Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Mass additions.

Do we really need all that info moved from Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, over to this page? GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Do you really need to dispute everything? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You've made massive changes to 'two' related pages. You should've made a Draft of a new page, then get feedback on whether or not to move it into main space. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

They aren't "massive"; quit with the hyperbole. It was a simple transfer of pertinent information from one article to another; it happens all the time. You just have a terrible obsession with me and want to engage me in an argument every chance you can get-- right from the second I came back on Wikipedia after a lengthy break taken in no small part because of you. Remember when you agreed to my effective request to leave me alone? Or when you were going to take a break? @SPECIFICO: was about your emotional farewells lasting 6-24 hours. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Best to let others give their input on your transfer of info from the 2013 Act page, to this page. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What's best is for you to stop engaging with me. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm considering an RFC at WP:CANADA, concerning the recent transference of info from the 2013 Succession Act page, to this page. However, I think it's fair to give other editors a chance 'here' (this will cover both pages) to give their input on whether the aforementioned transfer of info should 'remain' or be 'reverted'. If the consensus is to 'revert'? Then I'd advise the creation of a Draft - for location of said information. Such a draft, could then be reviewed by editors & decided if it should be moved to main space 'or' deleted. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Third page, option

If no solution can be reached concerning the above two of three preceding discussions? I would not oppose the creation of a page, which would be 'only' about the challenges to the 2013 Succession Act. Why? Because (though I'm not certain) there were no other serious challenges to implementations of changes to succession acts, in the United Kingdom or any of the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It was only an issue in Canada. Australia and New Zealand had domesticated the succession law, hence required constitutional amendments to change it, while the Statute of Westminster 1931 never applied to the other realms. So it would make sense that the article was specific to Canada and include previous legal opinions dating back to at least the abdication crisis. TFD (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, going back to 1936 would be included. It's the background to the challenges to the 2013 Act. Think of it, what happened in Canada in 1926? caused a ripple effect throughout the British Empire, which resulted in big changes in 1931. Had the Supreme Court of Canada 'over-ruled' the Quebec court's ruling & declared the 2013 Act unconstitutional? It would've held up the enactment of the United Kingdom & the other Commonwealth realms succession changes. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, does not seem long enough to warrant splitting the "Constitutional issues" section into its own article. The history of succession law (the "background" to the challenges) is covered here, in "Legal aspects of succession", which is directly linked to from Succession to the Throne Act, 2013#Constitutional issues. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Size guideline says that an article of this size (54 kB)[1] "Probably should be divided." Neutrality also suggests splitting, since most of the article is about whether the act was constitutionally valid.

A revised article would concentrate on the effects of the act and how it was implemented with a brief discussion of the constitutional issues. A second article could cover the debate about how Canada's sovereign is chosen, which has been an issue since 1931 and drew a lot of attention in 1936 and a lesser degree of attention in 2013, and was discussed in O'Donaghue.

TFD (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're proposing something like moving the majority of the "Succession and regency" section of this article over to Succession to the Canadian throne and revising Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 to have it cover the effects of the act and how it was implemented. Is that right? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD - Succession to the Canadian throne is a redirect to Succession to the British throne. Any attempts to make it into a page of its own, will encourage attempts to do the same for the 13 other redirects. It would merely be changed back to a redirect, just like any attempts to RM Succession to the British throne to Succession to the Commonwealth realm thrones, would fail. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Mies, yes. G'Day, the succession to the Canadian throne is sufficiently notable to have its own article. Furthermore, if a reader types in "Succession to the Canadian throne," I bet dollars to donuts they looking for succession to the Canadian not British throne. Once a redirect is changed to an actual article, it requires a merge request to move it back. That is unlikely since the new article would be sufficiently long and moving it back would make the parent article excessively long. IIRC there were disputes in Australia about how Australia would approve the changes, so it might be notable, but not for the other realms. TFD (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I will open an RFC on the matter, as I find the idea intriguing for 'all' the 14 other Commonwealth realms. I would add '3' options to that RFC - A) redirect to Succession to the British throne, B) change into a new page or C) redirect to the appropriate section of the corresponding Monarchy page. I believe that option C, would get a consensus. It's been over 5 years, so I think it's time to revisit this topic. PS - B would likely get little support. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I've opened up an RFC on this matter, concerning the 3 options, at the talkpage of WP:ROY page. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Why? Never mind. The RfC is about some other proposal, not what we're discussing here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

PS - If you both prefer the C option? I can abort the RFC & head over to the Redirects discussion page. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ok, TFD. That's effectivly the idea that crossed my own mind. My only concern about it was the tendency for there to be kneejerk reactions to such articles; again, I point to the example of Canadian royal family. That article was also long enough to justify its existence; it was basically the entire "Royal family and house" section in this article. But, its contents were put here and the page deleted, anyway. (Until it was reserected as a redirect.) On the other hand, List of Canadian monarchs survived... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've aborted the RFC as too soon. Best to wait & see what you both are aiming for. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, it was myself & @Gadfium: who created the 14 redirects, back in Jan 2017. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said, policy stops editors from creating articles about succession for the other realms unless they meet notability, in other words, provided there are sufficient sources for each of them. Incidentally, there already is a separate article for one of the other Commonwealth realms, namely the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, what exactly are you both jointly proposing? GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD & Mies. I'll wait & see what you're both trying to come up with. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I propose moving the material in Succession to the Throne Act, 2013#Constitutional issues, Monarchy of Canada#Legal aspects of succession, Perth Agreement#Canada and any other relevant articles that is about succession to the Canadian throne to "Succession to the Canadian Throne." While that is now a re-direct, it would become an article. No other re-direct pages would be harmed in this process. When the material is removed, it should be replaced by a summary: for Canada, Australia and NZ, there is a convention that changes to the succession require their approval. Canada's parliament assented to the change. It could mention that there was some controversy, but the details of who went to court, where and when, etc., is undue in those articles. TFD (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

At the moment, the redirect-in-question is under discussion. Just follow my contribs & you'll find it :) GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Your RfD is irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't matter where "Succession to the Canadian throne" re-directs, it can be changed into an article provided it is a notable topic, per How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. See the example. Just because an article is written about one member of the demand does not mean an article must written about every member of the band. TFD (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Well if such a page is created. It would be kinda nice to know that it won't be created in vain. I don't oppose the creation of a page called Succession to the Canadian throne, but the odds of it being changed back into a re-direct is highly possible. Particularly, if none of the other non-UK Commonwealth realms have their own Succession to the X throne page. My RfD is to get a sense of whether such a page will be accepted. Why go to the trouble of creating a page, if it only ends up reverted back into a re-direct? The RfD will give us a clue. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

PS - If either of you want to go ahead & change the redirect-in-question, into a page, then fine. I won't revert it or nominate it for deletion. Indeed, it might start up a creation of Succession to the X throne pages for the other non-UK Commonwealth realms. Heck, why not? Aside from the actual line of successions being identical to the British line, these 'new' pages would also have distinct content. They wouldn't be carbon copies of the British succession page. They won't likely be all created at once either, but rather one step at a time. It's been 5-years since those redirects were created. By all means go forth & create. I'm intrigued to see how it goes. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If someone creates the article, the only way it can be changed back is through Wikipedia:Merging or AfD. The argument you anticipate is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. While that is an often misused link, it means arguing that what happens in other articles should dictate how the article in question should be written. It's a bad argument because it's circular. Reasons to keep include notability and that the main article is too long. I don't see any other articles being created except possibly Australia, where there was a dispute over whether the federal government alone could make the change. In NZ, unlike Canada, the head of state is the "Queen of New Zealand" and her succession is determined solely by NZ succession laws. Unlike Canada, no imperial laws have any force in either Australia or NZ. They were either copied into their laws or became extinct (i.e., they were "domesticated.") The other realms' constitutions clearly state that the head of state is the Queen of the UK. TFD (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The "Queen of Canada", is Canada's head of state, btw. We already have (IMHO) one POVFORK called Australian head of state dispute. We don't need another one called Canadian head of state dispute. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You have me confused. Yes the queen of Canada is the queen of Canada, just as the president of the U.S. Senate is the president of the U.S. Senate. But just as the vice-president of the U.S. is president of the U.S. Senate, The Queen of the UK is queen of Canada. Nothing to do with the head of state debate, which is about whether the Queen or GG are head of state. That question btw will never be solved because head of state was a term coined in the 1960s to equivalate presidents and kings. The GG is neither, but performs the functions of both. It's like asking how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. TFD (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not to get off topic, but you are confusing me. Are you saying Canada's head of state, is the British monarch? GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "head of state?" TFD (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me. But I don't know what direction you're heading in, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You asked me, "Are you saying Canada's head of state, is the British monarch?" [00:41, 4 August 2022] I replied, "What do you mean by "head of state?" [00:59, 4 August 2022] Why do you question "what direction you're heading in?" I am just trying to clarify your question. If you don't know what you are talking about, then just say let's stop the discussion. TFD (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's just that you caught me off guard, with your "What do you mean by "head of state?" question. Elizabeth II is Canada's head of state, while she's alive & after her (assuming Canada doesn't become a republic, upon her death) demise, her monarchial successor will be Canada's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand. Again, I've no objections to changing the Succession to the Canadian throne redirect, into its own page. Indeed, I've no objection to changing any of the other non-UK Succession to the throne redirects, into their own pages. But, it would be best to let the RfD run its course, first. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Official resident

Seeing as Canada is (possibly) unique among the 14 non-UK Commonwealth realms, in that it lists its 'monarch' as an official resident, along with its governor general. I've pointed it out, at Official residence & Wikipedia:WikiProject Commonwealth. If we're lucky, perhaps the other non-UK Commonwealth realms will 'also' include their monarchs as official residents, along side their governors-general. PS - Very few folks give that page or WikiProject much attention, btw. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Debate section

TBH, I'd eliminate the "Debate" section & just leave a link to the Debate page. AFAIK, the Canadian monarchy isn't in any danger of being abolished, for the foreseeable future. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Changes needed to Federal residences and royal household section

So clearly the Federal residences and royal household is out-of-date. Some of the changes are obvious - some of the titles automatically change from referencing the Queen to referencing the King. But other aspects are not clear, and I'm wondering if some of it just needs to be removed until there are reliable sources about how things will be organized with Charles as king. Singularity42 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King Charles III in 2022.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why describe it as the Canadian throne, in the prose?

On a separate note, I don't see the need to use "Canadian" to describe the throne, in the prose. This article is about the Canadian monarchy, so what other throne would it be? Besides, we already have it used in the caption of Prince William's image box. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you miss the edit summary? Image captions aren't part of the article body. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I did see the 'edit summary' & I disagree with you. Don't worry, I'm not going to put us into an edit war over it, nor am I going to create an RFC over it. If others want to chime in? That'll be up to them. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In the prose, I changed it from "Canadian throne" to "throne", leaving the link. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

[Goddamn edit conflict] "I'm not going to put us into an edit war" he says, right before reverting again.

"I disagree with you" is just a statement, not an argument. Ergo, no one has any idea of why you disagree. The section is "International and domestic aspects". Since that covers the relationship among the 15 Commonwealth Realms, it helps to specify which throne is being referred to at the top of the sub-section on succession, especially given the hatnote linking to Succession to the British throne immediately above.

You are now at your WP:3RR limit. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I misunderstood your statement in the preceding discussion, that you weren't going to fuss about it. Thus the reason for my most recent change from "Canadian throne" to "throne". But again, others can chime in, if they wish. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Heir apparent to 'how many' Canadian thrones?

Alright, I get it. There are 'two' thrones, one in the Senate Chamber (currently not being used) & one in the temporary Senate Chamber. I think it would read better if we have William presented as the heir-apparent to the Canadian throne, rather the Canadian thrones. Linking to the (plural) Thrones of Canada, makes it seem like Canada is a dual-monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The word used was and is "throne", not "thrones". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I know, but the page it links to might create confusion among readers. GoodDay (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure readers can pick up from Thrones of Canada that the article's about physical thrones, not the conceptual throne. But, I'm not fussed if the words "the Canadian throne" link to Thrones of Canada or not. I just felt there should be a link somewhere in the article body. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're not fussed. Then (I assume) you'll not revert again, if I 'rename' the link. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently (see below) I misunderstood your 'not fussed' statement. My apologies for my 'most recent' change of "Canadian throne" to "throne". GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

By Canadian throne, the article means the Canadian monarchy. The sentence means that William will in the fullness of time succeed his father as king of Canada. There's no reason to have a link, since it would link back to this article. TFD (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Official lists

Perhaps DrKay would, before possibly reverting for a third time, like to explain how the British monarchy website and the Canadian government website are not official sources. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed they weren't. You have misread and misunderstood. They are official websites. The official list in the UK is different, and is laid down by the Lord Chamberlain in Annex D. There is no official list in Canada, as far as I'm aware. DrKay (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your words were "these aren't official lists". If the list is on an official website, what is the list other than official? And the Canadian list is from the government of Canada. How much more official is there? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

When the spurious claim that the British and Canadian royal families are different was added to wikipedia in 2007[2], the source used was Department of Canadian Heritage: Royal Family, which is archived at [3]. As can be seen by anyone who bothers to look for real sources instead of making it up as they go along, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra, and the Duke of Kent are all listed there. DrKay (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your original objction was that the information in the article was unverified; which, it turns out was true; even the archived version of the Canadian government website did not show Angus Ogilvy in the list of Royal Family members. However, that's all rendered inconsequential by the other problem that previously existed: the note is at the end of a sentence stating, "there exist some differences between the official lists of each [emphasis mine]"; present tense. So, the sources were updated to the British monarchy website and the current Canadian government website. You then shifted the goalposts by claiming these sources aren't official. Except they are; they're published by authories. There's also no claim that the British and Canadian royal families are different. The sentence reads, "there exist differences between the official lists of each [emphasis mine]."

You are also now at three reverts in 24 hours. this to this, this to this, and this to this. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that the sources are not official. I said they are not official lists, which they are not. According to you, since Prince George is not listed at either site, he is not an official member of the royal family. Well, I call that self-evident bullshit. DrKay (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And neither I nor the note as previously composed claimed the official lists are all-inclusive, merely that "there exist differences between" them, which is a verifiable fact. Regardless, the words official list are gone from the section. I also removed the content about the Canadian government considering the Royal Family to be those with the style his/her royal highness, as The Honours, Flags, and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces appears to have been edited to delete that information (at least, for the timebeing). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

To note that differences exist implies there is some significance to this, such as that the King and the government of Canada disagree on who is a member of his family and therefore is implicit OR.

I wouldn't take a web page from the Canadian Dept. of Heritage as an official pronunciation of the Canadian government and in fact it invites readers to alert them to errors.so they can be corrected. One obvious error in the Canadian webpage is that it lists Andrew and Harry as working royals, which they no longer are. Also, although Alexandra is not listed on that page, on another page her visit to Canada is listed as a visit by a member of the royal family.

Furthermore, since there is no clear definition of the family, any list must make an arbitrary cut-off, as would any family. There is nothing significant therefore that two sources would devise different lists. TFD (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The King and the government of Canada are the same thing. Also, while the Canadian list is presently published on the Government of Canada's page, not that of the Department of Canadian Heritage, speficially, Canadian Heritage is the ministry in charge of royal protocol.

Nonetheless, I think the intent was to acknowledge some significance in the difference between official lists; namely, as example of the distinctness of each institution from the other. But, yes, I can see how, even though it wasn't explicitly stated, the wording might've made it possible to assume anyone not on a country's official list wasn't considered by that country's government to be part of the country's royal family. I trust the way it's now written--which doesn't use "official list" and makes clear the lists aren't exhaustive--quells that implication. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The KIng and his government are not the same thing. The government of Canada for example has never slept in Buckingham Palace, while the KIng wasn't born in 1867. I think you mean that in some contexts they mean the same thing. But in this case you have said the Royal website is run by the King of the UK who is distinct from the government of Canada.

Anyway what does it matter if the Royal website list differs? Have you checked out the government websites for the other realms. TFD (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where or when I said the King runs the royal website. Regardless, I do recall that, above, I said why I think the difference in the lists mattered. Though, it's a retrospective guess, given it's been so long since that content was added to the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You said it matters because both lists are "official." But why should the official list of the British royal family be any more important than that of the other dozen or so government website lists from other Commonwealth realms? Also, is there any evidence that these lists are exhaustive? IOW are they saying that only people listed are members of the family? TFD (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The bits that have been recently tagged as "original research", are bits that ought to be removed. GoodDay (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the final sentence of the first paragraph of the tagged section, the current source only supports "Protocol officers guide ministers on matters of custom, such as flying flags at half staff." All other parts are unsupported. I would then question why we need to be told this information, which would seem self-evident. DrKay (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The list is specifically mentioned by Copps. The list cannot be British or Commonwealth, as Canada is sovereign; its protocol officers don't follow orders from London. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

She says 'said' of the list. It's hearsay and its origin, extent or officialness are not clear. Nothing in the second sentence of your reply is found in the source. DrKay (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Her words are, "protocol officers said we could not lower the flag for the former wife of Prince Charles because their divorce meant she was no longer on the official list of royal family honorees." There's nothing there of her saying 'said' of the list; she's referring directly to "the official list".

There are about 50 references in this article that state Canada is sovereign. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that Sheila Copps was referring to the list on the website? In fact, the webpage probably did not exist in 1997. How do we even know that she was referring to a literal list? Copps' article anyway is an editorial and therefore fails rs. In fact it is a good example of why editorials are not considered rs. TFD (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This article makes no connection between the list on the government's website and the list Copps was referring to. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You just said, "The list is specifically mentioned by Copps." TFD (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, the article does not state or imply the two lists are the same list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

So then Canada has two lists? TFD (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Article thumbnail

I'm just wondering if it wouldn't make more sense for the thumbnail of this article to be the royal arms of Canada rather than a portrait of Charles III himself? For consistently if nothing else, as the other most frequently-visited articles for other country's respective monarchies (such as the UK, Netherlands, Spain, Australia, etc.) use that country's arms. HadynMD (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no way that it doesn't make sense... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarify: You want to replace Charles' image in the infobox, with the royal arms of Canada? GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the arms of Canada are already in the infobox. I'm merely talking about the thumbnail image that comes up when you search "Monarchy of Canada" in the Wikipedia search bar. When you look up "Monarchy of the Netherlands", "Monarchy of Spain", etc., the thumbnail image (i.e. the first picture you see) is the arms of that country. I just think it would be more consistent for this page to have the same. HadynMD (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I see, ok. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The software displays the first free file. So, it shows the portrait which is freely-licensed, not the coat of arms, which is a non-free file. DrKay (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King Charles III Coronation Portrait (2023).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Interregnum

I believe the last interregnum, was in 1688-89. Between the abdication/deposition of James II/VII & the accession of his daughter Mary II & nephew/son-in-law William III/II. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Which photo should be used in the infobox?

• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B

Option A is currently used (despite no other infobox using it, and there being no consensus to do so as of yet: currently being discussed in this this RfC). Option B is currently used everywhere but here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping of the editors involved. @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Miesianiacal and @Aaron LBJ. I'll also be posting a notice to other editors at the parallel discussion. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment Just wanted to point out that option B is used in the various Monarchy articles only because on 14 August, Peter Ormond changed the infobox image to B in twelve of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a normal thing....slowly in time each article will evolve with its own image again. Moxy- 02:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• A - As it's the image of him as king. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• A kingship picture..... last thing we want is the same image in every article......we should make sure every article lead doesn't look the same in preview.Moxy- 01:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• A Better image, don't care if it's not used in other infoboxes. Also, given this article is about Canada's monarchy, why have a photo of a prince when you can have one of a ... monarch?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• A Much better image! It's the present image. RicLightning (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• A much better image; King, not Prince; no need to use an image that is clearly not from Canada (no idea what those plants are, but they don’t look Canadian.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Tree ferns, in New Zealand. HM actually grows them at Highgrove House in Gloucestershire. Mcvayn (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

'Mistook'

Hello, @Miesianiacal! I would simply like to voice my concern with this revert, as I do not believe the provided citation properly supports this article's statement (that Those who made such claims ["that the monarchy and the Queen herself represented colonialism and racism and she did not do enough to either prevent or rectify supposed offences"] … mistook the independent Canadian Crown as the British Crown in Canada). Specifically, the cited source doesn't seem to say anything about the activists making these claims and whether or not they are mistaken. (Also, as a nonexpert, it's not clear to me why such claims would necessarily be based in a misapprehension about the monarchy in the first place, so I would appreciate some clarification of the matter.) :D Shells-shells (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The provided source states, "Canada's complete independence was confirmed in 1939 when the King issued a separate declaration that Canada was at war against Germany. The Canadian Crown came to ultimate fruition with the accession of Queen Elizabeth II in 1952". The other source states, "it is because of these relationships with the institution of the British monarchy that Snow feels any discussion of its abolition in Canada is complex". The latter illustrates people holding the belief that the British Crown still has a place in Canada, which it does not, as affirmed by the aforementioned source and over a dozen others in this article. So, how else to present the error some First Nations activists and advocates made and make? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I see. Isn't this WP:SYNTH? Shells-shells (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That's really not an answer to the question. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought it was rhetorical :<. At first blush, I think the phrasing you used is more reasonable: the error some First Nations activists and advocates made and make. But the phrasing in the article seems to be inaccurate and overbroad compared to the sources, saying Those who made such claims instead of Some of those who made such claims; it seems quite possible to me that one could claim that the monarchy and the Queen herself represented colonialism and racism and she did not do enough to either prevent or rectify supposed offences without mistakenly conflating the British and Canadian monarchies. The 'Snow' source above doesn't, in my view, support the phrase Those who; at most it would support At least one who.

But this would be WP:SYNTH, as far as I can tell, because I'm currently unaware of a citation here that states the conclusion made in the article. Shells-shells (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks

@Trackratte: This has already been reverted but I just want to make one stylistic comment for your future reference. You wrote:

as the King does not live in Canada (aside from certain circumstances where they may "take up residence" in Canada such as during Royal Tours), the King of Canada is represented by the governor general who carries out most of the sovereign's duties in Canada.[4]

- and you put the phrase "take up residence" in quotation marks. Please, please, please do not use quotation marks unless you are providing an actual quote and if you are providing a quote - cite it. I know it's become common for people to use scare quotes or air quotes for emphasis but in proper writing they should only be used for an attributable quotation. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks mate. It's always a bit funny these sorts of things but we all have our own foibles and hobby horses certainly.

I would offer that quotes can be used for technical expressions, words, or terms of art, in addition to any phrases that have a colloquial meaning as per Peck's English housed with the Canadian Style by the Government of Canada. trackratte (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"Take up residence" is not a colloquial term, technical expression, or term of art. There's no need to put it in quotation marks. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion, or perhaps more properly, a preference. All of which to say is that the rule you portray isn't actually, and your first sentence was quite right, it's a stylistic comment.

Now, if you're happy with that I see little value to be added to the subject of the system of monarchy in Canada continuing to debate what, exactly, constitutes and differentiates the colloquial from the non-colloquial. trackratte (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"Thank you". Wellington Bay (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You're most welcome mate. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"Continuous succession"

The article states "the monarchy has evolved through a continuous succession of initially French and later British sovereigns into the independent Canadian sovereigns of today." The term "continuous succession" is inaccurate. First of all, it neglects the fact that the "succession" was in fact interrupted by the overthrow of the monarchy by Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England. While the monarchy was restored after 10 years to say there was a "continuous succession" is simply wrong. Secondly, while the sentence does say there were French and then British monarchs there was not a "continous succession" between the two. Rather, New France was conquered. There are also other incidents that mean there was no "continuous succession" such as the Glorious Revolution that deposed James II of England and put William of Orange on the throne. The notion of a "continuous succession" is a romanticism at best, propaganda at worst, and elides over the messy details of history and is certainy not NPOV. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the history bits read mostly like the article should be named "Monarchy in Canada", rather than "Monarchy of Canada". GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Cromwell can be discounted - at the time, the only part of present-day Canada claimed by England in a substantive manner was Newfoundland, which was not part of Canada as it was defined in the 17th century: 17th-century Canada was a territory of the King of France. The same applies to the 17th-century Glorious Revolution. The "conquest" of Canada is misnomer from a legal perspective. It was militarily occupied by Great Britain from 1759/60 to 1763, but during that time it was still a territory of the French king. The territory was transferred by treaty to the King of Great Britain, so no interregnum occurred. Indefatigable (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If Cromwell can be "discounted" then Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Phillip II, Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I should not be included in the List of Canadian monarchs. Either we have an expansive claim that English monarchs have ruled parts of Canada since the 16th century, or we don't. We can't both claim these individuals were Canadian monarchs and then make no mention of Cromwell. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

" The "conquest" of Canada is misnomer from a legal perspective." - Indigenous people would disagree with that claim, as too would French Canadians (the latter, at least in request to the Conquest of New France.) Wellington Bay (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of brevity I did omit the Indigenous perspective in my talk page comment, but the article should absolutely include it. I'm not advocating to eliminate the term conquest - from a cultural perspective it's valid and it's the established term. Indefatigable (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

From a "legal" perspective, France gained Canada through settlement and George II obtained it through cession.

I see however some merit in the comment about Nfld because the text reads, "no part of what is now Canada has been a republic or part of a republic." Clearly Nfld was part of what is now Canada. There could also be territories ceded by the U.S. when the borders were adjusted after the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1841. TFD (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your point here - this is a major inconsistency. I'll give some thought on a way a to resolve it. Indefatigable (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, quite frankly, it's absurd to claim that there was no conquest under a legal perspective given the military occupation and British military regime in New France. If there was no occupation from a "legal perspective" then what was the legal foundation of British military occupation of New France? Our modern constitutional arrangement may exist as if there was no conquest - but from a historical point of view that would be a legal fiction, or a constitutional niceity that exists for political reasons, but historically there clearly was a conquest of both New France and the Indigenous peoples, though the latter is quite a complex history which also involves alliances between competing colonial powers and various Indigenous nations. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Quebec was ceded to George II under the Treaty of Paris 1763 when both kings exchanged territories. TFD (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a bit like arguing that Eastern Europe entered the Soviet sphere as a result of the Yalta Conference without making any reference to World War II or Soviet victories on the Eastern Front. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact is that the King of France ceded Quebec to the George II. It doesn't matter what went on before, from a "legal perspective" under international law and the domestic laws of France and the UK, Quebec was transferred.

If you want an Eastern European comparison, the Soviet occupation of all states except the Baltic states was, from a legal perspective, legal, while the current occupation of parts of Ukraine by Russia is not. While parties may complain the law is unfair, it's still the law. TFD (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You're engaging in a straw man argument. No one is saying it wasn't legal, the point is that the Treaty of Paris was not a freestanding event, it was the consequence of a war. Britain did not gain control of Quebec because of the Treaty of Paris, they did so as a result of a series of military conflicts culminating in the Conquest of New France. The Treaty of Paris simply recognized the conquest and signified France's acceptance of it and gave it legal form. But to talk of the transfer of power from France to Britain without mentioning the military conquest is unfactual. You simply would not have had the Treaty of Paris had there not been a war and you would not have had the transfer of Quebec from France to Britain without Britain conquering New France first. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No need to link to strawman argument. I am a high school graduate.

You might want to brush up on your North American history, though. I explain it further in my comment below.

Are we agreed then that Canada was legally transferred to George II, or should the citizens of Quebec and Ontario worry about French troops returning to get back their territory? TFD (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If you understand what a straw man argument is why are you continuing to make one? No one is arguing whether or not the land transfer was legal. The point is what was the cause. The Treaty of Paris didn't fall from the sky, it was an outcome of the Seven Years War and in relation to the British monarchy it gained hegemony over New France as a result of military conquest. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If your argument isn't whether the land transfer was legal, why mention the ""legal perspective?" Anyway, following the war, some territories that were conquered were returned and territories that had not been conquered were handed over. The Seven Years War was wide ranging and was fought over a number of continents, so that you cannot say that any cession of territory was the direct result of conquest.

As you should know, unlike Britain, France did not want to send its population to build settler colonies, instead needing them in France to protect the country. So they were quite willing to trade Quebec, Lousiana and Florida for spice islands, which at the time were far more valuable than any territories in North America. So they probably would have traded Quebec without the conquest. TFD (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"If your argument isn't whether the land transfer was legal, why mention the ""legal perspective?" - you should ask User:Indefatigable that as he was the one who mentioned it by saying "The "conquest" of Canada is misnomer from a legal perspective." His comment was a non sequitur since no one was arguing it was illegal. Any reference I made to "legal perspectives" were in response to his comment and were arguing that one cannot talk about how the British monarchy came to reign over what is now Canada without referencing the military conquest of French Canada. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the ceding of territory didn't occur spontaneously, it was the result of a war in which British forces conquered and militarily occupied New France. Without the British military conquest, France would not have ceded the territory. It would be ahistorical to pretend there was no military conquest involved and the fact that an article on the monarchy in Canada made no mention of the role in colonial expansion or military conquest in the establishment of monarchy or the British monarchy becoming hegemonic is a stunning omission. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I think we should follow rs and date its beginnings to New France. TFD (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't know that. France might have ceded the territory without a conquest and they refused the British offer to return it. Or France could have refused to sign the treaty and could have held its claim just as Argentina lays claim to the Falklands/Malvinas. Instead, France legally transferred possession to George II. TFD (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetically, the King of France could have lost New France in a drunken poker game but he didn't. The historical fact is that the British conquered New France militarily. This isn't speculation, it's established history. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Seeking clarification. Shall we consider 1763, as the beginning of the Canadian monarchy of today? GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not productive to correct your historical inaccuracies and personal interpretations on a point by point basis. See Treaty of Paris (1763), which explains the circumstances of the cession of Quebec. TFD (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My point remains, without the territorial gains made during the Seven Years War and the conquest of Quebec there would not have been a treaty that recognized those gains. Without military conquest Britain would not have gained Quebec. While there were territories that the respective powers returned there was no territory ceded by the Treaty of Paris that wasn't first gained through military conquest. Wellington Bay (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

France ceded Florida and East Louisiana to Geo II even though the UK had not conquered them. Similarly, Geo II and France ceded some of the territories they gained during the war. The UK did not want Quebec, but was offered it hoped to trade it for another Caribbean Island.

In any case, France ceded its claim to Quebec. That is legally binding on them, reqardless of the circumstances. The U.S. became independent following a war. That does not mean their independence is illegal. It was recognized by Geo III under the 1783 Treaty. TFD (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The direct quote from the cited reference that has been in place for a very long while now I think is the best way forward, not least of which as it has the advantage of representing the long-standing consensus, is well referenced, and avoids any synthesis.

Second, it seems now that half of the lede is dedicated to an overly detailed exploration of why or how "Canada is one of the oldest continuing monarchies in the world today" which strikes me as unsuitable as the lede should summarize this simply and succinctly. Ideally then, almost all of that nuanced material should go into the History section of the article, and just a few summarizing sentences remaining in the lede. trackratte (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying Canada is one of the oldest continuing monarchies in the world says more about continuing monarchies than it does about Canada. Who knew that most monarchies were only created in the last several centuries? Most people would associate monarchy with the Middle Ages. TFD (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Whatever its overall import, it does seem rather fluffy in the context of a clearly oversized lead section. That entire paragraph rather cries out for some heavy editing down. And ideally, refactor them down to (at most) four in total. As @Trackratte says, much of the detail would be better kept to the body sections. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Meaning of reside

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus is to describe the monarch as residing in the United Kingdom. Although the question at hand was not particularly well described, it is clear from the responses that the discussion centers around the description of the monarch as residing primarily (or some other qualifier) in the UK or residing in the UK, and the description of their residency in the article as a whole, including the infobox. It stands to reason that noting a residence is "official," in that it belongs to the office and is not where the monarch actually resides, is in line with this consensus. The argument that the amount of time the monarch spends in a location has no bearing on how we should describe their residence gained little traction in the discussion with views such as I would say the King is resident in London, but resides in, or is resident in, various government houses when he tours Canada... We should not try to pretend the monarch of Canada lives in Canada when he simply doesn't... He very occasionally visits other realms, as with his predecessor. Brief stays are not what you would ordinarily indicate with the word reside... Indeed, since his accession, Charles III has yet to visit Canada... All these citations are written before the king's accession and common sense and natural idiom dictate that the king resides only in the United Kingdom. being the significant majority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Where does the King of Canada "reside"? DrKay (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• In the United Kingdom. The article currently claims that he resides at Rideau Hall, Ottawa and La Citadelle, Quebec City, in addition to residing "predominantly" in the United Kingdom. So extraordinary is this claim that it has only survived in the article by being bolstered by a run of about a dozen claimed citations, which is clearly a case of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. All these citations are written before the king's accession and common sense and natural idiom dictate that the king resides only in the United Kingdom. DrKay (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 10#Queen's Residence (and governor general's) DrKay (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• In the United Kingdom - Indeed, since his accession, Charles III has yet to visit Canada. As for the pages Rideau Hall & Citadelle of Quebec's intros? Compare them to the governors-general residences intros of the other non-UK commonwealth realms & tell me if ya'll see anything different. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close: There is no active dispute that needs resolution. A discussion from 2015 does not satisfy RFCBEFORE, and it's not clear that you've notified the participants from that previous discussion. If you want to change the infobox just be bold and do it. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Edits removing such disputed content[5] were reverted, even when they only concerned a single word [6]. It is disruptive to continue edits, such as removing the disputed content from the infobox, when editors know that such edits are highly likely to be disputed and when an active discussion is open. The reverting editor has not edited wikipedia since the RfC was opened, and so there is a high likelihood that they have not yet had a chance to comment here. I would prefer the RfC to be kept open until the reverting editor either confirms the objection is removed or sufficient time for comment has been allowed. DrKay (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but the point is that there hasn't been a discussion on the talk page here first, as is required by RFCBEFORE, which might have resulted in a compromise or editors changing their minds. Even if closed, nothing would preclude having a talk page discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The lack of notice of this RfC is something to consider. We can see from the opener's edit history that he alerted no one. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Depends: When the Sovereign is in Canada he may reside at one of the many Government Houses across the country. If he is in the United Kingdom, he may reside at any British royal residence. Peter Ormond 💬 09:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

So the monarch spends the same amount of time (for examples) in Canada or Grenada or Belize, as in the United Kingdom? GoodDay (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Living primarily in the United Kingdom doesn't stop Charles from having residences overseas. For instance, Charles frequently visits Romania and maintains his own estate there. Peter Ormond 💬 16:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We're interested in where he physically resides, which happens to be the United Kingdom. Not where he stays overnight or a few nights, when visiting other countries. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There are laws governing residency in Romania[7][8]. The article in House and Garden calls the property a "hotel" and a "guesthouse", which readers can book for a price. That appears to show that it is a business not a residence. DrKay (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• King Charles lives/resides – not primarily, solely – in the UK. He very occasionally visits other realms, as with his predecessor. Brief stays are not what you would ordinarily indicate with the word reside. I think using this language is based more off of wanting to "prove" the equality of the realms rather than in what reliable sources say or what common sense would indicate. ITBF (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• In the United Kingdom. The King of Thailand reportedly lives in Germany although he has official residences in Thailand. Queen Margarethe II of Denmark lives in Denmark although she owns a residence in France. King Juan Carlos I reportedly lives in the United Arab Emirates. We should not try to pretend the monarch of Canada lives in Canada when he simply doesn't. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• In the United Kingdom The Citadel etc. are what could be termed secondary residences, the equivalent of cottages or holiday villas owned by common folk. One could say for example that one resided in Toronto but resided in Muskoka during the summer. But one would only say one resided in Muskoka when one happened to be there and Toronto would remain one's permanent place of residence. So I would say the King is resident in London, but resides in, or is resident in, various government houses when he tours Canada. But if he stays in Toronto, he stays in a hotel or private residence and therefore is not resident there. TFD (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Depends The King has numerous residences, private and official, all over the world. How long he spends in each is irrelevant to the fact that, when he spends time in one of them, he is residing in that residence and, therefore, in the country in which that residence is located. The fact that Rideau Hall is the King's Ottawa residence is supported by no less than six reliable sources and the Citadelle of Quebec by two. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Closure

I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this actually need formal closure? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Just so objectors don't come back & complain there was no formal closure. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It's five supporting the UK, a procedural close request, and a depends. That's about as clear as you need. Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Closing the discussion says If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable (bolding in original). Is the consensus here not obvious? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this cover the attempt to replace "resides...", with "lives..."? GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Yes, we do need a formal close. As everyone here expected, the argument will be constantly litigated without one: [9]. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits made before closure

The status of Rideau Hall and la Citadelle as residences was not part of the RfC, nor were the words "oldest and most populous" (apologies for the typo in the edit summary). The question the RfC asked was, "where does the King of Canada 'reside'?" "Predominanlty [or mainly or principally] in the United Kingdom" acknowledges the King resides in the United Kingdom. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, just because no one made an official close does not mean there isn't a clear consensus that goes against your position. Editing against consensus is disruptive, especially when the consensus is as clear as this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The only apparent consensus is that Charles III resides in the UK, which was actually never in dispute. There's been no discussion on actual wording of the article (including the removal of "oldest and most populous") and which buildings in Canada are the King's residences is a completely separate matter settled at Talk:Rideau Hall years ago, with numerous RSs to support the info currently in WP. Let's be very clear on this clear consensus. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Does the RFC call for deleting any mention of the monarch residing in the United Kingdom? Would seem to me, by not mentioning he resides in the UK, that removes the explanation for the existence of the governor general & the lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

They very clearly stated the RfC "question [...] was not particularly well described"; it never covered article wording, nor was article wording discussed until SFR closed the RfC. It also never said we can't just avoid the whole question of where the monarch resides (which you, yourself, tried). The constitution actually says nothing about where the monarch resides, let alone that the governors exist and can use most of the monarch's powers because the monarch resides in the UK. A governor (general or lieutenant) exists and can use most of the monarch's powers when the monarch is standing right next to him; a fact the article presently confuses, at best.

Most sources simply state the governor represents the monarch and leaves the sovereign's residency out of the description of the viceroy's role: "His Majesty King Charles III is King of Canada and Head of State. The Governor General is the representative of The King in Canada." "In 1947, Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the governor general of Canada (under King George VI) authorized the governor general to exercise most of the Crown's powers on behalf of the Sovereign." "The Governor General is the Monarch’s representative in Canada." This government publication states, "given that the Queen's principal residence is in the United Kingdom, she cannot be in Canada at all times. It is for this reason that her Canadian representatives--the governor general (federally) and lieutenant governors (provincially)--are appointed and act on her behalf in performing certain duties and responsibilities." But, oh, no, there's the adjective principal in front of residence.

One wording seen while researching is, "as our head of state, His Majesty The King, cannot be in Canada at all times. In his absence, his direct representatives ensure that the role of the Crown functions as an integral part of our system of government." That might be altered to suit this article: "As the person who is the Canadian sovereign is equally shared with 14 other monarchies (a grouping, including Canada, known informally as the Commonwealth realms) within the 56-member Commonwealth of Nations, he cannot be in Canada at all times. As such, viceroys (the governor general of Canada in the federal sphere and a lieutenant governor in each province) represent the sovereign in Canada; though, they remain able to carry out most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties when the monarch is in the country." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I've already pinged the RFC closer for clarification. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

And, after that, I addressed you. Now that the short history of this conversation has been summarized, do you have any response to my remarks? No response can only be taken as an approval of the suggested wording. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of your determination to keep out of this page, any mention of the Canadian monarch residing only in the United Kingdom. But, we can't have our readers wondering where the monarch is at, while the governor general & lieutenant governors are performing the monarch's duties. Again, I've already pinged the RFC closer for clarification, on their RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You're making presumptuous, bad faith, personal remarks. My determination is to present accurate information, not mislead readers with untruths like the existence and abilities of the Canadian viceroys are dependent on the monarch's whereabouts, let alone on the subjective opinion that the monarch resides only in the UK.

Why does this article need to track "where the monarch is at"? This isn't a news site. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The RFC closer is not on Wikipedia at the moment. Let's wait until he chimes in & clarifies his RFC decision, please. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I've asked once more, if the RFC closer would step in & clarify their decision. If they don't in the next 24 hrs? I'll open a somewhat related RFC, with the question - "Should we include that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A week is a sufficient amount of time to have waited.

That proposed RfC question is deceptively limited and irrelevant to what you've been attempting to insert into the artile and need to find a source for: the claim the governors exist and are empowered as they are because the monarch resides in the UK. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You're continuing to deny (via deletion) that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom & therefore are going against the RFC result. PS - It would help, if you'd contact the RFC closer for clarification, if you've got doubts. Being contacted by both of us, may get them to give more input. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no basis to your accusation; the RfC concluded the popular opinion among a handful of Wikipedia editors is that the King of Canada resides in the UK. I did not insert anything that claims the King of Canada resides anywhere other than the UK. Please adhere to the facts. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an RFC concerning whether or not we should mention in the article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom. I'm confident you'll respect the result of that RFC, as will I. No matter what the result is. It's time we put an end to this particular content dispute, on this particular article. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

""given that the Queen's principal residence is in the United Kingdom, she cannot be in Canada at all times." - Reviewing the list of royal tours and making a rough calculation it would appear that in the roughly 157 years since confederation the various monarchs have been in Canada for a cumulative total of 249 days. For the sake of ease of calculation let's call it a full year. This means that throughout Canada's existence since 1867, the monarch has been here roughly 0.64% of the time (or put another way, the monarch has been absent from the country 99.3% of the time. To say "she cannot be in Canada at all times" would be something of an understatement. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay: - I think that's something that needs mentioning in the 'consensus' subsection of the following RFC, too. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Common Agreement"?

Footnote 1 states: "The date of the first establishment of monarchy in Canada varies: some sources give the year as 1497, when John Cabot landed somewhere along the North American coast (most likely Nova Scotia or Newfoundland) claiming an undefined extent of land for King Henry VII, while others put it at 1534, when the colony of Canada was founded in the name of King Francis I. Historian Carolyn Harris places the beginning of Canada's monarchical government at the appointment of Samuel de Champlain as Governor of New France, representing King Louis XIII, in 1627. Although the exact date differs, the fact that a monarchical form of governance has existed since the 16th century is in common agreement."

Question: If Carolyn Harris dates monarchial government in Canada from 1627 (ie the 17th century), how can the next sentence say "the fact that a monarchial form of governance has existed since the 16th century is in common agreement"? Wellington Bay (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Because the note says that the consensus of the sources say that it dates from (at least) the 16th century, some say before that, but all agree that it was in place from the 16th century.

Text of the note: "The date of the first establishment of monarchy in Canada varies: some sources give the year as 1497, when John Cabot landed somewhere along the North American coast (most likely Nova Scotia or Newfoundland) claiming an undefined extent of land for King Henry VII, while others put it at 1534, when the colony of Canada was founded in the name of King Francis I. Historian Carolyn Harris places the beginning of Canada's monarchical government at the appointment of Samuel de Champlain as Governor of New France, representing King Louis XIII, in 1627. Although the exact date differs, the fact that a monarchical form of governance has existed since the 16th century is in common agreement."

Also, the Government of Canada says "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France and England in the 15th] century, so again, a lot of sources say the 15th century (perhaps the majority), however, the "common agreement" is as of the 16th. trackratte (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"Because the note says that the consensus of the sources say that it dates from (at least) the 16th century, some say before that, but all agree that it was in place from the 16th century." Except for Harris and Monet, one of the sources cited for the footnote[10], who say it dates from the 17th century. Citing sources that claim various dates from the 15th to 17th centuries and using that to say there is "common agreement" for the 16th because that falls in the middle appears to be WP:SYNTH. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to. The archived Canadian Encyclopedia article linked is for the governor general and discusses the creation date of that office. Perhaps it would be easier to drill down to exactly what you think the issue is by including a quote and a link to whichever of the references you think gives rise to a potential editorial problem that we need to resolve. trackratte (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The archived Canadian Encyclopedia article is one of the sources used for the 16th century claim despite not making any such claim. Point is the note is badly written. It gives dates ranging from the 15th to 17th century then asserts "the fact that a monarchical form of governance has existed since the 16th century is in common agreement". None of the cited sources say there is common agreement; that statement is WP:SYNTH. Better to say "from the 15th to 17th centuries", "as early as the 15th century" or "as late as the 17th century" or just take out that sentence entirely as it adds nothing to the note. Wellington Bay (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I note your edit in the main space changing it to "since as early as the 15th century", and I agree. trackratte (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you be okay with my removing the last part of note 1? It is SYNTHy and really is unnecessary and an overexplanation given the rest of the note. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence of note 1 has a reference which itself actually contains five or six references which I think would be inappropriate to remove entirely. Also, it would seem that of the 10 citations, only one seems to say the 1600s, one or two say 1400s, and the rest say 1500s including the Government of Canada itself in two separate officially published sources. So, the official stance of Canada is the 1500s, academics have a bit of range 1497 to early 1600s, but the centre of mass as it were is clearly in the 1500s. Now, if you would like to propose how to more clearly convey that message in the last sentence of Note 1 certainly, as I do agree that the way that it is phrased currently is sub-optimal. trackratte (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That's another thing - this habit of nesting references actually makes the sourced harder to access- and I thought there was a policy against overreferencing. Three sources is more than enough - having 8 or 9 references for one detail is completely unnecessary. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Nesting should be done as per WP:NFN, and I assume there are that many references as it was previously a point of contention or disputed. In this case with a bit of a spread of dates, we also have to remain cognisant of WP:Cherrypick and WP:VER in terms of providing the info, the nuance, and ensure that "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" for each data point (i.e. 1497, 1532, etc). So, I would be wary of removing a bunch of citations, however, if someone thinks that a specific source should be removed for whatever reason feel free to make that case, I just don't feel it particularly necessary to spend the time to go through each and every source for a footnote at the moment.

As for the phrasing, did you have a suggestion? trackratte (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Common agreement" is certainly very awkward phrasing, above and beyond anything else. We should really be either stating something in editorial voice (with references), or attributing them to their sources. This seems like a confused mixture of the two, where we attribute them, then "sum up" in a loaded (and on the face of it, contradictory) manner. Ideally, unless we want to go into this in great detail -- and I assume we don't, otherwise why's it only a footnote? -- we'd cite a small number of secondary or tertiary sources that sum up what the "centre of mass" and the range is. Rather than trying to do our own meta-analysis from a large number of sources, which teeters towards OR/SYNTH. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)