Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) at 05:28, 20 February 2015 (→Canada (and its monarchy) existed prior to Confederation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monarchy of Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Monarchy of Canada is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 21, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 17, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed April 24, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted December 19, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada: Governments Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. Commonwealth This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

The Crown in Right of Canada in French

Excuse me. What is The Crown in Right of Canada in French? Komitsuki (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

per Monarchy in Quebec "the Crown within Quebec's jurisdiction is referred to as the Crown in Right of Quebec (French: couronne du chef du Québec), Her Majesty in Right of Quebec (French: Sa Majesté du chef du Québec), or the Queen in Right of Quebec (French: la reine du chef du Québec)." Qexigator (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

+ per Monarchy of Canada: "... Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (French: Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada),..." Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Komitsuki (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

But I suppose there's no literal translation of The Crown in Right of Canada into French in practice. Komitsuki (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The literal translation of The Crown in right of Canada is La Couronne du chef du Canada. The French word chef is the modern form Old French chief: "leader, ruler, head". The English word right, in the sense here, comes from Old Norse, meaning "to rule, to lead straight, to put right". So They are literally the same, they both mean "the ruling Crown of Canada". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

...and chief English: Etymology From Middle English, from Old French chief (“leader”), from Late Latin capum (“head”) (from which also captain, chieftain), from Latin caput (“head”) (English cap (“head covering”)), from Proto-Indo-European *kauput- (English head). ...Old French: 1.Alternative form of chief. See also here and here. The latter mentions 'Indian chief', as in 'Chief George', 'Aboriginal peoples in Canada', and see Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 and 'Aboriginal title,Canada' --Qexigator (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source for this The English word right, in the sense here, comes from Old Norse, meaning "to rule, to lead straight, to put right" comment? It's because I believe it would be worth putting this source in the article. Komitsuki (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just look up the etymology of the word, and don't stop with the first entry, you already did that with "chief"/"chef".

The literal french translation is "Couronne en droit du Quebec", not "Couronne du chef" which has absolutely nothing to do with the word right and is an absolutely horrible translation. 199.180.97.156 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind etymology or "literal" translation. Both "in right of" and "du chef de" are legal expressions and each is the correct translation of the other. If it's Canadian usage, we should go with that. Cp for similar equivalences Collins-Robert French-English English-French Dictionary (2nd edn 1987), French "chef"2(b). Wikiain (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the "official government translations" the term "Crown in Right of" translates as "Couronne du chef de/du", whereas the term "the Crown in the right of the Province of" translates as "la Couronne aux droits de la province de/du". --NotWillyWonka (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, NotWillyWonka, are you looking here and, if so, at which document? Wikiain (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Not there. I was looking at the "Translation Bureau" or "Bureau de la traduction" - This for example: here, it's all about context. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Both appear to be used if a google search is a guide. Does anyone know what "in right of means?" It could be an archaic use and possibly from a Middle English translation of Norman French. TFD (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

From the government website on crown copyright: "© Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada" (http://pch.gc.ca/fra/1386347961669/1386353065978). I could have sworn that I've seen more literal translations (La Reine en droit du Canada) but that might be either my mind playing tricks on me or BBB-level CAF officers writing things. Ajraddatz (Talk) 07:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The history seems to involve a double fudge:

FUDGE (1). At least by the 1930s, when the big British colonies were beginning to assert themselves as equal partners of the mother country, the question arose of whether there was still one imperial crown or whether it was now "divided" among the mother country and the dominions. Fine minds were wracked over the idea of "divisibility of the Crown" and the very idea of "the Crown" acquired a chameleon-like character: Anne Twomey, The Chameleon Crown (2006). The matter was fudged by speaking of the monarch "in right of" the UK, Canada and so on. This phrase may also have been in use already, as it still is, to distinguish "the Crown" in Canada and Australia as a component of federal and of either provincial or state law. The key issue on that level was whether a statute would "bind the Crown in right of ..."; e.g. could a provincial or state law tax federal property? The expression "in right of" is several centuries old, possibly found at least as far back as the 10th century, although as an expression in private law. Thus: "1655 ... He possessed fair lands in Anjou and Maine; by Match in right of Queen Elianor his Wife" and "1745 ... The Abbot of St. Augustine in Canterbury, in Right of his Abbatie, had Cuneum Monetæ, Allowance of Mintage and Coinage of Money" (Oxford English Dictionary online, emphases added). Possibly, then, "in right of" has always been chameleon-like, referring to different kinds of relation according to context. One needn't expect the common law to be consistent.

FUDGE (2). How, then, to translate "in right of" into French, given that in France no question of "divisibility of the Crown" had arisen? Recourse seems to have been had, again, to private law: e.g. du chef de sa femme, in his wife's right (or, if you like, in right of his wife); cp Collins-Robert French-English English-French Dictionary (2nd edn 1987), French "chef"2(b). Then some writers, either not seeing this option or not being satisfied with it, have preferred aux droits de, literally (I attempt) "with the rights of" (thank you, NotWillyWonka). I doubt that there would be a conceptual difference between "in right of Canada" and "in right of (the province of) Quebec", so one could say in French "du chef du Canada" and "du chef de Québec" or "aux droits du Canada" and "aux droits de Québec". But du chef de seems to be preferred. Wikiain (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that "in right of" here means the same thing as in "in right of the wife". "in Right of his Abbatie" merely means that the archbishop had certain rights because he was also an abbot. And while in legal theory, the Crown was indivisible, in practice it was not. So any idea what "in right of" means or when it arose? Incidentally, google translate uses "chef" to translate in queen in right of and "droit" to translate husband in right of. Latin is "regina in ius". TFD (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to "in jure uxoris": another level of translation! I would have hardly a clue about the abbot, given especially that he might have been a corporation sole and in addition (to my recollection of a book somewhere) a church itself could also have legal personality. For theory/practice about the Crown, please see Twomey's excellent book - her central contention is that the practice was not a consistent application of any theory. That is why I'm talking about fudging. For when "in right of" arose, I searched the Oxford English Dictionary in its current, online edition and quoted two of its examples. Let's stay away from Google Translator: I find it very unreliable. Wikiain (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

None of the dictionary definitions I could find say what the Crown "in right of" means. Note Canada and the provinces unlike the U.S. and states do not have legal personality. The Queen in right of is the legal personality. TFD (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Each jurisdiction has a legal "personality" and each is distinct, that is why "The State of Alabama" vs "The Crown in Right of Ontario" would be correct.

Google translate should only be used as a starting point sparingly - as it does not take into account context, grammar, colloquialisms, etc. but try telling that to some "bilingual" editors, J'ai eu mon éducation francophone au Québec, en français langue maternelle, and was raised with both languages "side by side". --NotWillyWonka (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I use Google Translate as a start, just to save time, when writing to someone in French or in German. But, as you say, it is risky. Writing in a hurry, I caught just in time its translation into German of "Peter Gay". Salut! Wikiain (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There is Google search too, which shows both translations used, but "chef" is more common. The problem is that no one has found a definition in English of the phrase "in right of", although we all know what "the Queen in right of x" means. TFD (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that the French equivalent of English phrases, especially where tradition is somehow concerned, are not always the same or even similar. For example, the name of my rank in English is "Acting Sub-Lieutenant", but the literal translation of the French rank is "Ship's Ensign 2nd Class". Two completely different things, yet referring to the same rank. I'd imagine that such discrepancies would be expected elsewhere as well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed they are, lieutenant / "le-tenant" / "lef-tenant" / "loo-tenant" - OK, "OF-1": Naval officer ranks. But we seem to be running out of steam. Wikiain (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ship's ensign second class is the equivalent rank in the French navy. In the U.S. it is ensign. It is a good analogy. In some cases terms are translated literally, in others an equivalent term may be used. TFD (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Canada (and its monarchy) existed prior to Confederation

The date of 1867 is problematic, as we know that Canada existed prior to Confederation with the Colony of Canada (France), Colony of Canada (GB), Upper/Lower Canada, Province of Canada, and then finally the Dominion of Canada. Furthermore, the first Canadian Constitution Act was passed with the Constitutional Act 1791. Official sources state that "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France and England in the 15th and 16th centuries" (1400s and 1500s with Henry VII listed as first) Government of Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia lists Henry VII as first . The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust states that "There have been thirty-three monarchs of Canada, from nine royal houses, since 1497", and that "The Canadian Monarchy therefore did not begin in 1867" . Finally, there are several sources stating that there have been 33 sovereigns of Canada since 1497 (sources available at the sovereigns of Canada wiki page), a fact which clearly does not jive with the 1867 start of the monarchy date with Queen Victoria listed as the first sovereign to reign over Canada. I propose that the date be changed to 1497 and the first sovereign be changed to Henry VII, in line with the sources. A note can always be added to provide any needed clarification or explain any potential incongruities. trackratte (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This page is about the monarchy of Canada, though; clearly the institution that's at the heart of the Canadian confederation and its eleven governments. None of that existed before 1867. The lineage of monarchs is covered in the history section (as well as summarised in the lede). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this article to be about any "Monarchy of the Confederation of Canada", or "Monarchy of Canada 1867 to present", but to be about the Monarchy of Canada full-stop. The institution of "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France and England in the 15th and 16th centuries" (Government of Canada), and there have been 33 sovereigns of Canada (sources too numerous to list). From what I'm reading, this article is clearly about the institution at the heart of the Canadian constitution and national being, both of which pre-date Confederation by hundreds of years. Let's not forget that Confederation wasn't a sudden change, but was one of many stops along the path of Canada's evolution. Canada was still a colony of Great Britain after Confederation took place after all. trackratte (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect, that's a straw man argument. The article is about the institution that's at the heart of the Canadian confederation and its eleven governments. It says so right from the top: "The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism and its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal and each provincial government." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yas want more confusion? see List of Canadian monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it, this article, and others like it, are about the current incarnation of the entity in question. The current Canada is from 1867 onward. Anything before that is a different country. Any article that does differently IMHO is not correct. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We should remove the "formation" field from the info-box. Clearly the monarchy was not formed in 1867. Nor was Canada, unlike the U.S. or Australia, a new state. TFD (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the monarchy that "is the core of both Canada's federalism and its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal and each provincial government", i.e. the present federal monarchy, was formed in 1867. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, formed in 1867 and given that the article's first line links to Canada a country in North America consisting of ten provinces and three territories, what is the problem? Perhaps it would help if the hatnote read: "This article is about the monarchy of >present-day< Canada". See also List of Canadian monarchs --Qexigator (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The 1867 act merged the provinces of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the Queen's office was unaffected. TFD (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Queen's office was entirely restructured. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In what way? TFD (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Qex, you'll see I made a new hatnote that's pretty well exactly what you proposed there at 18:50, 9 February 2015. However, I think it's somewhat problematic in that it says this is the article about an institution, but leads readers to find information about a line of monarchs; the two aren't the same thing. There is no corresponding article that covers the monarchy in the Canadas prior to 1867. I don't think we should use that hatnote at all, nor alter the top one by adding "present-day", which leads readers to expect the "For... see..." part will lead them to an article on the monarchy in past-day Canada, which, of course, doesn't exist. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1867, should be the starting mark for this article and the 'List of Canadian monarchs' article. Up until Confederation, Canada was a number of British colonies & before that French colonies. As a result, before 1867, they were French monarchs & British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The titles may be near ambiguously about the same monarchy, but the articles are clearly about different entities: List of Canadian monarchs begins The lines of monarchs who reigned over some part or all of present-day Canada begins approximately at the turn of the 16th century. Monarchy of Canada begins The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Canada's colonial status was unaffected by confederation. And it is not as if as some had hoped that the Queen had chosen one of her sons to be the new king. TFD (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mies and Qex, I see now what you mean regarding the difference between the two article in terms of "what is now modern day Canada". However, one point, which I think TFD sort of brings up, is that Confederation was not the creation of a new country, since Canada does not really have a "founding" date. If we wish to discuss the modern purely Canadian monarchy, then perhaps 1931 should be selected as the date?

Another reason why I find the 1867 date to be a bit arbitrary, is that the Constitution Act of 1867, section 9, states "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen". Meaning that the executive and authoritive role of the monarchy within the British colony known as the Dominion of Canada was to continue in 1867. They did not create a new, Canadian monarchy in 1867, merely continued with the current monarchy and current sovereign. Which is another reason why I think we should either use the 1497 date, or the 1931 one. An argument could actually be used for 1952 as the date, since that was the first time the sovereign was actually crowned specifically as a Canadian sovereign, although I think the first usage of the term "King/Queen of Canada" dates to before 1867, and I've seen it written down in letters from 1901.

To sum up, arguments can be made for at least 5 different dates. However, the overwhelming amount of official, academic, and other sources use the 1497 date, and either say or list out 33 different sovereigns, with the Constitution Act 1867 saying that the role of the monarch was simply to continue. trackratte (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

1497 is an odd date because Nfld was not claimed by the Queen until 1583. Also, Nfld joined Canada, If the Turks and Caicos subsequently join Canada, would we say that Canada has had monarchs since 1492? TFD (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that the infobox shows 1867 as the date of formation (of present day Canada), and the topline of the article is The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism and its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal and each provincial government, there can be no other date than 1867, regardless of colonial status before, dominion status then and later full independent sovereignty, all sufficiently explained in the article for any reader to see and understand. Qexigator (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In 1867, three colonies were merged, and they continued both as the Dominion of Canada, and two districts and two colonies continued as provinces of the Dominion. It differs from Australia where a new government was created. TFD (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no federation prior to 1867. Confederation created a federal monarchy. A collection of colonies directly under Westminster is not the same as a collection of provinces and a federal government equal in union under Westminster. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there were provinces prior to 1867, the provinces of upper and lower Canada were not two separate colonies but provinces within the same colony. The Canadian colonial government simply became the Federal Government with two more provinces, and they used the same buildings, the same rules and procedures, and it was the same people in both governments. 1867 is the birth of the Federal Government, not of the nation, and not of the country, and as the Constitution Act 1867 states, the Monarchy continued unaffected. trackratte (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, okay, one of the colonies was called a province. But, there was still no federation, no federal monarchy. The Province of Canada wasn't a federation; Canada East and Canada West (Upper and Lower Canada ceased to exist in 1841) didn't have their own governments/parliaments; they were both governed by the one government/parliament in the Province of Canada. The federal government/parliament was indeed created (the institution, not the buildings) in 1867 to govern the federal jurisdiction of the newly created federation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The previous form of colonial government in British North America was decisively changed when the federation and the Parliament of Canada were created under the act of 1867. The facts are not in doubt, the article's verbal formulation may be due for some clarification. Would it suffice simply to insert "a federal state" in the first sentence thus: "The monarchy of Canada, a federal state, is the core of both Canada's federalism and ..." ? Qexigator (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Qex, I think the problem here is that we are combining or conflating two distinct concepts here, the federal government and the Canadian monarchy. The "monarchy of Canada" is not a "federal state". What happened in 1867 was the formation of a federal level of government, the renaming of the provinces of upper and lower Canada to Ontario and Quebec, and the incorporation of the colonies of NB and NS into the colony of Canada. However, the monarchy was not established in 1867. The constitution itself says that the monarchy continued, not that a new one was established. trackratte (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What the constitution says is that sovereignty continued to be vested in the Queen. That is separate to both the state she reigned over and the way her power was exercised in it. The same queen reigned before and after 1 July 1867, but, what she reigned over and the structures through which her power was exercised changed. One could even say it changed again in 1931, when the distinct monarchy of Canada, separate from any other monarchy, came to be. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The federal Crown was not "created" in 1867. Instead the crowns of three provinces were merged and continued in the Crown of the Dominion of Canada. The merged Crown assumed the rights and responsibilities of the provincial crowns, just as happened when the crowns of Scotland and England merged. It is unlike Australia and the U.S. where a new government was created that had no precedent, did not automatically assume any rights or obligations, and was truly new. If one claims the Canadian crown was created in 1867, kindly provide a source.

Incidentally, if we follow Miesianiacal's opinion that the Crown of Canada became separate from the UK crown in 1931 then no crown could have been created in 1867. However, while the English Court of Appeal disagreed in 1982 on when the Crown became divided, the issue was settled by the House of Lords in 2005.

"t is perfectly clear that the question whether the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown is to be found in right or respect of the United Kingdom, or of other governments within those parts of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the ultimate sovereign, has nothing whatever to do with the question whether those governments are wholly independent or not. The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence. Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867."

TFD (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the debate, but for those not familiar with UK case law TFD is quoting from ex parte Indian Association of Alberta (1982 CA), as quoted in ex parte Quark Fishing (2005 HL, with all the excitement of Patagonian toothfish) at para 15. Wikiain (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ex parte Indian Association of Alberta is the UK Court of Appeal case where it was settled that the Crown of Canada was separate from the Crown of the United Kingdom, while before courts had said the Crown was indivisible. Many sources quoted the opinion of Denning that the severance occured in 1931 but in ex parte Quark the House of Lords sided with the view that the Crown became separate upon establishment of a colony. The relative importance of the person who takes a case to court is irrelevant to whether the judgment is conclusive. In Roe v. Wade for example one of the parties was known by a pseudonym. I do not see why we should place obiter dictum in a Court of Appeal case over the unanimous decision of a House of Lords case. (At the time appeals from the Court of Appeal went to the House of Lords until it was replaced by the Supreme Court.) TFD (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

1867 and after

Some of the information above may have gone astray from having regard to the need for this, and any other article connected with the topic, to be consistent with the 1867 act, cited in the article.

The act was for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith, and which was expressed to be for enabling

• the three provinces to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom, and
• on the Establishment of the Union, for

the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, and

the Nature of the Executive Government therein to be declared.

• and provision for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts of British North America;

and that the act

• enabled Queen Victoria to declare by proclamation the three provinces to form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada such that the three provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name, and
• prescribed the division of this newly constituted federal union of Canada into four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, etc.

By section 9 The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada was declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. Under sections 17 and 19 there was to be one Parliament for the newly constituted Union, that was to be called together not later than Six Months after the Union. Section 91 provided for the enactment of legislation for the newly constituted union of Canada to be by the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons. The act provided for the Governor General in the Queen’s Name to summon senators and to call together the House of Commons.

Editors will also be aware that after 1867, British Columbia, originally politically constituted as a pair of British colonies, joined the "Canadian Confederation" on July 20, 1871, per (History of British Columbia).

On the face of it, and whatever secondary sources may choose to comment, it looks as though the words of the act were carefully drafted, can be taken to mean what they say, and have been duly executed by those responsible. Qexigator (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"federally united" is curious phrasing, because that is not what happened, the Province of Canada for example was merged with the two other provinces. Experts have questioned whether the country could be called a federation at all, since the powers provided to provincial governments was extremely limited and residual powers remained with the central government. TFD (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Arms

I do not think that it is suitable to have a user-based interpretation of the Arms of Canada depicted within this page's infobox passing itself off as the "Royal Arms of Canada". They are not the Royal Arms of Canada, they are a user-generated interpretation of the actual Arms. And if this rendition is "so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for" the original then it is a violation of Canadian law. Further, "permission is always required when the work is being revised, adapted, or translated regardless if the purpose of the reproduction is for personal or public non-commercial distribution". Simply put, either this image is so far off as to be useless, misleading and/or insulting, or if it 'so nearly resembles' the original then it is a violation. If a picture of the Royal Arms of Canada is 'vital to the understanding of the material being discussed in the article' then the actual Arms should be used. Otherwise, if it is not vital to the understanding of the topic at hand, a wiki-link to the Arms of Canada page (that shows the actual official Arms) is sufficient. trackratte (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If they follow the blazon, they're the Royal Arms of Canada. Since the version isn't copyrighted, it's free to use.

"So far off" in what way? The version used by the government isn't the actual version; it's just a version. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ideas are free to use, but that would mean that the user rendition in question is based only on the blazon and not at all on the official Arms (cannot "reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form"), however this is clearly not the case as a variety of elements in this rendition are taken directly from the official rendition which are in no way mentioned in the blazon (so the blazon is obviously not the primary source, the copyrighted image is). And if you look at cases such as Temple Island as well as Supreme Court of Canada cases, an image can be a wholly created original, but if it mimicks a copyrighted work, or elements therein, it is a copyright violation.

Back to the main point though, the blazon is not signed by the Queen, the armorial bearings depicting the actual painting of the arms themselves receive the signature approval of the Queen. The blazon is used to make renditions, but the actual rendition signed by the Queen is what constitutes the official Royal Arms of Canada. This applies to any Arms that depict the Royal Crown actually. So if you look at original armorial bearings showing the actual drawing of military arms and unit badges for example, they are all personally signed by the Queen. So, this user rendition is based on the blazon produced by the heralds yes, but it is not the approved, actual Royal Arms of Canada. To depict anyone's personal interpretation of these Arms as the actual Arms themselves is misleading (or insulting, or illegal). trackratte (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, if it follows the blazon of the Canadian arms, it's the Canadian arms. The image used here is no less the Royal Arms of Canada than were any of these in their day. In the absence of a reliable source, it's merely expressing an opinion to say that only the version signed by the Queen (does it exist? Is there an available image of it?) is the Royal Arms of Canada. It's just a version of the Royal Arms of Canada. Like the one used in the infobox here is. Which brings me to another point: this isn't the article on the arms. I don't think we need to worry about the rendering in the infobox, so long as it follows the blazon accurately.

If you think there's some kind of copyright issue, I'd say that's a matter to be discussed at Wikimedia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mies, the Register is all confirmations of badges previously approved before CHA's existance, so the confirmations are signed off by people working within the CHA. All of the new military commands use the standard circlet/wreath device which was approved separately ages ago. Each organisation holds their own originals, and I haven't been able to find any digital copies. I might be able to snap a photo of an original and put it up here tomorrow if you'd like. It's just the Letters Patent with the crest/badge/arms in question, with the word "Approved." written with "Elizabeth II" signed below it. I've seen at least three of these letters patent in person. trackratte (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

+, I did find this from the Monarchist League of Canada. Although they don't show the original, they do say "The use of the two Royal Crowns was approved personally by The Queen on the recommendation of the Governor General of Canada. The original design was signed by The Queen (Approved Elizabeth R) and remains in the Heraldic Authority Archives".trackratte (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that'd be interesting to see. However, I still refer back to my point about it being perfectly legitimate to have different renderings of the arms--in stone, glass, paint, ink, whatever. I suspect Her Majesty would be surprised to hear the escutcheon of her Canadian arms depicted in the Diamond Jubilee Window is not, in fact, the escutcheon of her Canadian arms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mies, that rendition is not based on the blazon. The blazon makes no mention of the helm below the crest, not its colours, not the maple leaf at its gorge, to name just one element that is absent from the blazon. Yet, both this user rendition, and the official Arms depict the helm in the same way, in the same colours, down to the same maple leaf at the gorge.

The monarch did not sign off and approve just the blazon, the sovereign signs off on an actual official depiction. It is for this reason that all actual Arms of Canada depict the helm in nearly the same way even though it is not described anywhere in the blazon, because the actual Arms are based on the approved depiction, not just on the blazon. When the depiction is changed, such as when the annulus was added to the current Arms, its approved in an official way. It's in the same principle as File:Monarchist League of Canada (CoA).png, there is only one official and actual MLC COA, a random user interpretation of the blazon should not be passed off as the MLC COA in an encyclopedic entry. Except in the case of the Arms of Canada it is much more officialised and legally controlled.

I think I did a poor job of defining my issue. Those three pictures you posted of architectural embellishments do not purport to pass themselves off as the Royal Arms of Canada in an encyclopedia. That is the issue here. If we label this image in the info box as a "User Interpretation of the Royal Arms of Canada", I wouldn't have a problem. Or if we just use the actual Royal Arms of Canada and leave the label the same, or alternatively just get rid of both altogether as they are not vital to the article anyways. A fourth option could be to remove the image from the infobox and put it in the body of the article with a "An interpretation of the Royal Arms..." description. Any one of those four options I'm happy with. trackratte (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, in terms of the shift from the 1957 official depiction, to the present one, even though based on the same blazon, "The present design of the arms of Canada was drawn by Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, Fraser Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority, and was approved by H.M. the Queen, on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, on July 12, 1994." The blazon remains essentially unchanged, and has been so for nearly 100 years, however every time the design (depiction) is changed, its personally approved by the Queen. trackratte (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, the blazon does mention the helm: "a royal helmet". And, while the blazon may not dictate the colour of the helm or the presence of the maple leaf on it, what you call the "actual official" version still shows a colour to the helmet and a maple leaf at the gorge, though, in a manner different to the arms in the infobox here. So, I don't see the relevance. Also, there's two images in the "Use" section of Arms of Canada showing different renderings of the arms and calling them, in the relevant captions, the "arms of Canada".

The image used here has on its Wikimedia page a standard template that says "This heraldic coat of arms was drawn based on its written description called the blazon. Any illustration conforming with the insignia's written blazon is considered to be heraldically correct. In other words, there can exist several different artistic interpretations of the same coat of arms." Clearly, then, Wikimedia allows variations on arms and considers them correct so long as they follow the blazon. There's still been no evidence that the rendition used here doesn't conform to the blazon. So long as the image is kept at Wikimedia with that template, I see no reason why it can't be used in Misplaced Pages. If it's deleted from Wikimedia or loses that template (by consensus), then...

That said, while I don't think it's necessary, I'd be okay with something like "A rendition of the Royal Arms of Canada". However, I don't know that the infobox template will allow for that. We can't use the copyrighted government version; fair use won't fly here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Should have a request for comment ...I would vote not to mislead readers with a bad fake coat of arms. The government copyrighted a version that should not be misrepresented.-- Moxy (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So long as it complies with the "blazon" it's not "fake". Miesianiacal is absolutely right above. DeCausa (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok this POV again...not sure I want to get into all this again but owell...here we go. The version we are seeing represents the arms as they were in 1957 and does not look like the one used today. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original art work to be displayed and labelled as the real thing. So what is wrong... Supporters have no gold trim around flags - Helm stylized in the official version have maple leaves that now have much more green in them - The new Tudor crown does not have any white space in it any more.. To put it simply we are misleading our readers and this is wrong on all levels....it did not get deleted because commons does not have OR policy as we do here {https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Canada.svg]...this does not mean we should us it. That said fair use for this page should not be a problem in my opinion. -- Moxy (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What part of the arms used in the infobox here is contrary to the blazon?

You can try a fair use argument for the copyrighted government rendition. But, I seriously doubt it'll be accepted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Again its about missrepresenting something....Canada has an Offical version ...to display non-offical one is the excat oppsite of what we are here to do. Best not to missinform people...thus we dont look like fools. -- Moxy (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you listed some things you think are "wrong" with the version used here. "Wrong" would mean contrary to the blazon. So, I asked: What part of the arms used in the infobox here is contrary to the blazon? If it's not contrary to the blazon, the rendition isn't wrong. It may be different to the CHA version, but, different isn't a synonym for wrong. And nowhere in this article does it say the arms presented are the "official" version. There's a caption saying it's the royal arms, which, if it follows the blazon, it is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

To me this is common sense..but will go on.... Ok lets look at this as if it was our flag...it would be like us saying this flag is the real Canadian flag because it has all the right stuff... but we all know its just not true version. We have a copyrighted version of the arms so there is no GUESS WORK...this is why we have an offical version...to make one up based on the blazon is Original research plan and simple. As a canadian I am very offended that we are passing off the home made version as the real one. Its -- Moxy (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The word "official" isn't used anywhere near the arms. If we could use the CHA version, like we can the flag, it would be there in the infobox. But, we can't and the rendition used here isn't so far off the "official" version as to be misleading to readers. The flag also has some strict standards (measurements and all) that the arms don't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Royal Arms of Canada are also used in accordance with strict standards and also its use to represent state agencies, in addition to statutory protection afforded through the Copyright Act and the Trademarks Act. Any image 'that so closely resembles as to be mistaken for' the "real" or "actual" coat of arms are subject to the same restrictions. "Marks and designs similar to the official symbols are pursued as a copyright or trade-mark infringement" trackratte (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You link to legal restrictions on use of symbols. That's a false comparison.

I think you and Moxy have made it pretty clear you don't think the arms used in the infobox here "so closely resembles as to be mistaken for" the "real" coat of arms. So, that's moot. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mies, where do you see "Royal helmet" in the blazon? There is not a single use of the word "helm" or "helmet" in the blazon listed on the site. If you are referring to the paper copy of the registration, then the term "royal helmet" could mean an infinite number of things, the fact that both renditions use the same style of helmet, with the some details, and with the same colours is proof that the blazon is not the source of this work, but the official design of the arms themselves (and in the British and Canadian legal systems is concretely a copyright violation).

Second, the blazon is not the official design of the Royal Arms of Canada. The design (depiction) is what was approved in 1994 by the Queen via Letters Patent. The question of whether or not the user-rendition meets the textual description in the blazon is a strawman argument, the blazon is not the design. So yes, a random user design may be "heraldically correct", but that does not mean that that design can be used interchangeably with the real/official/actual/approved design.

As Moxy states, the heralic blazon of the Canadian Flag is not what makes the flag design "real" or not, it is the design included on the Letters Patent that were approved by the Queen that is the "real" Canadian flag. The blazon for the flag only states "Gules on a Canadian pale Argent a maple leaf Gules". That does not mean that I can throw together a bright red, rounded, unstylised maple leaf, with two dark red bars on a silver background, and pass it off in an encyclopedia and pass it off as the Canadian Flag simply because it meets the textual description. If I saw a random 'messed up' design of the Canadian Flag drawn by John Smith in an Encyclopedia, I would quite rightly be both insulted and dismiss the validity of anything else that encyclopedia tried to pass off as "knowledge". trackratte (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Right here: "And upon a Royal helmet mantled argent doubled gules the Crest..." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is such a non-issue. There are multiple user created CoA's on WP. The whole point of heraldry is that any representation of the arms is "correct" provided it is in conformity with the blazon. That the Canadian government also has "officially" recognised a particular image of it is relevant but does not affect the validity of other representations, provided they conform with the blazon. Nothing I have read here indicates to me that this image does not conform with the blazon. If Moxy and trackratte want to add a note to the image that this is not the version used by the government of Canada, then I don't have a problem with that, but it's unnecessary. The government's version has a special position undoubtedly but, per normal heraldic rules, it does not have any exclusive claim to validity. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct this OR iamge problem is all over Misplaced Pages and it's an embarrassment....we are not here to make up things and pass them off as the real thing. As for adding a note this has been done at the linked image that states this is not real...thus a normal person would conclude not to use it as if it was real...again we our missleading our readeres as to what the real one looks like....not what we are here to do. -- Moxy (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood what I've written. I'll put it another way. Most of our maps are "user created" (otherwise we would have only out-of-copyright maps) but they are perfectly acceptable because they are based on sourced data. CoA's are no different. Provided they are based on sourced date i.e. the blazon, they are perfectly acceptable. It's not OR and they are certainly not "fake". What you and trackratte belive is not in accordance with WP consensus. DeCausa (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They are not official....thus should not be presented as such plan and simple!!!.. We are lieing to our readers this should stop now!! -- Moxy (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Map data and The Queen of Canada's Coat of Arms are apples and oranges. The Queen signed a very specific image which made it a legal Coat of Arms of State. Passing off a user-generated work as the Arms of Canada is simply false, thus my use of the word fake. Are they in accordance with the blazon? Most likely, but that is irrelevant to the conversation entirely. Being in accordance with the blazon does not make them the Royal Arms of Canada (which are a legally designated design signed and approved personally by the Queen of Canada as Her Arms), it simply makes them an interpretive design. Are they similar enough to likely be mistaken for the Arms by a lay-person? Yes they are, which is precisely my point, they are passing themselves off to be something they are not.

They can be used within the text of any article with the image box specifically stating that they are a personal rendition based on the blazon. Right now however, they are placed within the infobox at the top of the article specifically as the "Royal Arms of Canada", which they are not. As it stands now, what is being presented is a lie. They are not the Royal Arms of Canada, they are an interpretation. trackratte (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What I find odd is Miesianiacal is so into this topic and is willing to misrepresent the Arms of the Country (its people) and what the Queen has approved. I have looked into this and these non official arms are in many other places as mentioned above,,,not that is a reason for misrepresenting official symbols. There should be a wider talk on this matter...I think most would think that non-official symbols shouldn't be used. Here it should be removed ASAP to stop further embarrassment, misrepresentation and a run-around of copyright laws. On a side note the HUGE hatnotes are horrible.....pls dont make readers have to read a paragraph worth of info just to find-out they are in the right place. We sure we are doing right by our readers....this should always be in-mind when adding fake images and hatnotes.. As a Canadian its upsetting to see a fake Canadian symbol being used! -- Moxy (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you've read what I wrote, you'll know how it is there's no misrepresentation of the arms on this page and that "official" is not a synonym for "accurate" or "real". Additionally, Misplaced Pages content isn't guided by subjective matters like embarrassment.

But, yes, I agree that, if the rendition of the arms used here is never, ever to be used on Misplaced Pages, it should be by a consensus reached with wide participation, including from those at Wikimedia who took part in the discussion that determined the image needn't be deleted from Commons.

Also, yes, there are too many hatnotes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No real need for Commons input.....as they dont have policies about OR or accuracy...you can upload anything to them that's not a copy vio. File:Nouvellefrance-V2.jpg is a great example of why they are bad when it comes to the fact any BS can be uploaded. As for "accurate" or "real" we have a version that is Official thus all others are not the Official ones...very basic interpretation that all should understand.......we should not pass off user generated symbols as official ever. There are so many things wrong with it....as was outlined at the commons debate. -- Moxy (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I said there should be a debate here, on Misplaced Pages, as to whether or not the image should be allowable on any article, not that there should be another debate about deletion at Commons. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is such a non-issue. Agreed. To my mind (not Canadian), the erroneous reasoning in "trackratte's" opening comment was sufficiently rebutted above, and Mies.'s proposal to add "A rendition of the Royal Arms of Canada" or something to that effect is agreeable to reason, and would be acceptable. If truly out-of-date, date it as at and before 1957(?) if that can be indubitably sourced. Or DeCausa's 'add note to the image that this is not the version used by the government of Canada'. Can't see how insults come into it. Qexigator (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Qex, you're missing the point entirely. Whether or not the Arms are "official" or if they are the version used by the Government of Canada is entirely irrelevant. The Queen only has one coat of arms design, the one that she approved and signed, which is of legal significance. The 1957 and 1994 designs were both personally approved by the Queen of Canada (legally speaking, the state), with the 1994 version superseding the 1957 version.

The issue here is not whether or not this rendition of the arms should be used in Misplaced Pages ever, it is purely about this rendition being used in an infobox as the "Royal Arms of Canada". Take it out of the infobox and putting it in the body with a suitable description and the entire problem is resolved, which was one of my original proposals. trackratte (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making your understanding of the issue known. But no, I am not missing the point nor are others commenting above. If the present image is retained in the infobox, others have pointed out that it could well do with some modified caption. That would be a simple and sufficient way to resolve such problem as there may be. Can you help us by addressing that point? Qexigator (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, there is, of course, the issue of us being unable to make any alteration to the caption. A special edit would have to be made to the infobox template. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflict edit, I guess Mies beat me to it. I tried modifying the caption in the infobox to some shockingly bad results, ha. My issue with the infoxbox is 1. My understanding that we can't edit the caption, and 2. By virtue of being in the infobox and the first thing the reader sees, it adds a certain air of "officialdom". Don't get me wrong, I'm not vehemently opposed to the image itself. In light of the (overly?) restrictive policy on the Coat of Arms of Canada's use on Misplaced Pages, I think this image certainly can have its uses. My only issue is that, if used, it should be used in an open and honest manner, namely these are not the Arms of Her Majesty the Queen, but an interpretation based on the blazon. If we are able to resolve the technical issues of the template and place an appropriate caption, something like "A user-created interpretation of the Royal Arms of Canada" or something to that effect, I would be perfectly content. Also, thanks for maintaining a congenial tone, I know it can be frustration for both sides of any debate. trackratte (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So, the problem from the editing pov is a technical hitch. Yes, I had missed that point, but I am one of those that see the concern about the image being given an air of "officialdom" as more imagined than real (for reasons given by others). It ain't broke, it don't need fixing, even if we could. The caption "Royal Arms of Canada" is not a misrepresentation. The image conforms with the heraldic description given in full at its File page, (which also displays versions for 1921-1957 and 1957-1994), and, as I undertstand it, as officially registered (March 2005).There is no need to dispute the excellence of the artwork. Qexigator (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Except that the heraldic description and the design are two separate things. It doesn't matter 'if it fits the heraldic description', it doesn't make them the Arms of Her Majesty the Queen. If I make a flag of Canada 'that fits the heraldic description', it does not make it the legal flag of Canada, it makes it an 'heraldically correct interpretation'. No one is even talking about the 'heraldic correctness' of the image, so I fail to see why it keeps on getting brought up. There is only one legal flag of Canada, and only one Coat of Arms of the Queen of Canada. I do not see why this image must be passed off as the Arms of Canada when all that is required is the addition of a single word to the caption within the infobox, or simply moving the image into the body of the text. trackratte (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's actually how the English language is used, generally and in particular cases, such as heraldry, or in respect of a template or cookie cutter or stencil or trade mark, or the standard metre in Paris, and so on. Qexigator (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what that has to do with the topic at hand. This discussion isn't about heraldry, templates, cookie cutters, stencils, or trademarks. It's about a legally constituted design, and whether or not an artist's similar interpretive design can be said to be the same as the legal design. As a matter of fact, they are not the same design, and that is not up for dispute.

The only matter of dispute is whether we should be saying that these two designs are the same. I am saying that these are two difference designs, and it should be presented as such within an encyclopedia. You are saying that these two different designs should be presented as being the same. trackratte (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was showing the way the language is used. Another thing, are you aware of the ambiguity in that phrase 'these two designs are the same', but if we know what you mean, it is due to the context. There really is little risk that anyone will see the image as other than what it is, an image of The Royal Coat of Arms, not being 'passed off' as reproducing the image uniquely registered, and anyone interested can check the provenance by the link. So there is no need to go on proposing that it be taken from the infobox and put somewhere else. Why not start a discussion instead at Coats of arms of North America or Arms of Canada? Qexigator (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The beautiful design of the Official arms is simply not seen in most renditions. Its embarrassing that people may think this is the real arms. We are not here to give false info to our readers...its not the Official version ..we need to say this or remove it. Its upsetting people are willing to fu@k around with a national symbol like this. These type of things represent the country and its people....to say we are up set to see non-official symbol's being passed of as offical is a very serious problem to many......as this has been debated before many times here in Wiki about Canada. .....we all see it being reverted time and time again on the Canada page what makes people think its ok here? -- Moxy (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy, I think we can appreciate this is an emotionally charged subject for many. I do not think too many people would take kindly to seeing their flag depicted upside down here on Misplaced Pages, a 'fu@ked up' coat of arms can ellicit the same response.

@Qex, the design is the 'pictographic' representation that is approved. The blazon is a heraldic textual description. We're not talking about heraldry here, but about the actual design. There is only one 'real' design, but an infinite number of potential interpretations which can be made from the 'real' design or from the blazon alone.

Why not start a discussion at Arms of Canada? Because this rendition isn't on that page, and certainly not being passed off as the legal design. And as for Coats of arms of North America, no where does it say that that picture are the legal Arms, it merely shows a representation, the motto, and the main article page. This page has it in an official looking infobox with the label "Royal Arms of Canada", which it is not. Once again, the Royal Arms of Canada is a very specific and legal design. Let's call this legal design Arms X. You can have a million renditions that are all 'heraldically correct', Arms N1-Arms NN, however Arms N are not Arms X. Right now we are saying that Arms X and Arms N are the same thing, they are not. trackratte (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede

It's a summary. Detail as to what the monarch alone can do, the monarch or the governor general can do, or only the governor general alone can do does not belong there. Also inappropriate are claims that imply only the governor general can summon and dismiss parliament, call elections, and appoint governments. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal wishes to make this copy edit an issue for discussion.. (For 'prevoius' read 'prevoius', for 'degreade' read 'degrade').

We agree this is part of the lead/lede. In my view, that is no excuse for poor prose or unclear and possibly inaccurate writing.

He wishes to retain the slangy per instead of better prose.

He thinks responsibilities of the monarch and/or governor general makes sense, but I do not.

He does not claim it makes better sense than responsibilities of the governor general (acting in the name of the monarch) include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual, by the Queen herself or the governor general, are required ...

He has not explained the purport of monarch and/or governor general, by reference to the article content or otherwise. Qexigator (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

See what I wrote above. You're attempting to be specific in a lede, but only half doing the job. Between the monarch and the governor general, who can do what is a complicated matter and the lede isn't the place to cover it; summarise. There's also no need to be repetitious. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I missed it. But no, your reasons are not convincing for the several reasons I gave above.

Poor wording needs revision not repeated undo Your apparent assumption that the postition of a piece of text in the lead gives an excuse for preferring opacity and degrading style is not acceptable. If you had come new to the article and found my wording, I cannot believe you or anyone else would have changed it to what you have put in its place by your undo. I would be particularly interested to have your explanation of the purport of monarch and/or governor general, by reference to the article content or otherwise. Your complaint that my wording is too specific there is unfounded; it does a good job as it is, in a lead-like way, unlike your undo which is a poor botch needing to be edited out.Qexigator (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree poor wording needs revision. But, replacing poor wording with other poor wording isn't any improvement; especially inaccurate or misleading poor wording. And I don't see any poor wording there now, anyway.

Your desired composition is indeed too specific, as well as half-done and misleading. Aside from unnecessarily repeating "governor general", it doesn't relay proper information (stating only the governor general has responsibilities as set by the constitution and only the governor general can appoint a government or dissolve parliament). Stating solely what the governor general can do gives just part of the picture. To complete the picture requires adding information on what the monarch alone and the monarch or governor general can do. Adding all that detail into the lede contravenes WP:LEDE. "he monarch and/or the governor general" imparts that sometimes one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both can carry out the Crown's constitutional responsibilities, including X, Y, and Z. The detail of who can do/does what is covered in the article proper, which adhere's to the guidelines on writing ledes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not your points of criticism are wholly or partly justified (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is not admitted) my wording was an attempt to improve on the existing undoubted botch, and it was open to you to improve by tweak or a complete rewrite. Instead of being over-censorious of another's work, if you can do better, go ahead, but the article deserves something better than what is there now. My view is that mere argy-bargy is seldom helpful in the work of improving articles. Qexigator (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you think of the method by which information is presented, at least the information presented is correct. There's no need to rewrite that part of the lede; it's an accurate and succinct summary. What, exactly, is the "botch"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have stated above why its a poorly written botch, and it is one part of this article which needs to be better written. I remain particularly interested to have your explanation of the purport of those words in the existing text which you favour, "monarch and/or governor general", by reference to the article content or otherwise. There is no need to answer in a hurry. A considered and constructive reply will be more suited to this work than one that is overhastily reactive. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I "explained the purport of monarch and/or governor general". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this better? "By the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of (depending on the circumstance) the monarch, governor general, or either include..." The bracketed "acting in the name of the monarch" is removed so as to not have so many bracketed words so close together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, getting away from 'and/or' is certainly an improvement on the existing, and funnily enough I had made a similar (unposted) draft some time earlier. It would be better still if it did not wrongly seem to hint that the monarch and the governor general are responsible in the same way, which may be well enough understood by those that know, but not by all who see it. That was what I wanted to avoid; and I don't think 'functions' or 'duties' would do either, or some circumlocution or archaic phrase. What you have now done I feel would be acceptable, but a small point: would the 'of' be better after '(depending on the circumstance)'? So, please go ahead. Qexigator (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

But...Given that the British Monarchy website mentions the Canadian Queen's duties; and that the Governor General's website page is headed Constitutional Duties, and includes images of him reading the speech from the throne and on giving the royal assent, I would opt for that instead of responsibilities. Also, the BM webpage 'the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors' includes this; '"Perhaps the principal role of The Queen’s representatives, beyond constitutional duties, is to promote identity and unity." But I do not see anything in the article which explicitly supports "By the Canadian constitution, the duties (depending on the circumstance) of the monarch, the governor general, or either include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments." Those duties are the governor general's: when has the monarch ever exercised them or could be expected to? Unless it is in the main body, it should not be in the lead, and the sentence could be:

"By the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities duties of the monarch and/or governor general, acting in the name of the monarch, include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments."

From the end of the first paragraph, that would follow on well, distinguishing for the reader the vice-regal position of the governor general in connection with the federal parliament from the position of the lieutenant governors. Qexigator (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The content of the sentence is based on the constitution—its written and conventional aspects. I've already explained that it doesn't go into who does what specifically or who does what more often than the other because that's too much detail for the lede. The sentence is not incongruous with the content of the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you seem to have been too hasty: my question is not about overburdening the lead with detail. I am as well aware of that as you. You seem to disregard my last comment, which needs to be properly answered if your latest edit is to stand. To repeat: I do not see anything in the article which explicitly supports "By the Canadian constitution, the duties (depending on the circumstance) of the monarch, the governor general, or either include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments." Those duties are the governor general's: when has the monarch ever exercised them or could be expected to? Unless it is in the main body, it should not be in the lead. Qexigator (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the "Federal constitutional role" section again. Keep in mind what the word "crown" can mean. Who actually exercises the powers that may be exercised by either the monarch or governor general does not impact the fact that either may exercise them. Who has exercised each power and when? Not a project I'm going to invest my time in; it would take way too long to complete. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the part of the body you consider supports the lead, by its general reference to the Crown. The website linked in the infobox puts it well: In today's constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada's Head of State. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada. In Canada’s system of government, the power to govern is vested in the Crown but is entrusted to the government to exercise on behalf and in the interest of the people. The Crown reminds the government of the day that the source of the power to govern rests elsewhere and that it is only given to them for a limited duration. This means that to simplify the lead in the manner customary to Misplaced Pages we should now have:

The powers and duties of the Crown of Canada include the summoning and dismissing of parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

Qexigator (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

All I said was keep in mind what "the Crown" reads when reading parts of the article. The term "the monarch" is also used.

I think it's better to give notion of the fact some powers can be exercised by the monarch alone, some by the governor general alone, and some by either; i.e. it's not just that either representative of the Crown can exercise any power. You objected to some perceived disconnect between the article body and the lede. Now that you don't see it anymore, what's your current objection with the sentence you approved of yesterday? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but of the two mine (with the Crown) is the one that is actually supported by article content. Lacking anything in the current article, or something outside it which can be inserted, that version should now go in, or if preferred this: "The duties of the governor general, acting in the name of the monarch, include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments." That is certainly found in the Constitution cited later on. This latter version, as before said, would follow on well from the end of the first paragraph, distinguishing for the reader the vice-regal position of the governor general in connection with the federal parliament from the position of the lieutenant governors. That is not to say that some brief statement, related to the article, mentioning the Queen should not also be in the lead, if you can devise something suitable. Qexigator (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The version that's there now is supported by the article content. Your suggestion is falsely limited. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but No not false, and No, you have failed to show where your version is expanded in detail anywhere in the article (as is expected in the Misplaced Pages manner) after being asked, nay, coaxed, more than once. Please do so now or it will leave us in no doubt that your point is unsustainable, and rests on your personal opinion about what you would like to see there. I note that you decline to offer a brief statement, related to the article, mentioning the Queen, and that you are not contending that either of the two following errs either factually or due to insufficiency in the main body:

• The powers and duties of the Crown of Canada include the summoning and dismissing of parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.
• The duties of the governor general, acting in the name of the monarch, include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

Start the dispute resolution process, then. We're only going to repeat ourselves from here on. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A proposed re-wording for the lead's 2nd paragraph

After the comments made in the course of discussion in this section and on this page, I am inclined to see the following version as the one to adopt, subject to any reasoned comment from others:

• Included in the powers and duties of the Crown of Canada are those of the governor general, acting in the name of the monarch, for the summoning and dismissing of parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

This version would follow on well from the end of the first paragraph, distinguishing for the reader the vice-regal position of the governor general in connection with the federal parliament from the position of the lieutenant governors Qexigator (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Governor General's role is already summarized (And the LGs for that) and mentioned in the previous paragraph, why are we re-stating and making the lede more wordy and over specific? It's a lede, a "synopsis" of the article, the details are expanded upon in the article. Most of the second paragraph does not need to be in the lede, a simple: "Some of the constitutional responsibilities of the Monarchy are: dismissing parliament, calling elections, appointing governments, and granting Royal Assent to bills." would sum up the whole paragraph. Put that in the first paragraph just before the statement about the GG and LG, remove the second, and split the first so it's not so "cluttered" and on we go. Everything else is way too much detail for a lede section. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I happily agree with NotWillyWonka's reasoning, and if the simplification were adopted, it would (as I understand it) involve putting one sentence in place of the whole second paragraph. Overlaying that one sentence on the first two sentences of the current version looks like this:

Some of the constitutional responsibilities of the Monarchy are: By the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of (depending on the circumstance) the monarch, governor general, or either include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, appointing governments, and granting Royal Assent to bills.Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual, are required to enact laws, letters patent, and orders in council.

Removing the remainder of the current paragraph would clear away some clutter, giving the lead the more synoptic character which it should have.

Qexigator (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't touch at all on what the governor general or the monarch do. The second paragraph does. The second paragraph summarises the entire "Federal constitutional role" section, according to WP:LEDE. A one sentence paragraph does not; see WP:LEADLENGTH. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd proposed re-wording (for the lead's 2nd paragraph)

In view of the above discussion, and given the present version of the article as recently revised, there seems to be no reason against accepting the following clarification (overlaid on the present version):

longer version

By the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of the sovereign and/ powers of the Crown are exercised by the monarch or governor general include, including summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

It could be shortened to read simply:

shorter version

The powers of the Crown are exercised by the monarch or governor general, including summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments.

In itself, that is a bald statement but factually correct, and sufficient for the lead, given than the details are in the main body. Qexigator (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Qexigator (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

How is that a clarification? It isn't entirely wrong (as there's no power that's exercisable by the governor general and the monarch simultaneously; it's either or), but, it implies that every element of the Royal Prerogative can be exercised by either the monarch or governor general, which isn't true. Some is exercisable only by the monarch (e.g. creating honours, appointing governors general, appointing additional senators), some only by the governor general (e.g. appointing privy councilors, appointing supreme court justices, summoning parliament), and some by either (issuing royal proclamations, dissolving parliament, granting Royal Assent). It's still unclear what it now is about the current wording that you object to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's heplful. If I understand it aright, it means: Some of the powers of the Crown are exerciseable by the monarch and not by governor general: these are, or include, creating honours, appointing governors general, and appointing additional senators. Other powers of the Crown are exerciseable by the governor general, but not the monarch, including appointing privy councillors, appointing supreme court justices, summoning parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Other powers which are exerciseable by either the monarch or the governor general, namely, issuing royal proclamations, dissolving parliament, and gving or withholding royal assent to parliamentary bills, would be exercised by one but not the other of them on any specific occasion. One way to put all that into a simple comprehensive statement would be:

The powers of the Crown are exercised by the monarch or the governor general.

Anything more than that cannot avoid seeming to say (depending on pov) too little or too much. So the question is: Why does the current version select 'summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments', cast in that awkward 'and/or' form, which tends to opacity more than clarity? If examples are needed there, it would be better to have at least one of each, thus:

Some of the powers of the Crown are exercisable by the monarch (such as appointing governors general), others by the governor general (such as calling parliamentary elections), and some others by either of them (such as gving or withholding royal assent to parliamentary bills).

To my mind, that makes what this is about more apparent to the reader than the present version. But all that is needed would be Some of the powers of the Crown are exercisable by the monarch, some by the governor general, and some by either of them. Qexigator (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC) +11:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Gone ahead with longer version, but could be revised to the shorter. Qexigator (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"continually" in "Federal and provincial aspects"

The section 'Federal and provincial aspects' includes an opaque sentence which, perhaps in an attempt to paraphrase or compress, conflates or confuses certain distinct concepts: the Crown, continuity, section 9 of the Constitution Act, and the constitution including all the practices and conventions not set forth explicitly in the Act or other positive law. The sentence is:

The Crown, continually vested by section 9 of the constitution with the executive government and authority for the whole of Canada, thus links the various governments into a federal state....]

Unhappily, that so lacks precision that it is quite hard to discern what it was intended to mean. It stems from a recent edit of 23:06, 14 February. The Act itself reads thus:

"III. EXECUTIVE POWER

Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen: section 9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Application of Provisions referring to Governor General:section 10. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated." (caps as copy-pasted from source)

At a guess, what the edit means to convey to the reader would be better said thus:

Under section 9 of the Constitution Act, the executive government and authority for the whole of Canada has always been held by the Crown, thus linking the various governments into a federal state..."

Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and revised. Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you added the S.9 stuff in there. I merely tried to incorporate it, rather than delete it, in a way that doesn't impart inaccurate information. S.9 doesn't link the 11 "sub-crowns", as your edit implied. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, s.9 as well as other sections, was part of the continuing process, so let's settle for "always". --Qexigator (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, S.9 mentions the continuance of executive authority. But, that's not how the Canadian Crown is unitary throughout all 11 jurisdictions of the federation. They're not the same thing. The only thing that's related between S.9 and the single Crown is the fact S.9 only mentions "the Queen"; one monarch over Canada, not 11 (or, in 1867, five). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What "two associated but separate matters"?

Mies: Your above comments and your latest undo still fail to make clear what in your view are the "two associated but separate matters", which, to my mind, are certainly not coming across clearly as you have now left it. I have been at some pains to remove some of the obscurities that were in the article as I found it. Over a period of time, such obscurities occur fairly frequently in this sort of article with multiple editors, more or less skilled or knowledgeble, sometimes relying on inadequate or conflicting sources; and describing the workings of the so-called Westminster model of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government is not all that simple in general or in its particular development in any given realm. Please explain, but as before said, be not overhasty; try and see it not from the way your mind is working but how a reasonably well-informed reader of the article might be led to understand it. First of all, are you proposing that the federal Canadian monarchy is not one in which the Crown has always "been unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country...", that is from the origin of the constitution uniting federally the then several parts all the way continuously to the present? Secondly, if the Crown has always been unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country, what is the "other but separate matter" which you are seeking to establish by the way you have left the text of the article? Qexigator (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Crown is today unitary over and in all jurisdictions. S.9 makes no mention of that fact. S.9 also says nothing about the Crown having been unitary in and over all jurisdictions prior to 1 July 1867 (the possibility of such before any federation existed being another matter). S.9 speaks only of executive authority and it continuing to be vested in the monarch. Executive authority continuing to be vested in the monarch ≠ one crown in all 11 jurisdictions of the Canadian federation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

By your reply, I must take it that you are not proposing otherwise than that the federal Canadian monarchy is one in which the Crown has always "been unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country", that is from the 1867 origin of the constitution which first united federally under the Crown the then several parts all the way continuously to the present day. I see nothing in the article stating some later event from which the Crown has become unitary. Given the content of the rest of the section, and that there is nothing in the lead or the rest of the article which is to the effect that the Canadian monarchy has not always been a federal one in which Crown has been unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country, or that it became unitary at some later time, and given that the Canadian monarchy and Crown are co-aeval, there is no reason left to oppose: "The Canadian monarchy has always been a federal one in which the Crown is unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country...". Qexigator (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Canadian monarchy has always been a federal one in which the Crown is unitary..." gives the impression there was a federal monarchy of Canada before 1867, which there wasn't. Your wording would have to be "The Canadian monarchy has since 1867 been a federal one in which the Crown is unitary..." But, that could be read as saying there was a Canadian monarchy before 1867 that wasn't a federal one, which there wasn't; there was a monarchy in each of the British colonies in the Canadas. Given the article states "The monarchy of Canada is the core of both Canada's federalism... being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal and each provincial government", it seems fairly obvious the single Crown that unifies the federation has been around as long as the federation and vice-versa; one could not exist without the other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There was of course a governor-general of British North America. TFD (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If an unlikely misreading of those words is thought to be problematic, then, looking with an equally critical eye at the lead, we have a problem with the third paragraph, which, being the lead, makes it (not a pun) more at risk of misleading, requiring some addition thus:

The historical roots of the Canadian monarchy date back to approximately the turn of the 16th century, when European kingdoms made the first claims to what is now Canadian territory. Monarchical governance thenceforth evolved under a continuous succession of French and British sovereigns, and eventually the legally distinct unitary monarchy of today's federal Canadian monarchy, which is sometimes colloquially referred to as the Maple Crown.

As I understand it, while acknowledging that the Canadian Crown emerged as 'an independent entity from that of the British Crown due to the Statute of Westminster 1931', as stated in the linked article List of Canadian monarchs, there is no doubt that the Canadian monarchy and Crown date from the 1867 act. Qexigator (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the lede could possibly be read as saying there was a federal monarchy before 1867, since the word "always" isn't used. The lede doesn't make any references to when "shifts" in the monarchy happened (French > British, British > Canadian, in disparate colonies > federated), which is fine for a summarising lede. The detail happens in the article body (which is what we seem to be wrestling with here). That said, the "unitary monarchy of today's federal" part is clunky and repetitious. It should be "eventually the legally distinct, federal Canadian monarchy"; possibly "legally distinct, federal Canadian monarchy of today".

If it's clear the Canadian monarchy dates from 1867, why the need to add "one in which the Crown has always been" to the "Federal and provincial aspects" section? If you think there's some chance a reader might think the federal structure of the present monarch emerged after 1867, then what's needed to clarify is "Since Confederation, the Canadian monarchy has been one in which the Crown is..." Or something like that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If I read aright, that would let these revisions be made:

• LEAD, add words in italics: Monarchical governance thenceforth evolved under a continuous succession of French and British sovereigns, and eventually the legally distinct, federal Canadian monarchy of today, which is sometimes colloquially referred to as the Maple Crown.
• FED. & PROV.add words in italics The Canadian monarchy is a federal Since Confederation, the Canadian monarchy has been one in which the Crown is unitary throughout all jurisdictions in the country....

To my mind, the insertion of those few words would satisfy the concern about this point which has been discussed above. Qexigator (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the alteration to the lede. But, I have about the second suggestion above the same concern as I did earlier about the "has since 1867" addition I wrote about above: It suggests there was a not federated Canadian monarchy before Confederation. Something safer would be "Since its creation", or "establishment", or "foundation in 1867", or "at Confederation, the Canadian monarchy has been..."

Going a step farther, the whole beginning of that section could be revised to read: "Canada's monarchy was established at Confederation, with, according to Section 9 of the Constitution Act 1867, 'he Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada... declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.' The Canadian monarchy is a federal one..." It's crucial to the rest of the section that the "federal" part remain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to agree with your comment about the beginning of that section. It's important for the article as a whole to craft (sic) satisfactory wording there. Here is another way of putting the same thing: "Canada's monarchy was established at Confederation, when its executive government and authority were declared (in section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867) "to continue and be vested in the Queen". The Canadian monarchy is a federal one...", if that does not miss a nuance you feel should be there. May I leave it to you to do the necessary? Qexigator (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That works. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Royal Family

I see no reason in going with Canadian Royal Family in this article. Showing it as Royal Family makes more sense. Afterall, what other royal family would we be suggesting in this article, if not the Canadian one. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a better explanation than the concealing edit summary "tweak". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Article VI of the Letters Patent, 1947]]
2. Letters Patent, 1947]]

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Canada-related articles
• Top-importance Canada-related articles
• B-Class Governments of Canada articles
• Top-importance Governments of Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Commonwealth of Nations articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles