Talk:Style and title of the Canadian sovereign

message: Common misconception? I think most people recognize that Canada is an independent nation. Maybe a popular urban legend.
:Dunno. It's not the sort of thing that gets whispered from person to person. ("Hey, did you know that Canada's part of Great Britain? And there was this guy who got his kidneys stolen!") From the discussions I've had with foreigners, Americans mostly, I'd call it more of a vague misconception ("I'm not really sure - is Canada part of the UK? How does that thing with the Queen work anyway?") - Montréalais
:: Well, speaking as an American, I can't say I've ever encountered anyone who didn't know that Canada was an independent country.  soulpatch
::: Right, but a lot of people are unsure of just how independent it is. - Montréalais
----
So, I added this bit about the passage of NAFTA, which I don't have a reference for except my Canadian friend, who confirmed the veracity of this with several friends of his. If someone knows otherwise, I'd be interested to read about it. Graft
Soverignty is the same for Canada, as for England and Australia, i.e."The Queen in parliament"
I removed the following line. 
and the removal of an unnecessary expense for the Canadian taxpayer. 
The suggestion that monarchy is more expensive than republics is actually a myth. Britain's monarchy, for example, costs the average British taxpayer 79p per year. The Irish presidency costs the Irish taxpayer ?1.50, the Italian presidency costs the Italian taxpayer ?1.23 while the Spanish monarchy costs the average Spaniard ?0.45. Additional costs (upkeep of palaces, etc) would, in the event of Britain becoming a republic, remain exactly the same. The only difference is that instead of being described in one line of the state ledger, they would be moved to another, moving from the category of 'monarchy' to 'maintence of historic buildings', which would still be used as most of them are, now, as museums and for state functions. Most of the practical cost of the monarchy goes in wages and in fact is balanced by state income from a royal Duchy which belongs to the monarch but is given to the state, for a yearly civil list payment in return. I think the British government actually makes a profit of approximately £1 billion on the deal, and lawyers have argued that in the event of the abolition of the monarchy, the duchy would become the personal property of Elizabeth Windsor. Of the British Royal Family, only two are actually in receipt of state salaries, the Queen and Prince Philip, via the Civil List. The Prince of Wales is financed totally by the Duchy of Lancaster, a large body of lands run by the Prince of Wales' office. (Charles is currently renovating and upgrading his new London residence, Clarence House at a cost of millions, none of it from the taxpayer. If Britain was a republic, the cost of maintaining that eighteenth century building would fall on the taxpayer. Similarly Queen Elizabeth never actually wanted to live in Buckingham Palace but instead in Sandringham (where she as the owner would pay all the bills!) and commute to London. But the Government said 'no' and insisted she live there, turning down her other choice, the smaller, cheaper Clarence House.) All other royals are paid by the Queen out of her finances, with the taxpayer being paid back any salary cost involved in the Princess Royal, Duke of York, Earl of Wessex, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Duke and Duchess of Kent, meaning in effect that they and the large number of engagements they carry out come 'free' as part of the package. 
In Canada's case, becoming a republic would involve a lot of additional expenditure. Presidents tend to require political advisors, involve costs with state visits, involve major expenditure on former governor-general's residences to upgrade them to full international head of state's palace standard; when Ireland created a presidency, millions had to be spent on the former governor-general's residence, the Viceregal Lodge, to turn it into Áras an Uachtaráin, the presidential palace. In fact the original plan was to demolish the Lodge completely because it was not thought large enough and adequate enough, and build a new presidential palace in the grounds. But with the outbreak of World War II put a hold on the plan. In the end the old building was converted at considerable expense to provide large reception rooms for hosting state banquets, meeting the diplomatic corp, etc. It still is regularly criticised as being inadequate as a presidential residence, with Dublin Castle having to be used for many state functions. So the development costs of a 'President of Canada', the costs of residences and the day to day costs of running their offices would far far exceed anything currently paid for the governor-generalship and monarchy. 
That isn't to say Canada should not become a republic, merely that cost is a pretty weak argument, because the cost of having a republic will far exceed by cost of the monarchy, possibly by a factor of three. STÓD/ÉÍRE 19:15 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
:Regardless of whether or not you think it is a good argument, it is an argument that is made by people in that context, and therefore should be included. If pro-monarchists argue as you do, state that. - Montréalais
----
The picture covers the text.  Can't that be fixed?  The only way to read that part of the text is to click on "Edit this page". Michael Hardy 23:12 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
:Did that help at all?  Sounds browser-specific, looked fine to me before. - Hephaestos
----
About the NAFTA stuff, does anybody have any other reference?  I ask for two reasons: one, I'm not sure about it being the Queen rather than the Governor-General who acted on the advice of the Prime Minister, and secondly, my recollection (which I haven't researched to verify yet) is that it was more than two Senators, something like 6-8?  I'll try to verify in the next couple of days. - Cafemusique 12:23 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
:OK...found corroboration that it was eight Senators.  Also, the Constitution requires the Gov-Gen to advise the Queen in that case, instead of the PM.  I tried to make that clear, without losing the fact that it was the PM who was the instigating force. - Cafemusique 12:55 (UTC)
::I'm pretty sure the Senate was expanded to pass the GST not NAFTA.  The Liberals conceeded Free Trade after losing the 88 election. SimonP 18:08 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::Poked around, does seem to have been done to pass the Goods and Services Tax, although I'm not sure that NAFTA wasn't a bonus. This bit from this link:
::::Using permission from the Queen and a previously unused constitutional clause P.M. Mulroney appoints another 8 Senators, this ensures the passage of the GST in the Senate (1990)
:::Graft 19:27 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::I am assured by several Canadians that NAFTA was indeed on Mulroney's mind when he stacked the senate. Still seeking written confirmation... Graft 22:49 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::: From the Canadian encyclopedia: "In 1990 the Liberal dominated Senate effectively blocked plans of the Conservative government to pass the legislation for the unpopular GST. This led PM Brian Mulroney to use his power to add 8 senators in order to ensure passage of the legislation in 1990."  The FTA was passed in 1988 and NAFTA was passed in 1993, neither had the enlarged senate at the time of thier passing.  I'm afraid your Canadian friends  might be misremembering. SimonP 00:15 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
Is it correct to say that, just as the United Kingdom is a kingdom, so also is Canada a kingdom?  Or should one say that only when the monarch is male?  Michael Hardy 00:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)
No. Male or female, a state with a monarch is a kingdom. And yes Canada could be called a kingdom. FearÉIREANN 22:15 29 May 2003 (UTC)
:Canada was originally supposed to be called the Kingdom of Canada, but this was changed to Dominion (which itself was eventually dropped) to avoid irritating the Americans. - Montréalais
:Just wondering, but in what sense does the Canadian monarchy cost the taxpayer anything?  Surely the governor-general can cost no more than a republic head of state would (and, as has been pointed out, almost certainly costs less).  Does the monarch herself impose additional costs on Canada in some manner?  If so, how? john 22:31 29 May 2003 (UTC)
I don't think so. FearÉIREANN 22:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)
When she visits, we have to foot the bill. user:J.J.
If you had a resident head of state, you would foot those bills all the time, not for a couple of days every couple of years. FearÉIREANN 22:45 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
BTW last year due to the costs involved in the Jubilee, the British Royal Family last year cost each British taxpayer a whopping £1.51. And the Jubilee earned for the British economy £4.02 per head of population. Figures: BBC. FearÉIREANN 23:01 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:The period between 2008 and 2009, The Canadian monarchy costs about $1.53 per person. Monarchist League of Canada has a survey that breaks down all the costs and here some quotes from it:
:“The Office of Governor General representing The Queen of Canada served this country's population of 32,871,400 (October, 2007) at an annual cost of $1.24 per person, a slight reduction from the 2005 survey figure of $1.28 per person, and a somewhat larger reduction when the effect of inflation is considered.”
:“By way of comparison, the Canadian Monarchy costs Canadians less than the Senate ($2.45 per person), about the same as the National Gallery of Canada ($1.43 per person) and a little more than the Library of Parliament ($1.02 per person).”
:“The Monarchy costs residents of the United Kingdom (a unitary state of compact size) a total of £38 million in 2007 ($76.7 million, or $1.26 per person). In return, The Queen gave back £201 million ($406 million or $6.68 per person), the surplus revenue from the Crown Estate which HM surrendered to the Treasury at the beginning of her Reign.”
:the survey can be found at: http://monarchist.ca/en/publications-en Cody Lar. (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: Is Elizabeth I considered the first Elizabethan queen of Canada, or is Elizabeth II the first Elizabethan queen of Canada?  If Elizabeth II is the first, then shouldn't she be called Queen Elizabeth of Canada, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom?  --myselfalso 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is accepted that the Canadian monarchy grew out of the British one, even though the two are now separate; the numbering system is sort of a grandfathered-in tribute to that history.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also ruled in the UK that the Sovereign's title lies within the Royal Prerogative, which means the Monarch can title him/herself as so pleases them; there's no rule that their numerical designation must follow a chronological order. --G2bambino 02:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Elizabeth I of Canada 

message: Does anybody here have a source for the last sentence "However, from time to time, the style will be Her [His] Canadian Majesty so as to differentiate from foreign sovereigns."? Only I created the article "Canadian Majesty" and now they are threatening to take it off wiki because I haven't got any time to expand it or look for sources. Will have more time in a week or so, but the deadline is in a week. Would really appreciate any sources and/or info added to the page. After all Britannic Majesty has had its own page for ages! THanks in advance! --Camaeron (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: User:Eclecticology asserts that the Royal Style and Titles Act (RSTA) only applies to Elizabeth II. However, a reading of the 1953 Act doesn't affirm this in any way, and nor does the 1985 Act, which itself does not repeal the earlier Act. Each just says the act "establish[es] for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles..."
By my reading, that might mean the Act locks Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith as the title for all future Canadian monarchs, but something tells me that can't possibly be true. Would Charles really be known as Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, until a new Act is passed by parliament? I highly doubt it. --G2bambino (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's funny. Of course, apon Charles' succession (assuming he does succeed), the title would become (for example) Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. PS (just a side note) Charlie prefers of the Faiths. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: One wonders if United Kingdom will be removed from the Style, upon Charlie succession. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no assertion about the British RSTA whatsoever. The 1953 Act was repealed and replaced by Section 3 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 Act.  While there was no apparent substantive change in this Act, that was not necessarily the case with many other Acts.  It is a routine process when statutes are consolidated.  The 1953 Act also had the effect of bringing about certain changes to the Interpretation Act, but that is a separate Act, and the more generic events that would happen upon the demise of the crown are covered by that Act.  The big difference between the Interpretation Act and the RSTA is that the latter makes specific mention of Lizzie.  I am speculatively sure that if Lizzie had not stuck around for so damn long we would have had a new Act.  In the interim I'm sure that an adjusted style and titles would would be used for Charlie on an extrajudicial basis, since its only about symbolism rather than something of any real importance. Eclecticology (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who suggested you made any assertions about the British Act? Where's the evidence the 1953 Act was repealed? So what if the 1953 and 1985 Act refer only to "Lizzie"? Both explicitly say they set down royal styles and titles for Canada, without any reference to a cessation upon the demise of the present sovereign. --G2bambino (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You did! ... in the first sentence of this section by referring to the Royal Style and Titles Act, which is for the UK Act.  That Act may very well say as you say.  I neither know nor care.  It's a UK Act with no applicability in Canada. The repeal and replacement covering also a wide range of laws is in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 Act.  In fact the current Act, despite its name, only establishes the title and not the style.  The style remains established in the Interpretation Act. Eclecticology (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read the article Royal Style and Titles Act again; it is not solely for the UK Act, nor even just the 1927 one. --G2bambino (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Doesn't old Charlie want his title changed anyway? I hear he's not too keen on 'Defender of the Faith', for one.--Gazzster (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor "old" Charlie!  He'll have a hard time living up to the reputation of his two preceeding namesakes.  Lizzie could even end up outliving him out of the most royally decorous spite.  At least the Kingston Trio's Charlie had a wife to hand him a sandwich through the train window.  I don't think that Charlie will go so far as retaining the style "Charles III ... Queen ...", but even adding the "s" to "faith" could upset a few Brits who are already concerned about the number of Moslems and Hindoos in the country; they could even treat it as blasphemy against British pompery. Eclecticology (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember a line from the bloke who played Prince George in The Madness of King George: 'being Prince of Wales isn't a job; its a predicament!'--Gazzster (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny movie - though Prince George wasn't fat at that stage of his life (1788-89); also, did he actually need Charles Fox to explain to him what a regent was (OK, that was for the audience)? I'm getting off track here; what was the topic? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of the Royal Style and Titles Act 

message: When did the distinction between the Canadian title "UK of GB and Northern Ireland" and that of Grenada "UK of GB and Ireland" come about? As far as I know (which is not very far), the BNA Act of 1867 referred to the monarch as that of "UK of GB and Ireland" - when did the "Northern" get added?  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada and Grenada 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Title and style of the Canadian monarch. 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/20050306130913/http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca:80/~HeritageSaintJohn/CorporateSeal/heraldry.htm to http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca/~HeritageSaintJohn/CorporateSeal/heraldry.htm
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 04:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does Her Majesty have any role with regards to the 2 Royal Chapels in Canada? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "defender of the faith" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Title and style of the Canadian monarch. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5qXvz463C?url=http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/conf/ConferenceOnTheCrown/CrownConferencePapers/The_Crown_and_the_Constitutio1.pdf to http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/conf/ConferenceOnTheCrown/CrownConferencePapers/The_Crown_and_the_Constitutio1.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/27/2/27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mYNpdRLO?url=http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/QueenElizabethII.html to http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/QueenElizabethII.html
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) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Title and style of the Canadian monarch. 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/20110719154127/http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/pub/doc/swodm-dodm.pdf to http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/pub/doc/swodm-dodm.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/conf/ConferenceOnTheCrown/CrownConferencePapers/The_Crown_and_the_Constitutio1.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/QueenElizabethII.html
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) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A proclamation issued in 18 August 1947 which was included in the Canada Gazette Part I (1947-1997), volume 81, number 35, 30 August 1947, page 21 omitted the words "Emperor of India" for the King's title. All other proclamations issued after August 1947 also did not contain the words "Emperor of India". You may verify that from the archive of The Canada Gazette--203.218.141.177 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The words "Emperor of India" were actually omitted in August 1947 instead of 22 June 1948 

message: Now that Grenada has changed its styles & titles. Should we mention, Canada is now the only non-UK Commonwealth realm that has the "United Kingdom" mentioned in its styles & titles? GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Heads up/update on this, but a title change is imminent with an amendment to the Royal Titles and Styles Act being added in a draft omnibus bill. Presuming the amendment goes unchanged when it actually is passed, the title will omit the UK and the Defender of the Faith (so ). Leventio (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only non-UK Commonwealth realm, to keep the UK in its styles & titles 

message: As noted above, the style and titles has changed to . This was included in the government's budget bill. It received royal assent on June 22, 2023, so is now the law of the land. We need to update the article accordingly. I will take a stab at that but would appreciate help from others.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Darryl Kerrigan: The act has indeed been given royal assent, but according to the text of the act, that does not change the title. It just allows the King to issue a royal proclamation changing his title, and the royal proclamation hasn't happened yet. We should edit the article to make this situation clear. Indefatigable (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reckon we're still waiting for Chuck's okie dokie. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is correct, we are still waiting. But it seems BC jumped ahead using the new styles at least once, whether intentionally or simply by mistake.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely a boo boo by BC, to do that Before Charles's permission. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if they are holding off on the proclamation so that it can be issued when the King and Queen are in Canada this spring? Indefatigable (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite likely. PS - Oh no, when they visit in the spring, another push to claim they reside in Canada, will occur. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The proclamation has been published on the Canada Gazette. It is dated January 8, 2024. https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2024/2024-01-31/html/si-tr4-eng.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.194.134 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 Royal Style and Titles