Talk:Monarchy in British Columbia

message: :Image:COA-BC-Large.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:COA-BC-Large.jpg

message: On what basis is it assumed that Prince George, BC is named for Prince George, Duke of Cambridge?  This matter was discussed on that city's article's talk page, and there doesn't seem to be any firm knowledge of the identity of the George in question.  Fort George, the city's antecedent, was named by Simon Fraser, evidently for the reigning monarch, King George III .  As far as I know, of whom the local developers and the Grand Trunk Pacific had in mind when they tossed "Fort" and replaced it with "Prince" is a matter of dispute.  Certainly the Duke of Cambridge is one possibility, but so is King George V or Prince George, Duke of Kent.  Are there any references?  Because it would help clear up the matter on the Prince George, BC page, as well.  fishhead64 07:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Akrigs say that Fort George was founded by Simon Fraser in 1807 and named for King George III.  In 1910 a real estate boon in expectation of the GTPR lead to a struggle between 3 competing townships but the GTP's site, Prince George prevailed.  When the first civic elections were held in 1915 Prince George was chosen over Fort George by a vote of 152 to 13.  Is there another version?  --KenWalker | Talk 07:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as far as I know - yours' is the version I've heard as well.  The other reference, Runnall's History of Prince George, is entirely silent on the question of who the Prince is in "Prince George."  One of the interlocutors on the Prince George, BC talk page floated the intriguing theory that the Grand Trunk officials named it for one of their coastal steamships, the SS Prince George.  More likely, I think, is that "Prince George" sounded better than "Fort George," where the rival CN had its station and property, and that there may have been no fixed individual in mind.  In any event, I will mark the attribution in this article for citation.  fishhead64 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it is worth, there is an article about the Steamship Prince Rupert which was a sistership to the SS Prince George.  Looks like she began about 1910, just a few years before the mentioned plebiscite but long after the place was named Fort George  --KenWalker | Talk 00:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon Fraser himself notes that he named the fur trading post "Fort George" in honour of George III - the issue is who the proponents of "Prince George" had in mind when the community was renamed. fishhead64 01:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince George

message: Plase see Talk:Alexandra of Denmark re various items.  I rmoved Princess Royal Island, and have my doubts about James Island re Gov. Douglas (threre's nothing in BCGNIS about name origin either)Skookum1 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexandra of Denmark items

message: I'll be removing it from the article after posting this.  it wasn't named for royalty, but for a Mr. King who was a friend/shipmate of George. Vancouver on the Discovery - see BCGNIS listing "King Island"Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: re King Island

message: I'm not sure why this page has been put as a part of WP:BROY. What's the reason? --G2bambino (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is, because there's no WikiProject Canadian Royalty. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't. But that doesn't mean this necessarily falls within the jurisdiction of WP:BROY. The only possible connection I can think of is that some places in BC were named for members of the British Royal Family, but, do articles about places named for historical British royals fall within WP:BROY scope? I can't see any information on the project page that says yes. --G2bambino (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...I don't see anything that says it doesn't.....(following written before I saw the immediate relies above) I deliberated a bit before adding it, but decided it was the right thing to do; most of the page has to do with the British royal legacy in British Columbia, which as you can see from the redlink I just created is perhaps a split-away article waiting to be made where WP:BROY is more pointedly suitable. The page title as it sits is theoretically about monarchy as an institution in BC, i.e. the nature of the Crown and the functioning of it as part of the constitutional structure; not about royal visits and royal names. Princess Louise, for instance, was not a monarch, but a royal, and there's a difference....maybe it's the focus of the page, then, that's the issue; the royal legacy thing is definitely part of BC's story and needs an article; and I can't see why it's not to be connected with royalty articles; an abstract "Monarchy" article seems harder to pin down (although it's true the genesis of Crown power in BC was different from elsewhere in Canada, so a separate BC article is warranted on those terms). BC is/was known as "the most royalist of all the dominions" ( that's citable, though exact wording may vary") and the role of the monarchy here, abetted by endless visits by royals, is part of the fabric of the place's history (esp. Dufferin's visit, but that's a long story not told here yet...I have an unfinished post on "First Nations and the Crown" which I'll hopefully get to later today....).Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... Well, this seems to be one of those instances where overlaps start to happen and the distinction between one are and another is blurred. I see your point r.e. royal associations vs. constitutional structures and obligations; I suppose this page ended up as it did because it was modelled on Monarchy in Saskatchewan, which itself seemed to have been based on Monarchy of Canada (then Monarchy in Canada), and that article included info on the history of royal activity in the country. So, a "royal legacy" article sounds interesting in principle, but the proposal leaves a lot to be sorted out; for instance, when does legacy stop and contemporary begin? When does the legacy stop being British? I'm not saying something can't be done - for some time now I've given a thought here and there about what to do with all these provincial crown articles - but we may just need to sort some issues out first. --G2bambino (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Instead of WPBROY, this article should be under Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but maybe there is a legitimate reason to have it under WP:BROY. Maybe... --G2bambino (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: one note: "Royal legacy in British Columbia" leaves the door open for the "legacy" of the Kaiser's arbitration of the boundary disputes....so "British royal legacy" or "Canadian royal legacy" at least should be in the name; "Canadian " is problematic because BC wasn't Canadian until 1871, after much of the royal/royalist nature of the place was already underway.  I don't see legacy items having much at all to do with "Commonwealth realms" though, but I'll look at that project and see what it's about.  Other than the Kaiser, btw, there might be other non-British "royal legacies" kicking around; a Romanov heir lives in Victoria, for instance (Nikolas Golitsyn), though nothing's named for him....Skookum1 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BROY 

message: If that section-title is to be use at all there's a lot more that could be in this section.  It's not a bad précis of the history of the land claims issue, but that's not really the Crown/First Nations relationship; Some that do not recognize Canada/BC nonetheless still look to the Crown, if only as an equal in status; and there's along history of royal appeals and assertions of loyalty; first to mind is Lord Dufferin's visit, when native rights was brought to the fore, and Dufferin put in an awkward spot about it (BCers have a history of using L-G's and G-G's for political purposes) , and things like Joe Capilano's and the Nisga'a leadership and other  leaders' trips to Buckingham Palaceat various times, or meetings during royal visits.  Several royals have been conferred indigenous names and honorary band/nation memberships, also.  Anyway it strikes me that while the land claims issue is relevant, it is not teh central point of "the Crown and the First Nations" as a topic; I'll try and remember to come back here ewith materials for consideration/citation.Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there's (much) more that could be added to the section; I merely started it with what little bits I could find. However, I think that in expanding it, we'd have to be careful of distinguishing between any FNs relations with the Crown in Right of BC and the federal Crown. Admittedly, I'm not very well versed in the intricacies of FNs/Crown interactions, though I'd love to understand more. --G2bambino (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First Nations and the Crown section

message: I just checked the BCGNIS listing for Prince George and according to the source quoted there it was George III that Simon Fraser named Fort George after - in 1807.  I'm not sure that this is correct, i.e. either BCGNIS or the source made a mistake - on the Princeton entry, for example, they say the relevant Prince of Wales was, ahem, Edward II.  "Fuzzy history" bedevils some histories in BC; I think the only resolution to this will be in Simon Fraser's journal-passage about the founding of the Fort.  Also the Queen Charlottes and Princess Royal Reach/Island et al. were not named for queens and princesses, but for ships named for the queens and princesses; an important distinction; there's more than one Princess Royal vessel so I'll be back as to which one, and whose ship it was likewise Queen Charlotte.Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince George and other royal geography problems

message: OK, I'll buy the Victoria, Princess Royal attribution for the Jervis Inlet-area items; I was surprised not to find Princess Royal Island here - er, I guess maybe it was me who took it out - but it, like the Queen Charlotte Islands, was not named for a royal personage, but for a ship Capt. George Dixon's vessel, the Princess Royal) named for a royal personage; quite a different thing; should I put Princess Royal Island back in, and move it and the Queen Charlottes to a subsection for "indirectly named for"; it's an important difference - something by the side of the King George Highway being the King George Whatzit, but it was the highway named for thte king, not the whatzit.  This is the same situation with these ship-named islands; they're not directly royal legacy.  Feedback pls.Skookum1 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Princess Royals

message: The image :File:Coat of Arms of British Columbia.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Coat of Arms of British Columbia.png

message: That's a redlink, it's an obscure inlet near Rivers Inlet; see  about its naming, which was for hte grand-daughters of Henri Joly de Lotbiniere during his tenure as L-G.  I'm uncertain as to how far down the viceregal tree to go when accounting for things named for viceroys and their kin, but posting this here out of interest...Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Boswell Inlet]]

message: Noting in passing that, as on Talk:Royal eponyms in Canada, Fort San Miguel at Nootka Sound was named for the name-saint of Miguel III, then King of Spain, the Russian Empire's claims in the region were formalized in 1799, with the southward declared limit of Russian sovereignty being the 51st parallel (just north of Cape Scott, the NW tip of Vancouver Island); "the line of the Emperor Paul" was how that line was described later during negotiations to reduce and expanded Russian claim, declared in 1821, down to the mid-Oregon Coast (43-50 N I think), which was withdrawn to 54-40 in 1824/25.  Technically, what is now the BC Coast was part of the Russian Empire, in Russian eyes, from 1799 to 1824/25; only the 51st line of latitude lasted very long, not that the Russians did much with it (no bases south of Sitka, and only marginal exploration....Fort Ross, California not established 'til much later and never part of formal Russian territorial claims.Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On a similar note, I'm not sure if La Perouse conferred any French royal names; his contact with the Coast was mostly the QCI and northwards.....he might have, I haven't looked at the toponymy in that area....his own name etc falls in the "nobility "category, but there's scads of that in BC so not sure an article is all that relevant (Minto, Dufferin, Carnarvon etc...)Skookum1 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Russians

message: Re this removal: this is one of those "hey look at me, I stood next to the Queen" things that politicians like to do, and it has no place here; especially if other politician-bumpf from earlier eras and other visits is not equally included, which of course is impossible.  "I thanked the Queen" is what this is, and has no real relevance other than promoting this particular politician's "legacy", same as with him cutting in on spectator benches at the Olympics next to medal-winners and other camera-hogging b.s., or grabbing the flag and singing O Canada (very badly) at the opening ceremonies...  WAC Bennett's previous sally in 1959 is notable because of Ottawa's over-ruling of it...but you don't see here the speeches welcoming Edward VII's visit as Duke of Cornwall and York, or Edward II and HM Elizabeth (the Queen Mum) during their visit.  Campbell's political promotional-poop has been all over Wikipedia articles (cutting ribbons on everything from bridges to playgrounds) and it has not place in an encyclopedia especially when other politicians who have sucked up to the royal ermine (and in more discreet fashion) are not equally/similarly featured....Skookum1 (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Campbellitis - politician spam

message: Twice now, the the following claim (or something very similar to it) has been inserted into the article: "This request [Bennett's in 1959 for the Queen to deliver the Throne Speech to the BC legislature] was turned down by the 'Office of the Governor General, who refused to sanction such a suggestion for two reasons: such an unprecedented ceremony would hinder [the Office's] ability to 'Canadianize' the Crown and the constitution specifically assigns to the Lieutenant-Governor the function of giving royal assent to provincial bills'." However, the quote is actually a misquote from the source (it actually being: "The Office of the Governor General refused to sanction such a suggestion for two reasons: such an unprecedented ceremony would hinder our ability to 'Canadianize' the Crown and the constitution specifically assigns to the Lieutenant-Governor the function of giving royal assent to provincial bills") and it clearly refers to the granting of Royal Assent in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in 2005. It thus has nothing to do with the subject of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying. As I mentioned on my talk, perhaps an internal link using a segment of the text to link everything together with the other pages would be beneficial. It seems there are an abundance of pages on Monarchy in Canada; many of them covering similar or the same things. Trackratte (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we don't need any more repetition than is necessary. I wonder, though: what does the debate about the rightness or wrongness of the federal decisions regarding the Queen's role in the provincial legislatures have to do with the history of the provincial crowns? I think it's rather tangential. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bennett and the Throne Speech 

message: An image used in this article, File:I 61926.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:I 61926.gif)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:I 61926.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Monarchy in British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228171614/http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/legacy.htm to http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/legacy.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228124243/http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/chronvisit.htm to http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/chronvisit.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)