While it is not productive for us to discuss the merits of the case, the reality is that constitutional experts did and came to different conclusions. It is not at all clear that Jean made the correct (constitutionally speaking) decision. Part of the argument is covered in 2008–09 Canadian parliamentary dispute#The role of the Governor General. Jean btw thought that she had the power to refuse prorogation, but chose not to.[3] Harper's advisers said she did not. Dion's advisors thought she was obliged to accept the will of parliament. TFD (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the merits of a case, but conjecture on what would have happened, politically, if decisions had been different, as it amounts to nothing more than idle speculation. I'd be happy to talk about the merits of the case in question, however that would simply be a sideshow to the topic at hand, which is how well-sourced statements are unduly POV.

However, in writing about the issue, Professor Mark Walters, Professor of Law at Queen’s University wrote an article in the Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law that "The Governor General, as the Queen’s representative in Canada, has the legal power under the royal prerogative to make key decisions about parliamentary government', including the appointment and dismissal of prime ministers and other ministers who form the government, the summoning of parliaments, the making of legislation by assenting to bills passed by the upper and lower chambers, the proroguing or ending of parliamentary sessions, and the dissolving of parliaments and the calling of elections. However, by constitutional convention the royal prerogative is almost always exercised on the advice of ministers of the Crown, in particular prime ministers, who are responsible to the elected members of Parliament. Through this principle of responsible government, royal authority is exercised in a democratic fashion...In the democratic age, an unelected King or Queen would never dare to use the royal prerogative in an undemocratic or arbitrary manner — but a Prime Minister might". This is from an academically refereed journal article, and runs in line with the stance of virtually every reputable expert in the field.

The fact of the matter is, the Crown possesses a veto, and must for the Canadian system to function. Whether or not Harper thought the GG had the authority to refuse advice was made evident when he said that he would appeal to the Queen if the GG refused. In any event, for the purposes of Wikipedia, it doesn't much matter what the PM, himself a biased actor, thought, but what the weight of high quality and reputable sources say. trackratte (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Additionally, when I read the current lead I come away with the basic situation expressed by Prof Walters, although the lead is obviously much more generalist and Wikipedia-like. However, the role as constitutional protector is there, it's role within and protector of democracy, as is the fact that the Crown powers are normally exercised on advice. trackratte (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm very confused what you are arguing here or why. Nobody is disputing the Queen's theoretical veto over any legislation, nor her constitutional powers as outlined in both Constitution Acts. We are saying that the reality is much different, and the current lead section of the article does not reflect reality. I am not saying that the monarchies of Australia and Canada are the same, they are legally distinct. But for the purposes of the article, the lead sections should probably read very similar, considering the same generalities for both. Both have a constitutional monarch, both with specific constitutional powers exercised by representatives on the advice of governments, and both hold reserve powers which are never used in the modern context - that's what the lead section should specify, because those are the basic principles of the Canadian monarchical system. The specifics, which you have repeatedly brought up here, can of course be included in the article. But not in the lead section. They have no place there. Please, stop re-hashing the same arguments over and over again, take a step back and think about what this looks like for someone trying to figure out what the Canadian monarchy means. What are the important points they should know? What are the basic features? That's what should be in the lead paragraph, see WP:LEAD. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not gonna loose any sleep over it, but wasn't there a NPoV tag on this article? Maybe, it was removed prematurely. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's disputing POV at the moment. IP thought the first sentence was inadequately sourced, or not in line with the source (and therefore POV) which has since been resolved. Ajr wants the lead completely stripped down like the Australia article. If someone wants to put up a POV banner they should first make their point known here first. trackratte (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ajr, first, the Australia article can do whatever it likes, it has no bearing on this article once so ever. By that logic the Australia article lead should change to be inline with the Canadian article. Second, the Australia monarchy lead is problematic as it doesn't say anything. If all you want to know is whether or not Australia is a monarchy and who that monarch is, go to the Australia main page. The lead is not a listing of the "top three facts", but an introduction and a summary of the article. Third, you are agreeing that the sovereign has a veto, and has all these constitutional powers, yet at the same time simultaneously say this is untrue (ie "not reflecting reality"), which is contradictory. Fourth, the basic and most important points of the Canadian monarchy are in the lead. What the monarchy is, who fills the office, why it exists, what it's roles are, how it functions, and how it interacts with the various other parts within the constitutional framework are all summarized in the lead. If all you want to know is what kind of system of governance Canada has, who the head of government is, who the head of state (and their representative is), and a basic overview of Canada's political system, go to the main Canada parent article. trackratte (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, you are confusing the Crown with the person who is currently the sovereign. While constitutional crises illustrate confusion between whether the incumbant or her agent uses discretion or relies on the advice of the PM or the legislators, the fact remains that both the PM and legislators exercise their powers on the authority of the Crown. Hence proragative writs and prosecutions are taken out in the name of the Crown, there are Crown lands, military officers receive commissions and police carry warrants from the Crown. Taxes are owed to the Crown, some corporations receive charters from the Crown. Public officials and new citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Crown. TFD (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Perth Agreement: "an agreement made by ...Canada..."

It appears as though we've an opponent to having Qexigator's Perth agreement paragraph, in the article. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have an objection to the actual edit, please express it clearly; a supposition and serial reverts do not suffice. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I realize that you still are opposed to us showing that the Canadian royal succession isn't clarified yet. However, that's no excuse for you to remove Qex's sentence, which has been there for quite some time. Now, leave Qex's paragraph in place & wait for the other editors to weigh in here. Qex's version is much clearer & show readers that the Canadian succession is (and has been since March 2015) full agnatic primogeniture, for those in the line born after the Perth Agreement. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You have failed to address the reason for my edit: WP:LEDE. If you continue this obstructionist stonewalling, by reverting and refusing to answer for your own actions, your disruptive behaviour will be reported at AN/!.

~~You're at 3 reverts.~~ You are now in breach of 3RR. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not in breach. My fourth revert, isn't the same as the other 3 & you know it. Please, stop trying to force things out of the article, that you personally don't like. Get a consensus here, for removal of the paragraph that you're opposed to. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've reversed my 'last' revert, since you've reported me to EW. I do this only to prevent being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 20 You still fail to address the reason for my edit and continue to deflect with red herrings and bad faith.

I'll point it out for you, since you refuse to read WP:LEDE yourself: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points... The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article [emphasis mine]." The paragraph on succession needn't contain so much technical information and jargon as to require its own paragraph. It can be condensed and merged in the way I did to it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

We realize that you're opposed to showing clearly, that the Canadian royal succession has been altered, for those royals born afther the Perth Agreement. You've made absolutely no bones about that. Now, let others weigh in on this dispute, please. Give them a chance, they just might fully agree with your changes. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

More stonewalling, refusal to take responsibility for yourself, bad faith accusations, and red herrings.

If you'd rather others express themselves, let them do it; let them revert and give a valid reason why, rather than this ludicrous farce wherein you repeatedly revert while waiting for someone else to justify it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I shall step back & indeed, leave others to discuss your bold changes. Good luck, in your attempts to get a consensus :) GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want other editors to comment please point out the disputed edit and explain your disagreement. TFD (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

here & here, are the edits-in-question. PS: At the moment, I'm in a bit of a pickle & pending a result away from (but related to) this article? I won't be able to participate further, in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Miesianical removed "Under common law, the crown is inherited by an individual's children and by a childless individual's nearest collateral line. Male-preference primogeniture continues to apply for persons born before 28 October 2011 (the date of the Perth Agreement), absolute primogeniture for those born after."[4] That seems to be accurate. Under common law, estates went to the eldest son or the daughter if there were no sons. If there were more than one daughter, they shared the estate, but the Crown could not be shared, hence only one daughter could inherit. But now there is no distinction between male and female heirs, so the crown is inherited by the eldest child, except for those born before the Perth agreement. TFD (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

TFD's comments are correct, but I have not been able to see what the comments of others above that are about. Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I added the link to my last posting. It is the last part of the edit. TFD (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

So the problem seems to be a well-meant attempt at brevity in the lead, which unfortunately introduced a nonsense expression "various common laws", in the name of removing "excess detail", after some previous undone edits. I have attempted to re-edit the lead to make better sense. The short paragraph, expanded in the body, to explain the succession is not excessive there, given the importance to make clear the 28 October 2011 point. This seems to me acceptable.[5] Qexigator (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

+ The "common law" is, of course, a technical expression, with definite and inescapable relevance here, but I would not see it as helpful to make an inline link to the article, which discusses it as a main topic in itself, and is not necessarily as good as knowledgeable people would wish it to be. But the common law article is linked indirectly for anyone who is looking for the information, via links Succession to the Crown Bill 2013 and an agreement . Qexigator (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It is confusing. Note too that that it is also governed by the latest changes made in the UK, which are not considered statutes or laws in Canada. I think too that most people would be unaware that at common law the eldest son inherits all real property. TFD (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand why an editor is continuing to remove Qexigator's addition. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do we really need that entire paragraph within the lead? It doesn't illuminate what the monarchy is, why it exists, what it's roles and responsibilities are, how it interacts with other institutions within the constitutional order, etc. It seems to me that a simple one-liner would make more sense in summarizing the succession paragraph than an entire paragraph within the lede. Succession certainly isn't one of the most important parts of the Canadian monarchy, really if the succession changed completely the actual monarchy itself would be completely unaffected in terms of what it is, and what it does. Succession can certainly be mentioned, sure, I just think an entire paragraph is a bit excessive. Any mention of the Perth Agreement or resulting legislation most certainly is. trackratte (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you support a sentence about the topic? GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Qexigator, the lede doesn't need to mention the Perth Agreement. Succession is probably important enough to warrant a mention in the lede; but, the Perth Agreement is only a part of the topic of succession. I see no reason to give it a place in the lede, yet not other aspects of succession, like the Act of Settlement and the Succession to the Throne Act 1937. But, if all that were given coverage in the lede, there wouldn't be a need for the succession section and the lede would contravene WP:LEDE's guidelines. The lede now mentions succession, but the detail--including the Perth Agreement--is covered in the article body, as it should be. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are you reluctant to make it clear to our readers, that the succession has been changed in March 2015? GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think it's a question of reluctance, as it's already clearly stated in the succession section that it changed in 2015. Perhaps, "Succession to the throne of Canada is determined by descent, legitimacy, and religion, and under common law the crown is inherited by an individual's children and by a childless individual's nearest collateral line." immediately after the "heir apparent" line, as I think it makes the most sense there in terms of flow as we go from who's next in line, and a quick one-liner about why they are next in line. Further detail is amply available in the Succession section. Would everyone be more or less happy with that or no? trackratte (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

We've yet to hear from Qexigator. If you're alright with a sentence, that would help. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep diverting attention to red herrings? I just gave a clear explanation of my motive, which makes no mention of reluctance to accept anything, other than details in a lede, which is supported by guidelines. Though directed at Qexigator, I'm sure you can read my words, too, and understand my point. So, address it or remove yourself from this discussion (which you already did when stating you were going to leave it to others). If you'd like to change your mind and contribute here, perhaps you could start by explaining why detail about the Perth Agreement should be in the lede, against what WP:LEDE advises? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, trackratte; you seem to have the gist of it. I never argued the sentence I reduced the paragraph to is perfect. I'd say what you propose is a little bit much, but, not so much that I can't accept it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Under common law, the crown is inherited by the eldest son. TFD (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Since 26 March 2015, the Canadian royal succession has been eldest child for those born after the Perth Agreement, the Catholic ban has been lifted & only the first six in the succession, need the monarch's permission to marry. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be great if we could get this settled. For goodness sake, somebody tried to have me blocked over it. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed: "Succession to the throne is determined under common and statute law and is inherited by the sovereign's eldest child, or in the case of a childless sovereign, the nearest collateral line."

I removed "to the Canadian throne..." because it is not clear that the common and statute law bit is true, as it seems that the only Canadian law for succession is the constitutional principle of symmetry, which I think is best avoided entirely. However succession to the throne, I think, allows for a bit more accuracy while avoiding getting bogged down in potentially contentious detail for the moment.

I put "sovereign" instead of "individual" as we're not talking about random individuals here, but only and specifically the heir to the sovereign.

Any mention of recent changes, or further detail are already done in the Succession section, and so I think this sentence does a somewhat adequate job in quickly summarizing the relatively minor point within the article lead.

Let me know if this would be suitable, with some tweaking, to all parties, and if not, what your specific objections are. trackratte (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the minor alteration of "determined under common and statute law" to "according to common and statute law", I think that sentence is perfectly fine for the lede. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've no probs with this, Trackratte. Being as this article is about the Canadian monarchy? it's quite alright to use throne, without the description Canadian. PS - This lines up with my argument for dropping Canadian from Canadian Royal Family :) GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've inputted the sentence into the mainspace with Mies amendment. trackratte (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I see an anon tried to insert some remark about Catholics. There was mention previously about religion. Perhaps it should be re-inserted? Succession laws do, after all, say the throne goes not just to the eldest living child of the sovereign, but the eldest living non-Catholic child. Maybe the sentence could be amended to read: "Royal succession is determined according to common and statute law, which stipulates the throne is inherited by the sovereign's eldest living, non-Catholic child or, in the case of a childless sovereign, the nearest collateral line." Ot something like that. And that's the end of the summary of succession in the lede. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could say that upon accession to the the throne of the UK, the sovereign also becomes King or Queen of Canada. The succession is determined by English common law and English and British statutes. By convention the statutes are not changed without agreement with all the CRs. I do not think the lead should go beyond this, because the article is not about the succession and detail could be provided later. We need to be careful too in referring to common law and statute, because English common law and statute are not laws in Canada except to the extent they have been received into Canadian law. Since 1982 all new British laws are facts in Canada rather than laws. TFD (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw it as the bits about religion are covered under the "statute law" part of the sentence. TFD's proposal I think delves too far into the, potentially messy, details. If someone wants to know what those statute laws are and what they mean, or any further details I imagine they could go down the Succession section. Which can be said about any other part of the lead too I know, but the core principles of what the monarchy is, does, and why I think deserves more summary space than other details, such as Royal residences, succession, role in the military, etc. trackratte (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We need to be careful about using the term statute. The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 are statutes in Canada, but the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 which amends those acts is not a statute in Canada, and therefore the earlier acts in Canada are unamended. It should be clear too that it is the "common law of England." TFD (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why we avoided saying succession to the Canadian throne specifically, as apparently it is not governed by either statute or common law. However, to reduce the entire succession topic down to a single sentence about symmetry would be unhelpful. Essentially we are just stating by what rules succession is determined in the global sense, ie according to various statutes and common law, and avoiding the specifics in the lead. The nuances can be delved into in the succession section. trackratte (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

":It is not about symmetry. Symmetry is not a law, it is the intention of the law. And the reference to common law and statute is confusing because the common law of Canada is primogeniture and the statute law is that persons marrying Catholics are ineligible to inherit the throne. The 2013 UK statute is not a Canadian law and has no force in Canada. Nor does it change the English common law - statute cannot do that. In Canada it is neither common law nor statute, it is a fact. The only relevant Canadian law is that the sovereign of Canada is whoever is sovereign of the UK. And who is sovereign of the UK is determined by British laws, which in Canada are not laws, any more than the laws of Portugal are Canadian laws. In 1952, those laws were the same as Canadian law, but are now different. So if the succession to the throne were still determined by Canadian laws, the plaintiffs in Quebec would have won their case. The common law of Ontario btw says that the eldest male child inherits real property. Statute says that the property is evenly divided. But courts will normally assign the property to the persons named in the will, although a will is neither a common law or a statute. TFD (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"It is not about symmetry. Symmetry is not a law" --> "The only relevant Canadian law is that the sovereign of Canada is whoever is sovereign of the UK"

Those two statements are contradictory. Your second sentence describes what symmetry is. trackratte (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Symmetry can also be accomplished by changing the succession laws so that they are the same as the UK, which is what Australia did. "Each Act of England or Great Britain that is specified in Schedule 1, so far as that Act is part of the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in Schedule 1...." Schedule 1 shows changes to the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement and repeal of the Royal Marriages Act. New Zealand did the same. TFD (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained image removal

From my perspective, I didn't feel that I got adequate answers when I posted at my newly created sub-section of User talk:GoodDay#Canadian Republic about the removal of an image of a royal standard at this Monarchy of Canada article.

I asked why GoodDay didn't use an edit summary and this is how the conversation went:

"

...What was the reason for the removal, please? BushelCandle (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
William isn't the Canadian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
What a pity you didn't use that short phrase in an edit summary - then I wouldn't have needed to come here.

Although that's a true statement as far as it goes, isn't he part of the Canadian system of monarchy as one of those in line of succession and, therefore, a possible future monarch (much as, I suspect, you may dislike that prospect) ? Isn't he a member of the Canadian Royal Family and as such, somebody that undertakes public and private functions in Canada and abroad as a representative of Canada?

Additionally, the image of the standard you removed is illustrative of the text it appears next to: "...[when] other members of the Royal Family are acting in public specifically as representatives of Canada, they use, where possible, Canadian symbols, including the country's national flag, unique royal symbols..." (my emphasis added).

Please self-revert. BushelCandle (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
My being a Canadian republican, is irrelevant here. Thus you shouldn't have opened a sub-section here, but rather opened up a 'new' section. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"

What do other's think ? BushelCandle (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed Prince William's standard, because he's not the Canadian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(As is so often the case) I can't make sense of GoodDay's "argument". This article is about the Canadian monarchy, not Elizabeth II. The Royal Family is a part of the institution of the monarchy and the section in which William's standard is/was located makes mention of the use of Canadian royal symbols by members of the Royal Family when in Canada or representing the country abroad. The article is full of pictures of Elizabeth II. It seemed refreshing/a good mix to include an image of the banner of a member of the Royal Family other than Elizabeth. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal and BushelCandle: I must agree that GoodDay had a valid point – this is an article on the monarchy, not on the royal family. As there is only one monarch at a time, the banner of William is inappropriate in any section except Canada's royal family and house, but the banner of Charles as heir apparent should also be displayed if William's is to be displayed. This is merely my opinion on this issue. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's nice of you to support GoodDay, but doing so means you make just as little sense. Right next to the image are the words "when she [the Queen] and other members of the Royal Family are acting in public specifically as representatives of Canada, they use, where possible, Canadian symbols, including the country's national flag, unique royal symbols, armed forces uniforms, and the like... [emphasis mine]" Mention of the Royal Family in this article isn't confined to the section focused on the Royal Family. By your logic, all references to and images of any member of the family who isn't the Queen would have to be either removed or shunted to the aforementioned section.

I see no need for images of two flags and there's (as I said) enough about the Queen on this page already, but, if including the sovereign's standard alongside William's will stop the unjustified imposition of change by revert, so be it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to have William's banner included, then why not Charles' banner? GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There's an article that shows them all. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well then why did you restore William's banner here? GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's so obvious it shouldn't need explaining, but, I did just explain it is illustrative of a point made in the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning. Anyways, since Trackratte inserted the monarch's banner (after I removed William's banner), it's only fair that he gets a say in this too :) GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: I must remind you that an integral part of WP:BRD is the discussion. Continuing to edit that which is being discussed to suit your point of view can be considered edit-warring. As there is a full article on Canadian royal symbols, why don't we just link to that article rather than flood this one with images? I'm sure that if the banners of Charles and William aren't already in that article, then they certainly belong there. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What exactly would give you cause to think I'm unaware of the 'discussion' part of BRD? I am here discussing, am I not? If you want to point to BRD, you should also follow its logic: "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version and/or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither editor should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached." In other words, when a bold edit is reverted, there should be discussion aiming to find consensus favouring the bold edit or some other change, not a revert of the revert of the bold edit. Doing the latter, that is starting an edit war. It's BRD, not BRRRRRRRD or BRDRDRDRDRD...

How is anyone to answer your question about linking to Canadian royal symbols (why not Royal standards of Canada?), rather than having an image of a banner? Am I to answer considering all images on this page? Is whatever I say going to be applied consistently across this article?

I suspect there is no definite answer; WP does not seem to offer any guidance on when to use an illustration or how many should be in an article. So, it comes down to common sense. In this case, there's space for an image, the image in that space illustrates the adjacent text, and there's no copyright-free image of any other symbols used distinctly by members of the Royal Family when acting on behalf of Canada. It's thus very unclear why the illustration should be removed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: Firstly, I would appreciate a {{ping}} when I'm being replied to; I have a number of articles on my watchlist, and oftentimes I miss something buried deep on it. Second, why William's banner? Why not Charles' banner, as he is the heir apparent? Or Anne's, or Andrew's, or Edward's banners? Why not use the banner for all other members of the Royal Family instead? If you can illustrate why a specific banner apart from Her Majesty's should be used over all others, then I will capitulate. Otherwise, a wikilink to Royal standards of Canada (which I should have mentioned before) seems more appropriate to me, since all members of the Royal Family can perform on behalf of Her Majesty.

Regarding the edit war, GoodDay made this change to remove William's banner, then Trackratte made this change to add HM's banner. Later, you reverted both changes. It was at this point that the D should have started, but GoodDay reverted instead, and you immediately re-reverted. An IP re-reverted you, followed by BushelCandle adding William's banner rather than removing HM's banner, which GoodDay reverted. It was at this point that BushelCandle began the discussion here, and you reverted to your preference more than 26 hours after this discussion started, and more than 24 hours after your initial involvement in this discussion. Technically, you, GoodDay, and the IP are involved in the edit war; I see BushelCandle's edit as a fair compromise. No one violated the letter of WP:3RR, unless GoodDay had logged out and the IP is theirs, but this was still an edit war. Let's come to an agreement here about what should be displayed. As I said, I feel that BushelCandle's edit was a fair compromise, in that it displayed both HM's banner and the banner of a member of the Royal Family; I don't care which Royal Family member's banner is displayed, as long as HM's banner is displayed above it because this article is about the Monarchy. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP wasn't me, Jkudlick :) Anyways, I wouldn't be opposed to having no royal banners in the article. If we must have one, then it should be the monarch's. Furthermore, I'm in agreement with you (Jkudlick) in that it's odd to not have the monarch's & heir-apparent's banner & yet have the second-in-line's banner. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You have an odd definition of 'status quo'.

I already wrote that, if need be, there can be two banners shown, What's missing, though, is an explanation of why two images are needed to illustrate the fact that members of the Royal Family use Canadian royal symbols when acting on behalf of Canada. Why do we need the monarch's banner to illustrate that? Will these questions ever be answered? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: Why is any image required when there is a representative list of such symbols already in the prose? The prose doesn't say that only members of the Royal Family use Canadian symbols, so I ask again why, if we are going to use any banner, why we wouldn't use the Monarch's banner in an article on the Monarchy? — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've answered that question already. Now, where are the answers to those I posed? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to add the queen's & the duke of Cambridge's banners, then also add the prince of Wales' banner. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 24 Sorry, I missed where you explained why I must add Charles' banner. Can you point to where it is or repeat it, please? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that folks had to get your approval for what can be included in or excluded from, this article. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 25 I wasn't aware I was supposed to unquestioningly follow your diktats.

Guess there was no explanation, then, and I highly doubt there's ever to be one coming from you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on editor behaviour. Therefore, I'll have to let others figure out as to what's bothering you. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So, now you're attacking, via edit summary, my (real life) condition. Very interesting, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You're addicted to conflict and ergo a disruptive editor. This is not news to anyone who's dealt with you for a long time; it was remarked on in the community discussion that resulted in you-know-what and is a significant part of why I try to be on here less; certainly to keep from interacting with you as much as possible. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You've own issues, with this article. I suspect that others will eventually see that. I wish I could help you, but.... GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What does this edit summary mean? Much of it appears irrelevant and the rest as though the author has misunderstood what the banner is illustrating. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You did not "ping" me, the author of the edit summary, Miesianiacal but I will, nevertheless, assume your omission was accidental and that your question was not intended to be rhetorical.

It's not easy to be more explanatory than "no cogent reason given 2 ignore WP:IUP, WP:IMGLOC+MOS:IMGSIZE. Restore images 2 more relevant positions; do not place an image "too early" or ignore logged in users' size preferences" within the limitation of the number of characters allowed in edit summaries.

Have you, Miesianiacal, actually taken the time to read and understand those 3 policies and guidelines? If you have, may I trouble you to explain why the illustrative image of the personal Canadian flag of the heir apparent to the Canadian throne should be removed from the section entitled "Succession and regency"?

Perhaps you could also explain your (arbitrary?) positioning of images on the left, when the default position is on the right?

Why are you repetitively reverting to using template syntax that flouts Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size ?

I hope the two royal banners illustrate that the Canadian monarchy has a distinctive flavour to that of any other Commonwealth realm and that it also hints at the stability offered by having an assured line of succession for Canada's head of state.

My heartfelt plea to you is to edit more selectively to improve our articles incrementally and in a more collegiate style and revert less. BushelCandle (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're making contentious edits, you should be watching the talk page, as you've involved yourself in a dispute.

What I don't see in your reply is any clarification on how any image contradicted, without reason, any of those guidelines. The 'multiple image' template requires a stated size for the images in it. None violate the image use policy. Images do not have to be positioned at right; in fact, they should alternate left-right, according to the MoS.

I've said at least half a dozen times now that the flag was intended to illustrate the words "members of the Royal Family are acting in public specifically as representatives of Canada, they use, where possible, Canadian symbols, including the country's national flag, unique royal symbols..." As such, it's you who's put the flag in the wrong place. Either that or you've created confusion by having one flag illustrate the above and then the next image being a flag supposedly illustrating something entirely different (though, Charles' flag does not in any way illustrate that he's the heir apparent).

All in all, the images are now a mess and so is the argument attempting to justify that mess and, unless you can counter all of the above, the arrangement should be returned to the way it was, which was perfectly clear. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you please stop putting in the Duke of Cambridge's banner along with the Monarch's banner, without the Prince of Wales' banner? Either put in 'just' the Monarch's banner or all 'three'. Maybe even better, leave out all the royal banners. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 26 Please stop reverting without providing a cogent argument explaining why you're doing so. Making random demands is not at all sufficient. I asked questions above; if you're going to involve yourself in this dispute, answer them, so I can understand why you're doing what you're doing. Otherwise, go away. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are you so persistent in passing over the usage of the Prince of Wales' royal banner in this article? If we were to use only 2 banners, it would be Queen's & the Prince of Wales'. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you demand Charles' flag be used to illustrate royal succession? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you demand that William's banner be used? — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't. 1) I've never proposed it be used to illustrate royal succession. 2) I said there's enough about Elizabeth II on this page already and it's helpful to give some coverage to other members of the Royal Family.

As you're trying to change the status quo, it's up to you to explain why it should be altered. Why do you demand Charles' flag be used to illustrate royal succession? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Charles is the heir-apparent to the Canadian throne. If we're going to add another royal banner to Elizabeth II's? it would Charles'. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur with GoodDay; if only one banner is displayed, then it should be Her Majesty's, and the second banner should be that of the heir-apparent. I'm not convinced that any banners need to be displayed, since there is already a section glossing over royal symbols with a link to the main article at Canadian royal symbols, and the banners are all displayed at Royal standards of Canada. My first choice would be to display no banners, with my second choice being to display only Her Majesty's banner, and displaying those of Her Majesty and Prince Charles as a distant third choice. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Until we get this all worked out? it's best (IMHO) that we have no royal banners in the article. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

An image of Charles better illustrates who is the heir apparent than does the heir apparent's banner.

Now that you've deleted the flags: why shouldn't there be an illustration of the royals' use of Canadian royal symbols when acting on behalf of Canada? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You haven't explained yet, as to why you're trying to include Prince William's banner, at the exclusion of Prince Charles' banner. PS: I certainly hope we don't have to open up an Rfc on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Already dealt with.

Why shouldn't there be an illustration of the royals' use of Canadian royal symbols when acting on behalf of Canada? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Queen's royal banner gets preferential treatment. Then the Prince of Wale's royal banner & then the Duke of Cambridge's. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't there be an illustration of the royals' use of Canadian royal symbols when acting on behalf of Canada? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Best we let others answer your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You removed it. Twice.

Why shouldn't there be an illustration of the royals' use of Canadian royal symbols when acting on behalf of Canada? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Which royal banners to use, if any

Folks, can we please have a survey on which banner(s) each of us prefer used, if any? GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My choices are as listed above:

No banners
Her Majesty's banner alone
The banners of Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales

— Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are the choices limited in that way? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I limited my choices that way because the question is what we prefer. I have stated my preference. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I read things wrong. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My choices in preferencial order:

No banners
Queen's banner alone
Queen's & Prince of Wales' banners
Queen's, Prince of Wales & Duke of Cambridge's banners

GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The banner of any member of the Royal Family other than Elizabeth and Charles. William is that and probably better known than the others. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If there are any Canada-specific elements in banners or crests or pinkie rings displayed by any members of the royal family within a reasonable order of succession, then they should be displayed here. Absolutely right place for them. Educate the masses and all that. Monarchy is more than just the monarch, there are others within the royal family.. GoodDay, why is it that you see fit to edit-war and otherwise stir up trouble on articles related to monarchy? It's a right royal pain having to deal with this sort of trivia, which invariably ends in you throwing up your hands and withdrawing once you've raised enough fuss to attract other editors. --Pete (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why keep out the Prince of Wales' banner? Which royal banners would you recommend being in the article? GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

He does it because Wikipedia is his main source of entertainment in life; he's on here all day every day and when there's no drama and conflict to suck up his attention, he starts it. He's like a pyromaniac: he sets a fire, fans it enough to begin a conflagration, and runs just far enough away to watch the chaos in glee. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(Did I mention he enjoys existence here in denial of his own faults? It's a self-delusion maintained by persistently deflecting blame for the results of his incompetent meddling on to others. It's all part of his wider belief in never taking responsibility for himself. It works... until the behaviour pisses enough people off. It got him banned once and, as he's not really changed since, well... Any reasonable person can see what the outcome will be. Either way, the rest of us will be better off.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm made of rubber
You're made of glue
Everything you throw at me
Bounces off & sticks to you
:) GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: That comment could be viewed as a personal attack. @GoodDay: Your response didn't help. Both of you need to walk away from this and each other for a bit. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)