Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 1

message: I switched this page from "Queen of Canada" to "Canadian monarchy" since technically this page is not simply about the "Queen of Canada", Elizabeth II, but about the institution of the Canadian monarchy. user:J.J.
:Someone did it incorrectly. Please use the Move command to do this in the future. - Montréalais 01:44, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw the above.  
Canadian monarchy means the Monarchy of Canada, which is different to the Monarchy in Canada. Since the 1920s (an imperial conference decision which later formed the basis for both the Royal Titles Act and the Statutes of Westminster) the concept of the singular crown in the Commonwealth has been replaced by multiple crowns, singular monarch. So constitutionally all states in the commonwealth are separate monarchies. The king in the Irish Free State went from being 'King in Ireland' to 'King of Ireland', a fundamentally different legal concept. 
The statement that there are many republicans who argue that there is no "Canadian monarchy" that it's a British institution so the title "Monarchy in Canada" is preferable for Wiki since it's more neutral is comically wrong. There may well be some republicans who believe that but that is irrelevant. This is an encyclopaedia. It has to deal with issues in a way that are (i) neutral, (ii) factually accurate. Just because there are constitutionally illiterate republicans (as indeed no doubt there are constitutionally illiterate monarchists) does not mean we have to reflect their ignorance in our articles. FearÉIREANN 17:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Tony O'Donohue launched a court action in 2002 arguing that the Act of Settlement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that it discriminates against Catholics. His case was dismissed by the court... Which court dismissed his case?  The Supreme Court of Canada, or some other, regional court?  Please expand this.
___
Ontario Superior Court. The link has been added. MC Rufus 19:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Court? 

message: :In fact in a recent survey it was found that only 5% of Canadians knew that Queen Elizabeth II was Queen of Canada.
This sounds incredibly unlikely. Until someone can provide an actual source for this, I've moved it here. -- nknight 03:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That survey notes that only 5% are aware that the Queen is the Head of State. This merely reflects a misunderstanding of the word and office, not a lack of knowledge as to who the Queen is. -- nknight 16:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What survey? 

message: I just wanted to explain recent edits.
1) As Australia, Jamaica and Barbados all still have the Crown as the foundation of their constitutions, they are Commonwealth Realms.
2) The sentence "...it is widely predicted that there may be little real debate on the future of the monarchy in Canada until the current Queen's reign nears its end" is POV as there has been no planning for removing the Crown from Canada near the end of the Queen's reign, or before any other 'deadline', except amongst republicans.  Its been changed to read: "it is widely predicted that there may be little real debate on the monarchy for some time to come."  gbambino
:I have just edited the 'Debate on the Monarchy' section to again make clear that the Toronto Star is no longer officially pro-republican.
:Also added fact that the MLC is a national group.
:Added that God Save the Queen is now sung only at some official functions, and that the only oath which has had the Queen removed from it is the one taken by federal public servants. gbambino
________
Territorial commissioners are not representatives of the Queen, but rather are federal employees.
"it is widely predicted that there may be little real debate on the monarchy for some time to come."
Why replace one POV statement with another?AndyL 18:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I've just started a discussion (well, it will become one if anyone else is interested) at Talk:Royal_and_Parliamentary_Titles_Act. G Colyer 02:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To elaborate a little the discussion is about the constitutional significance of the 1927 Act and its impact on the relationship between the Crown and the dominions. The article currently makes some very sweeping but questionable claims about the impact of the Act on the status of dominions such as Canada. Any outside input would be greatly appreciated. Iota 00:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple crowns? 

message: As an American interested in Canada's constitutional monarchy (and an affinity for Canadian history in general), I find that this section is woefully inadequate and not detailed enough, compared to the republican section which is much longer. I believe that this subject (Canadian monarchists and their positions and arguments and so forth) justifies a new article, which hopefully will present a clear account of what Canadian monarchists are all about, and keeping any potential Canadian republican bias out of that article (and presenting republican views and arguments in their article). Could we please set this into motion? SouthernComfort 5 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)
:Wikipedia policy is to create spin-off articles once a page exceeds 32Kish. There are technical, browser, and reading reasons for this. At 58K this article is ludicrously long and will have to be broken up into manageable proportions. FearÉIREANN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 16:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article is too long and is now unmanageable. HistoryBA 23:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I would say "ludicrously long", but the article does currently seem to have a natural break, with about half of it describing the constitutional office of Queen, and half describing debate on this office. Peter Grey 13:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article became "ludicrously long" after all the information I compiled for the now defunct Elizabeth II of Canada article was shifted here by AndyL.  I believe this page should be dedicated only to information on the institution or office of the Crown, and thus the debate about the office should remain on this page, but the personal information about the current sovereign in in her relation to Canada should be placed elsewhere again.  I've wondered about a sub-page to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, along with others for her personal history in Australia, New Zealand, etc. --gbambino 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: frist pass at Monarchist arguments

message: Mediation has been requested for this article.
I am reviewing the sides currently. If there are any objections to my mediating, please say so.-SV|t 18:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation 

message: Can anyone provide examples of the distinctive nature of the Crown in Canada (aside from legal considerations)?  I think there's some confusion about definitions, and examples might make it clearer. Peter Grey 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of symbolism there is the Queen's personal Canadian Standard, the Royal Arms of Canada, the Queen's effigy on Canadian coins and currency, the 50 cent stamp with the Bryan Adams portrait of the Queen, as well as the flags and crests of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors (Governor General of Canada/Precedence and privileges).  Off the top of my head, those are the first distinctly Canadian things I can think of. Also, how the Crown operates in this country is, I believe, somewhat different from its operation in others.  For example, its position in the relationship between the provincial and the federal governments. --gbambino 22:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: They are distinct but they derive from the Queen's constitutional office.  The Governor General of Canada has a flag, the Governor General of New Zealand has a different flag, but I would hesitate to call that a distinction.  There are things which the Queen does differently in Canada - for example using both English and French at official functions, and participating in Canadian culture, like ceremonial face-offs at hockey games.  I understand her relationship with native people is unique, but I'm not familiar with the specifics.  Is there anything else? Peter Grey 23:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinctiveness 

message: I've removed gbambino's misleading statement regarding Rouleau's reference to a "Canadian Crown" See Peter Grey's comment in Talk:Commonwealth Realm repeated below:
* The concept of multiple Crowns is a useful metaphor for describing the shared vs. separate character of the monarchy. It is apparently not, in Canadian law at least, the correct usage of 'Crown' as a legal term. Rouleau clearly discussed one shared Crown - "Canadian Crown" was only used in a counterfactual, so clearly there are not two Crowns to be compared.  
Homey 03:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no more 'misleading' than your stating that the "British Crown" Rouleau refers to is the same as the "Crown in Right of the UK."  Why is that quotations from Rouleau which counter your argument offend you?  Why do you now attempt to censor what you don't like? --gbambino 03:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rouleau and the Canadian Crown 

message: GBambino: Since the Crown is a shared institution, we really do need some clarification as to what is "distinctly Canadian", and what sense of the word 'Crown' is being referred to, since it does have different meanings.
AndyL: The monarchy represents a personal union, distinct legal personalities, and a relationship of equal, sovereign states. Those principles are fundamental to constitutional law in Canada - if you want to suggest any of those are untrue, you will need something stronger than your personal opinion, you need to cite a source that is unbiased and more recent than 1982, not just a few quotes from legal documents taken out of context.
I think both of you should read WP:NPOV from beginning to end before making any more edits. Peter Grey 03:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: You've got to be kidding me

message: I do not want to make major changes to the article while it is under mediation, but I would interested in feedback on splitting the article in two, by creating a 'Queen of Canada' article, modelled on the existing Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand articles, which would be limited to the 'hard facts' about the constitutional office of the Queen, and leave Monarchy in Canada as a home for perspective, political theories, and maybe a general overview to orient readers regarding the family of related articles. Peter Grey 03:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting idea, but could it not be titled as "Sovereign of Canada", as "Queen" is rather gender specific? --gbambino 05:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could eaisly be seperated. A Queen of Canada article would concentrate on the Queen's title, Canadian visits, constituional role and history in Canada, Canadian symbols of monarchy etc. A monarcy in Canada article would concentrate on republic v monarchy, and anyother things on the future role. Astrotrain 21:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The article has already been seperated and is down to an acceptable size. Homey 21:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe there's more than one opinion as to what is acceptable.  (Heck, the mediator might even have a thought!) Besides, I'm proposing the split for content, not for size. Peter Grey 21:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of the article