Talk:Monarchy in Quebec

message: "This Act undermined the American revolutionaries' plans to gain the support of Quebecers, who saw their rights being more protected under the Crown than in an independent American republic [citation needed]". 
:This should be rephrased or properly sourced I believe. Typically, the popular interpretation of this period is that the Quebec Act contributed to the Canadian elite's siding with those who called them to defend their country against an invasion. The reason for this support by parts of the Quebec population is unclear and has been the constant object of speculation by historians. Was it a desire to prove their loyalty to their new Sovereign?  Did the majority remain neutral as is often asserted by some historians? We could also ask ourselves, if, had Quebec become and independent republic, it would not have been up to an elected Legislative Assembly of Quebec to decide what to do with French civil law? How many Francophones actually understood the nature of the political conflict between Britain and its American colonies? There are many hypotheses but nothing solid as far as I know.
"Their demands were disregarded by the Lieutenant-Governor, Lord John Russell, an act which eventually led to the Lower Canada Rebellion."
: This seems like an oversimplification of a complex situation. First of all, Lord John Russel was not the Lieutenant-Governor. The L-G was Archibald Acheson, 2nd Earl of Gosford. Russel is a member of the British Cabinet at the time. The "rebellion" as it was called is the result of more than just the rejection of the 92 resolutions by the British Parliament. There was an escalation of violence during the whole of the year of 1837. After replacing Lord John Russel by Archibald Acheson, 2nd Earl of Gosford in the article, maybe we can write "an act which contributed to the radicalization of the Patriotes actions." At least that can be backed by evidence. The Patriotes, frustrated by the failure of the reform movement, began to boycott British imports.
""Part then in peace. I urge you to unanimity and accord. Let me hear no more of the odious distinctions of English and French. You are all His Britannic Majesty's beloved Canadian subjects." It was reportedly the first time the word "Canadian", which had previously been reserved only for Francophones, was used in a manner that included all colonialists."
: Prince Edward was not the first person to speak of the "Canadians" that way. Pierre du Calvet called for the end of distinctions of origin and nationality in Appel à la justice de l'État in 1784. I do not know if he was the first one, but that is long before Prince Edward. -- Mathieugp 07:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: FYI, reference one (^ a b CBC Archives: 1964 Quebec Visit, speech) points to an Ontario site, and doesn't have anything to do with the facts cited. Cmprince 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken ref, sorta 

message: "However, University of Toronto Professor Richard Toporoski held the theory that a sovereign, not independent, Quebec would still be under the sovereignty of the Queen"
If a constitutional amendment made the provincial Crown sovereign, would this automatically result in equality with the federal Crown and thus sovereignty within confederation? Laval (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this theory really stays in the article? I think it is a clear example of WP:FRINGE. Given that it occupies 3/4 of the section, it introduces a new problem : WP:UNDUE. This theory, which is based on a special interpretation of the word "sovereign" by a monarchist, is not discussed much in the mainstream media, outside monarchist leagues, and is not only not supported by Quebec federalists, but also not even seen as a possibility. --zorxd (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

text: If it stays in the article, the author should at least be identified as an "ardent monarchist", as in the source. --zorxd (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source about this describe the author as an ardent monarchist. It is much more important in this case than the fact that he happens to be a U of Toronto professor. --zorxd (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in your mind. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What about adding that Richard Toporoski makes an unsubstantiated claim? --zorxd (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Non sequitur. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, his claims, that Quebec citizens would stay subjects of the Queen are based on nothing. Using money with the queen on it doesn't makes you a subject of the queen, much like all countries using the USD are not subordinated to the president of the United States. And what possibility is that that Quebeckers keep Canadian citizenship? He is probably talking about a personal choice. Quebeckers would be able to have both Quebec and Canada's nationality, but Canada's would be optional, much like someone who moves from overseas to Canada and choose to keep his first citizenship while gaining Canada's. Just because some people in the US also have an other citizenship from the UK or Canada doesn't make the US a territory of the crown. This guy needs to wake up. All serious proposals of a sovereign Quebec have been republics. --zorxd (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question concerning sovereignty and the Crown

message: sorry, i know it's not a big deal, but said goal broke the "NHL record", not the "world record". The Queen's Royal Collection is not an authority on sports terminology. Nobody speaks of North American professional hockey records as "world records", nor of the Stanley Cup Champions as "world champions".  It's just not done, chap.Markeilz (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source we have right now says "world". I'm not personally going to say you're wrong, but I think that, in the absence of other sources, we should perhaps simply avoid a scope, all together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  rocket richard record-breaking goal puck 

message: This article should talk more about the opposition to the monarchy in the province. When reading this article, it seems that there is only a marginal opposition from some sovereignists. Just because Daniel Johnson said something positive about the monarchy doesn't mean that his view is shared among all federalists. Many federalists agree that the opposition to the monarchy is "almost unanimous" in the province  and they describe it as "divisive and irrelevant". 80% of the population think that it is useless  and 86% favor its elemination  --zorxd (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What more can be said than simply a repetition of the poll questions and numbers? You certainly can't here start to interpret the meaning of the poll results. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wanted to know if there was a reason why a so important information was not already included, and also discuss where it should be added. Maybe at the end of "A modern Elizabethan era"? --zorxd (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to the monarchy in Quebec 

message: Sources are misunderstood in this part :
In 2006, plans were underway for the quatercentenary of the founding of Quebec City and both the city and provincial governments mused about inviting the Queen or another member of the Royal Family to attend the festivities,[43][44] as had been done a century prior.
*The provincial government did not want to invite another member of the Royal Family, only the Mayor did, and specifically one of the two sons. I don't think the exact same thing has been done a century prior either.
However, this prompted PQ members of the National Assembly to complain about federal intervention in a provincial affair
*They did complain about the federal, but not explicitly about this issue, so this is original research.
but with support from 64% of polled individuals in the province
*Technically right... But wouldn't "according to polls, 64% of the individuals..." be more neutral? --zorxd (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are joking, right? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. Anti-English is pejorative here, it sounds as racist. So not neutral at all. --zorxd (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it sounds racist to you because you don't know the proper definition of race. Hint: it has nothing to do with language. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that there are multiple definitions of English. One of which is "The English (from Old English: Englisc) are a nation and ethnic group native to England". As stated in the article about racism, it also applies to ethnic groups and not only to skin colour. --zorxd (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And nationalists are now a race? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but as I said, racism, or racial discrimination if you prefer, also applies to nationalities (not nationalists) and ethnic groups. An anti-English sentiment is therefore a racist sentiment. Anyway, even if you don't agree with this definition of racism, it is still xenophobic and therefore pejorative, which means that it isn't NPOV. --zorxd (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: You should also read what the queen said : Whenever you sing [the French words of] "O Canada" you are reminded that you come of a proud race. The Queen seems to think that canadians form a "race". --zorxd (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: And the source do not support the claims in the article. First, it says "student AND separatist manifestation". The text talk about anti-Royal. Much better than anti-English. --zorxd (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: You seem to have a problem with facts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, only with bias. Don't forget that a collection of facts (event if they are true) from a single side is still a bias. By the way, this part is not sourced either. --zorxd (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Sorry, I should have said: you seem to have a problem with facts you don't like. If you truly, really, honestly want to rectify some perceived imbalace, do some actual work and provide the facts that will allow you to do such a thing. Who knows what those are in this case (Separatist gushings of love for the Queen? An opinion that the assasination threats were messages of loyalty misread by ignorant English Canadians?), but, please, do something or stop whinging about it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an example : in the video source from the CBC, it is said that Pierre Bourgault called "to oppose violence at all costs". But of course, the article only report the pejorative parts about marginal terrorists. Also, how can I know if it is true that "Quebec press published reports of a separatist plot to assassinate the Queen", since it isn't sourced? And even if it was true, saying that it is a "separatist plot" is a POV that try to show that it is endorsed by the mainstream separatist view. Same thing for "greeted by demonstrators who lined the route of her procession showing their backs to her." : not sourced. The article only reports facts from a certain POV, and even those facts are reported with a strong bias. --zorxd (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again. You don't know whether or not anything was a mainstream or exceptional separatist view. You can't even elaborate on how the article text communicates a POV either way; it certainly doesn't say majority or minority. You even personally exalt yourself to the position of source sorter, permitting only that which you deem appropriate, all others having what you say is too much POV themselves. POV, POV, POV, you see it everywhere except in yourself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article, every single sentence about the separatists is pejorative. Every single sentence about any opposition to the monarchy also is. I hardly see how you can think it is neutral. --zorxd (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  modern Elizabethan era  

message: This article attribute every single event of the history to the monarchy. I am sorry, but namming a road "le chemin du Roy" (king's way), or calling New France a "Royal province" (as was every province of France during this period I guess), is not important enough to be included in the history section of this article as it doesn't mean much about the monarchy. I also changed the part about the treaty of Paris, but a user reverted it . As was shown with my edit, most sources talk about the transfer of the territory of New France from France to Great Britain. It was a transfer from one country to an other. But the user, who is obviously trying to connect everything to the monarchs, prefer to say that it is a transfer from Louis XV to George III. He also doesn't want "of France" and "of the United Kingdom" to appear in the article because in his view, they are two kings of Canada which passed the territory through uninterrupted inheritance, just like between to kings of the same country. The distinction is subtle, but there, so no, they are not synonyms in this case and the user knows it very well. Let's not forget that the monarch or "the crown" is often use to mean "the country" or "the government". --zorxd (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not everything is done by the King 

message: I think we should have a discussion similar to this one : Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#The_monarchy_of_Canada.2C_The_Crown_in_Right_of_Canada.2C_etc about the subject of the article.
Possibles views are :
* 1. The (mostly legal) concept of "the Crown" in Quebec, also called the "Crown in right of Quebec", which was created in 1867. It includes the lieutenant governor, it status, etc but not anything which is related to the federal institution of the Canadian monarchy even in a case were it relates specifically to Quebec.
* 2. All aspects of the (now Canadian, but was first French and then British) monarchy in the province of Quebec, including, but not limited to, the legal concept described in the first point. This would also include, among others, the particular way that Quebecers view the Canadian monarchy, and could talk about the official residence at the Citadelle in Quebec city. --zorxd (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should take example on the other Monarchy of ... articles and treat all aspects. -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monarchy in Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708031338/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2007/AutumnWinter_2007_CMN.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2007/AutumnWinter_2007_CMN.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326043230/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2005/AutumnWinter_2005_CMN.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2005/AutumnWinter_2005_CMN.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monarchy in Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090924193323/http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca:80/index.asp?lang=eng to http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=information&sub=publications&doc=ag-gr/2008/ag-gr-eng.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080619034318/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/montreal/story/2007/12/10/qc-queenquebec1210.html?ref=rss to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/12/10/qc-queenquebec1210.html?ref=rss
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708032249/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2004/Sum04PDFRepublicanism.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2004/Sum04PDFRepublicanism.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Has there been legal challenges made, to the CAQ government's making the oath of allegiance to the king, optional? GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has the CAQ government's changes to the requirements of taking the 'oath of allegiance' to the king, been challenged in courts?