Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 2

message: I protected the page per HOTR. Try to come up with some consensus on the contentious issues. If you can't, I would suggest a Request for comment or for mediation. --Woohookitty 01:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I protected the page

message: Let's simply keep the quotation and also include a point similar to the following, copied from Commonwealth Realm: The Monarchy is thus no longer an exclusively British institution, although it may often be called British for historical reasons and for convenience. Peter Grey 17:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modest attempt to restore sanity 

message: Gbambino, you've already conceded in your talk page that the phrase "British Crown" is perfectly correct (even if "by default") so stop playing games. Homey 17:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating you purposefully chose specific quotes out of their proper context to back up your POV and 'original research' is indeed admitting you acted in bad faith. --gbambino 18:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the meaning of 'Crown'

message: It's ironic that gbambino accuses me of quoting Rouleau out of context when he does precisely that to me.
Several times now, gbambino has posted this quotation:
"Any of the quotations in regards to the "British Crown" ... put into doubt the contention that there is a Canadian Crown or that it is equal to the British Crown."
while omitting what follows:
"I'm sorry Peter but you are letting your POV interfere with a fair presentation of the facts. If you want to be a fair editor then you can't filter out information because you think it might be misunderstood. Indeed, I don't think you are capable of being editing fairly or independently of your deeply seated POV."
Looking at the whole paragraph, it's clear I'm commenting on what I think is Peter's motivation for opposing the Rouleau quotation. Gbambino acts in "bad faith" by excising the second part of my comment so that he can imply that the first setence refers to my motivation rather than Peter's.
Gbambino, you should be ashamed of yourself. Homey 18:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: gbambino

message: Gbambino is again showing his POV by removing factual information that he doesn't like or thinks reflects badly on the monarchist position. Several times he has softened references to the fact that only Canada and Grenada retain royal titles for the Queen that list the UK prior to themselves. He softens this by changing the reference to merely retaining the UK in their royal titles. Given that it is a fact that these two countries also list the UK prior to themselves there is no justifiable reason for Gbambino's edit aside from his political agenda. If he does not stop this behaviour I will ask for this article to be protected again and will open an RFC on Gbambino. Homey 20:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gbambino and POV 

message: The fact that the original 1953 Royal Styles and Titles Act passed in each Realm listed the Queen's position as Queen of the United Kingdom prior to her position as Queen of (relevant Realm) is already established in the sentence: "When a new Royal Style and Titles Act was passed at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, it explicitly identified the Queen's role in the United Kingdom and her role in Canada separately, with her role as Queen of the United Kingdom listed before her role as Queen of Canada."
It is then explained that only the UK, Canada and Grenada currently retain the 1953 Act: "Although most other Commonwealth Realms have since removed any explicit reference to the United Kingdom in their versions of Elizabeth II's title, Canada retains its original 1953 Act. As of 2005, other than the United Kingdom, Grenada is the only other Realm to do the same."
Thus, if it is already clear that the 1953 Act lists the Queen's role as Queen of the UK prior to her role as Queen of Canada or Grenada, and it is made clear that only Canada and Grenada retain the 1953 Act, then it naturally follows that Canada and Grenada are the only two to list Queen of the UK prior to Queen of Canada or Grenada.  To state they remain the only two to list Queen of the UK prior to Queen of Canada or Grenada is both repetitious and a statement of the obvious. --gbambino 21:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just protected the article (apparently seconds after your rewording, I didn't notice it), but if you both agree on this compromise, it can be unprotected just as quickly. BTW, edit wars are a Bad Thing. Dmcdevit·t 21:41, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nope, what you've done is fine by me.  It achieves the same effect as I thought my edits did, perhaps better. --gbambino 21:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Unprotected :) sheesh! (and you might want to archive this talk page). Dmcdevit·t 21:49, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Homey 21:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK first, second or whatever 

message: Not sure if this issue has already been raised but here goes...
The article states:
A list of monarchs of New France, British North America and Canada:
I don't feel that this list is quite complete as there are several parts of Canada which were under British posession prior to 1763 (the earliest date given in the list for British monarchs).  The date 1534 is given for the beginning of French rule, presumably dated to Cartier's claim, however Cabot's claim (on Newfoundland) is 1497.  Also, Nova Scotia came under Scottish rule from 1621-1632(?), and more specifically, peninsular Nova Scotia came under permanent British rule beginning in 1713.  Therefore I would say that English monarchs from 1497-1707 (date of the Act of Union) are needed, British monarchs 1707-present, as well as Scottish monarchs from 1621-1632(?), however I think these were from England's House of Stewart during this period(?).Plasma east 03:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right.  I'll get to work on the section using a two-column table. Indefatigable 21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Henry VII to Mary I are missing.  IP Address 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: incomplete Monarchs of Canada list?

message: The Queen's title is actually Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
In 1952 it was made clear that 
* each title in each realm uses the format "Queen of {name of country}". The official countryless version was "Queen of this realm"; 
* The United Kingdom has not featured in the royal title outside the UK during the current queen's reign;
* As the royal website makes clear, "Defender of the Faith" is only used in the UK. 
It is depressing when something as basic as the royal title is shown in a monumentally wrong, made-up form in an encyclopædia article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, you also asked me on my talk page: "Where on earth did you get that nonsensical version of the Queen's title for Canada?" despite the fact that I included a hyperlink to my source, the Department of Justice, which you evidently couldn't be bothered to click on. You also made false claims about the use of "Defender of the Faith" and references to the UK in the Queen's title. Was this the fault of your "wrong link" as well? Yet, you have yet to say "oops, I'm sorry, I was wrong". As to your offensive defence, I had stated before there is no such term as "Crown of Canada" and Peter Grey amongst others have backed me up. My reading of the Royal Style and Titles Act is that while it means there is a Queen of Canada (which is what I said earlier in my response to gbambino) there is no explicit title of "Queen of Canada" but clearly my interpretation differs from others, including the government which, as you pointed out, uses the term "Queen of Canada" in the citizenship oath so I'll concede that point. Homey 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I believe that when Her Majesty visits the United States, she is usually doing so as Queen of Canada rather than Queen of the United Kingdom.  I'm thinking of when she opened the St. Lawrence Seaway jointly with President Dwight Eisenhower.  Also, I seem to remember seeing pictures of her at the funeral procession for President John F. Kennedy accompanied by the Canadian Red Ensign (then Canada's flag) rather than the Royal Union Flag/Union Jack.  However, on their 2005 visit to the United States, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall did not explicitly represent Canada.  I remember seeing them meeting with President George W. Bush accompanied by the Union Jack rather than the Canadian Flag.--MarshallStack 22:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She has made visits as Queen of Canada and as Queen of the United Kingdom. When she visited in 1957, it was as Queen of Canada. When she visited in 1991, it was as Queen of the United Kingdom. I also don't think she came to Kennedy's funeral. The only foreign funeral she has gone to was that of King Baudouin of Belgium. --Ibagli 16:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representing Canada in visits to the United States 

message: Do we have any evidence for the claims being made in regards to military unification? Homey 00:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military 

message: Could we add an asterix after Elizabeth within the "British line", and note the changed mechanism of succession in a footnote? CJCurrie 00:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Easy solution this time?

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed for the following reason:
:(The page history shows constant editing and back and forth between opposing points of view, an obvious fail.)
*Please sign your comments with ~~~~ Davodd 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: I added some information regarding the Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, and it being the first North American colony settled by subjects of a non-indigenous king: Olaf I of Norway.  As the kings of France who established other colonies in present day Canada are listed as Monarchs of Canada, would Olaf I count as well?  The Norse colony only lasted three years, but would it technically still count? --gbambino 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just found that Ericson was from Iceland during the period of the Icelandic Commonwealth, where the state had no head - and therefore no king. --gbambino 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olaf I of Norway 

message: It strikes me that this article is far too long.  Am I the only one who thinks so? HistoryBA 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I've tried to edit down the text somewhat, especially in the history section, but the article does still seem to be overly long. --gbambino 19:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: What's the point in reversing the order of the groups?  It's sat the way it is for ages - the Monarchist League is older and larger than Citizens for a Republic, therefore it was put first.  Is there some Wikipedia policy that I don't know of which states that organizations must be listed in alphabetical order?  Or, is this an attempt at self promotion? --gbambino 23:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLC & CCR 

message: I've removed this organization from the examples given of Royal Patronage. I can't find any reference to patronage on their website and am assuming that this is vandalism.  If not, the fact that they make no mention of patronage suggests that they don't consider it all that important and therefore perhaps is not the best of examples. Kscheffler 06:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism; the Canadian Waterski & Wakeboard Association is listed as one of the organizations of which HRH The Duke of Edinburgh is a patron at the Canadian Heritage website. However, you're right that the CWWA website doesn't mention the fact. --gbambino 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Water Ski & Wakeboard Canada

message: Below is a list of Canadian style guides. In situations in which there is a difference between US & British spelling, none recommend -ise, several recommend -ize, some that do not recommend -ize use -ize (as in capitalize, authorize, organize) --JimWae 20:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  In Canadian English, spelling "organize" with an "s" isn't a style choice; it's wrong.  It's also frankly rather affected.  Canadian English doesn't use British spellings — Canadian English uses Canadian spellings, some of which ("colour") are the same as the British spellings and others of which ("initialize") are the same as the American spellings.  As this article is about the Queen of Canada and not the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Canadian spelling really should be used. Greyfedora 07:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian spelling -ise -ize 

message: "Defender of the Faith"? Please, what nonsense. I think the governor-general dropped that title the last time I looked at the Web site. Some empirical aspects of the monarchy would be useful; and much less of the anachronistic nonsense.--Lance6968 07:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Governor General could never have "dropped that title" as the Governor General never held that title.  I think you'll have to have a slow and concentrated read of this article again, and hopefully it'll become clear that "Defender of the Faith" is part of the Queen's current title.  If you feel it's anachronistic then please write to the Privy Council office and recommend that they alter the Royal Style and Titles Act. --gbambino 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Read through the discussions here to educate yourself on how the article came to be as it is now.  Please don't cause disruption by selectively removing text that doesn't agree with your pro-British viewpoint. --gbambino 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article is Embarassing

message: I realize that this is a quotation: "The Canadian Crown continues as a key element of our parliamentary democracy and an enduring symbol that represents all generations of Canadians and the best that is our country" and in one place it is cited as such. In another, it is not, and hence constitutes the clearest possible example of pov and the use of weasel words. Well, the end of it "represents...the best that is our country" certainly is.  --Ggbroad 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm somewhat flattered you think it was clever on my part, but in reality it was just an error when I inserted the quoted block text here: . Thanks for pointing it out, though. --G2bambino 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - it should have said "clear" rather than "clever". Not that it isn't clever. My mistake. And she's not my Queen. I didn't vote for her.--Ggbroad 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  But she's your Queen, whether you like it or not; voting doesn't matter.  Unless you live in the riding of Calgary Southwest and voted for Stephen Harper as your MP, you didn't vote for the Prime Minister either; but he's still your PM. --G2bambino 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, I know and resent it every day (about that woman). But it's a Monty Python paraphrase.--Ggbroad 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How unfortunate for you. --G2bambino 18:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I know. Going about, feeling angry every time when I have to get a twenty from wallet, and there's that woman, staring back at me. (I met her once, for about eight seconds. She reminded me of my aunt Nancy, except that aunt Nancy doesn't claim to reign over me because of God.) It's not good. Stress kills. There are times where I feel like Winston Smith, y'know? That I should just give in and say, "okay, two and two is five" and be done with it and be happy. Anyway, sorry. Not meaning to disrupt the talk page for this quite fine article. Just feeling punchy today.--Ggbroad 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not that it'll probably change your opinion on the matter, but it should at least be pointed out that EIIR has never claimed to reign over Canada because some god said she could.  In the end it's the Constitution that makes her Queen of Canada.  Whether the whole birth thing has to do with deities is another matter, but even if you consider that a valid point, she's then Queen of Canada through a partnership between god and our law-makers.  I think the full divine right of kings ended sometime around the Magna Carta. --G2bambino 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously there is some point here that I have misunderstood, as I understand her to be styled: "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". Now if that's not a claim that God is somehow involved in the fact that she is our Queen, then I don't know what it is. I suppose at this point one could argue that, if you believe in God, he's somehow involved in every terrestrial matter, in which case that "by Grace of God" business is, at best, functionally redundant. But, again, I'm sure the misunderstanding is mine.--Ggbroad 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mmm, it seems like our politicians do consider themselves in partnership with God when it comes to law-making; the preamble to the Charter is "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law," and the Queen didn't make up her own title, the "Grace of God" thing comes from the Royal Style and Titles Act - a Canadian law passed in 1953. --G2bambino 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but come now. It's not as though that phrase "by Grace of God" emerged intact from the minds of Canadian Parliamentarians in 1953. Clearly the suggestion that there is some kind of destinarian program involved in the selection of the monarch runs very deep: after all the name of the song (which I am just old enough to remember singing in Ontario classrooms) ain't "Parliamentary Procedure Save The Queen".--Ggbroad 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hah! No, but her title really is a matter for parliamentarians, not her alone, or even God itself. Perhaps I'm simply trying to say that God seems to still run very deep within more of our government than simply the Queen, and it's the politicians who put it there. Possibly as our government becomes more and more secular, the references to God will disappear, even from the Royal Title. --G2bambino 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clever example of POV and Weasel Words

message: This talk page is filled with objections to the POV of this article. Jonawiki 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This article should be unlocked to include some information about the controversy regarding the —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ve2jgs (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy about possible visit to Quebec City

message: So Canada DOES have a queen then? And she is considered the queen of Canada? Please answer, my 'friend' and I are having a rather heated argument. I think she's going to hurt me. Bobafett424242 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen?