Talk:Style and title of the Canadian sovereign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled[edit]

Common misconception? I think most people recognize that Canada is an independent nation. Maybe a popular urban legend.

Dunno. It's not the sort of thing that gets whispered from person to person. ("Hey, did you know that Canada's part of Great Britain? And there was this guy who got his kidneys stolen!") From the discussions I've had with foreigners, Americans mostly, I'd call it more of a vague misconception ("I'm not really sure - is Canada part of the UK? How does that thing with the Queen work anyway?") - Montréalais
Well, speaking as an American, I can't say I've ever encountered anyone who didn't know that Canada was an independent country. soulpatch
Right, but a lot of people are unsure of just how independent it is. - Montréalais

So, I added this bit about the passage of NAFTA, which I don't have a reference for except my Canadian friend, who confirmed the veracity of this with several friends of his. If someone knows otherwise, I'd be interested to read about it. Graft

Soverignty is the same for Canada, as for England and Australia, i.e."The Queen in parliament"

I removed the following line. and the removal of an unnecessary expense for the Canadian taxpayer.

The suggestion that monarchy is more expensive than republics is actually a myth. Britain's monarchy, for example, costs the average British taxpayer 79p per year. The Irish presidency costs the Irish taxpayer ?1.50, the Italian presidency costs the Italian taxpayer ?1.23 while the Spanish monarchy costs the average Spaniard ?0.45. Additional costs (upkeep of palaces, etc) would, in the event of Britain becoming a republic, remain exactly the same. The only difference is that instead of being described in one line of the state ledger, they would be moved to another, moving from the category of 'monarchy' to 'maintence of historic buildings', which would still be used as most of them are, now, as museums and for state functions. Most of the practical cost of the monarchy goes in wages and in fact is balanced by state income from a royal Duchy which belongs to the monarch but is given to the state, for a yearly civil list payment in return. I think the British government actually makes a profit of approximately £1 billion on the deal, and lawyers have argued that in the event of the abolition of the monarchy, the duchy would become the personal property of Elizabeth Windsor. Of the British Royal Family, only two are actually in receipt of state salaries, the Queen and Prince Philip, via the Civil List. The Prince of Wales is financed totally by the Duchy of Lancaster, a large body of lands run by the Prince of Wales' office. (Charles is currently renovating and upgrading his new London residence, Clarence House at a cost of millions, none of it from the taxpayer. If Britain was a republic, the cost of maintaining that eighteenth century building would fall on the taxpayer. Similarly Queen Elizabeth never actually wanted to live in Buckingham Palace but instead in Sandringham (where she as the owner would pay all the bills!) and commute to London. But the Government said 'no' and insisted she live there, turning down her other choice, the smaller, cheaper Clarence House.) All other royals are paid by the Queen out of her finances, with the taxpayer being paid back any salary cost involved in the Princess Royal, Duke of York, Earl of Wessex, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Duke and Duchess of Kent, meaning in effect that they and the large number of engagements they carry out come 'free' as part of the package.

In Canada's case, becoming a republic would involve a lot of additional expenditure. Presidents tend to require political advisors, involve costs with state visits, involve major expenditure on former governor-general's residences to upgrade them to full international head of state's palace standard; when Ireland created a presidency, millions had to be spent on the former governor-general's residence, the Viceregal Lodge, to turn it into Áras an Uachtaráin, the presidential palace. In fact the original plan was to demolish the Lodge completely because it was not thought large enough and adequate enough, and build a new presidential palace in the grounds. But with the outbreak of World War II put a hold on the plan. In the end the old building was converted at considerable expense to provide large reception rooms for hosting state banquets, meeting the diplomatic corp, etc. It still is regularly criticised as being inadequate as a presidential residence, with Dublin Castle having to be used for many state functions. So the development costs of a 'President of Canada', the costs of residences and the day to day costs of running their offices would far far exceed anything currently paid for the governor-generalship and monarchy.

That isn't to say Canada should not become a republic, merely that cost is a pretty weak argument, because the cost of having a republic will far exceed by cost of the monarchy, possibly by a factor of three. STÓD/ÉÍRE 19:15 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you think it is a good argument, it is an argument that is made by people in that context, and therefore should be included. If pro-monarchists argue as you do, state that. - Montréalais

The picture covers the text. Can't that be fixed? The only way to read that part of the text is to click on "Edit this page". Michael Hardy 23:12 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Did that help at all? Sounds browser-specific, looked fine to me before. - Hephaestos

About the NAFTA stuff, does anybody have any other reference? I ask for two reasons: one, I'm not sure about it being the Queen rather than the Governor-General who acted on the advice of the Prime Minister, and secondly, my recollection (which I haven't researched to verify yet) is that it was more than two Senators, something like 6-8? I'll try to verify in the next couple of days. - Cafemusique 12:23 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

OK...found corroboration that it was eight Senators. Also, the Constitution requires the Gov-Gen to advise the Queen in that case, instead of the PM. I tried to make that clear, without losing the fact that it was the PM who was the instigating force. - Cafemusique 12:55 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Senate was expanded to pass the GST not NAFTA. The Liberals conceeded Free Trade after losing the 88 election. SimonP 18:08 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Poked around, does seem to have been done to pass the Goods and Services Tax, although I'm not sure that NAFTA wasn't a bonus. This bit from this link:
Using permission from the Queen and a previously unused constitutional clause P.M. Mulroney appoints another 8 Senators, this ensures the passage of the GST in the Senate (1990)
Graft 19:27 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I am assured by several Canadians that NAFTA was indeed on Mulroney's mind when he stacked the senate. Still seeking written confirmation... Graft 22:49 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
From the Canadian encyclopedia: "In 1990 the Liberal dominated Senate effectively blocked plans of the Conservative government to pass the legislation for the unpopular GST. This led PM Brian Mulroney to use his power to add 8 senators in order to ensure passage of the legislation in 1990." The FTA was passed in 1988 and NAFTA was passed in 1993, neither had the enlarged senate at the time of thier passing. I'm afraid your Canadian friends might be misremembering. SimonP 00:15 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that, just as the United Kingdom is a kingdom, so also is Canada a kingdom? Or should one say that only when the monarch is male? Michael Hardy 00:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)

No. Male or female, a state with a monarch is a kingdom. And yes Canada could be called a kingdom. FearÉIREANN 22:15 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Canada was originally supposed to be called the Kingdom of Canada, but this was changed to Dominion (which itself was eventually dropped) to avoid irritating the Americans. - Montréalais
Just wondering, but in what sense does the Canadian monarchy cost the taxpayer anything? Surely the governor-general can cost no more than a republic head of state would (and, as has been pointed out, almost certainly costs less). Does the monarch herself impose additional costs on Canada in some manner? If so, how? john 22:31 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't think so. FearÉIREANN 22:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)

When she visits, we have to foot the bill. user:J.J.

If you had a resident head of state, you would foot those bills all the time, not for a couple of days every couple of years. FearÉIREANN 22:45 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

BTW last year due to the costs involved in the Jubilee, the British Royal Family last year cost each British taxpayer a whopping £1.51. And the Jubilee earned for the British economy £4.02 per head of population. Figures: BBC. FearÉIREANN 23:01 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The period between 2008 and 2009, The Canadian monarchy costs about $1.53 per person. Monarchist League of Canada has a survey that breaks down all the costs and here some quotes from it:
“The Office of Governor General representing The Queen of Canada served this country's population of 32,871,400 (October, 2007) at an annual cost of $1.24 per person, a slight reduction from the 2005 survey figure of $1.28 per person, and a somewhat larger reduction when the effect of inflation is considered.”
“By way of comparison, the Canadian Monarchy costs Canadians less than the Senate ($2.45 per person), about the same as the National Gallery of Canada ($1.43 per person) and a little more than the Library of Parliament ($1.02 per person).”
“The Monarchy costs residents of the United Kingdom (a unitary state of compact size) a total of £38 million in 2007 ($76.7 million, or $1.26 per person). In return, The Queen gave back £201 million ($406 million or $6.68 per person), the surplus revenue from the Crown Estate which HM surrendered to the Treasury at the beginning of her Reign.”
the survey can be found at: http://monarchist.ca/en/publications-en Cody Lar. (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was incorrectly moved to Canadian monarchy. Though that is a better title, I'm going to delete the moved page and do it correctly. - Montréalais 01:42, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth I of Canada[edit]

Is Elizabeth I considered the first Elizabethan queen of Canada, or is Elizabeth II the first Elizabethan queen of Canada? If Elizabeth II is the first, then shouldn't she be called Queen Elizabeth of Canada, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom? --myselfalso 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is accepted that the Canadian monarchy grew out of the British one, even though the two are now separate; the numbering system is sort of a grandfathered-in tribute to that history. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was also ruled in the UK that the Sovereign's title lies within the Royal Prerogative, which means the Monarch can title him/herself as so pleases them; there's no rule that their numerical designation must follow a chronological order. --G2bambino 02:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

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

The word "kingdom"[edit]

I must be missing something here, because to me the fact that Canada is a kingdom is completely self-evident. The dictionary definition of kingdom is "a country, state of territory ruled by a king or queen". Canada head of state is a king/queen; Canada's constitution clearly says that executive power is vested in the Queen of Canada, and all passed bills are signed into law in her name. Could someone please explain how they arrived at the point of view that Canada is not a kingdom? If this is about how the Queen has not real power, I'd like to point out that she is still the de jure head of state, all laws are signed in her name, and she appoints new Prime Ministers. If this has to do with the title of Canada, I fully agree that Canada does not use the title "Kingdom of Canada" and any use of that word should have a lowercase k (as it already does in the article). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Canada a kingdom is pure fantasy and offence. The K/k diversion is not relevant, since neither sense applies. The use of section 9 of the constitution to justify an extrapolation from the dictionary is sophistry rather than evidence, since neither the word "rule" nor the word "kingdom" appears in that section. Indeed, is there anywhere in the various constitution acts where the word "kingdom" appears other than in the expression "United Kingdom"? To rule would require legislative powers as well as executive powers, and the queen does not have these; she acts "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada" whenever any law is proclaimed. The queen's role is essentially symbolic; it is not one of rulership, the pretensions of monarchists notwithstanding. Eclecticology (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word "rule" in this case means "to exercise sovereign power over", and as Canada's sovereign, this is what she does. When describing Canada's form of government, the actual way that things are done is irelivant, we are concerned with the official, legal, process. Even though she is not the one making the decisions, all of the laws of Canada are her word, the queen is, on paper, the ruler of the country. By dictionary difinitions of "kingdom" and "ruler", Canada is a de jure kingdom, though not a de facto one. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this discussion seems to escape me. I always thought Canada was a Dominion, as part of the full legal title. GreenJoe 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's title is a whole different matter, and no one is arguing that Canada's title is "Kingdom", just that the country is, by definition, a kingdom given that it has a queen as de jure head of state. The constitution is a bit vague on whether Dominion is part of the title, it just says that the colonies "shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any need to use kingdom or dominion at all here?--Gazzster (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case we could get away with rephrasing it to avoid the term, but the issue has come up so many times, it would be nice to have a consensus on whether it is usable in Wikipedia, rather than deleting it one by one from articles to avoid debate. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. About 'Kingdom': it seems that it is used on the basis on one or two references and by a quite small number of users. I agree that the matter should be sorted. --Gazzster (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to a point with User:Eclecticology in that "kingdom" is a misleading term to call Canada, as it does not at all reflect de facto reality. However, I do think that we should be able to at least mention it in Wikipedia articles given that it is the de jure legal reality and a dictionary-definition truth. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, when in doubt, I would side with the notional legal form. My preference is Monarchy, or something along that line. I personally see no problem with kingdom, other than it is rarely used to describe Canada. Deet (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing to avoid the term is exactly what was in the change that I proposed in the article space. This would have preserved the use of the word sovereign, in the sense of "independent", with which I have no quarrel. Every other term that may be introduced will have its problems. I see "monarchy" as virtually synonymous with "kingdom". "State" is technically correct, but given our proximity to the USA, is prone to obvious misinterpretation. "Nation" is problematic because the French and English cultural perceptions of the word are in conflict. "Confederation" certainly has some historical weight. "Entity" would be somewhat pedantic. "Dominion" overlaps considerably with "kingdom", but has the advantage of easily documented historical usages that are easily substantiated. "Country" may be the least controversial term. The official name is simply "Canada" without any descriptive qualifier.
"Dictionary-definition truth" is a problematical concept, and depends on how one views dictionaries, and whether such works are descriptive or prescriptive. In a descriptive environment there is a recognition that definitions can change over time; words also carry culturally influenced connotations as well as denotations. Ideological baggage can result in opposing parties viewing the same word with different meanings. Differing de facto and de jure meanings aren't very helpful if you always need to point out which you are using. In the philosophy of science definitions can be neither true nor false, they are only tools and the person using those tools is free to define them as he will. Of course there won't be much progress if the adversary sees a different definition.
I can perfectly understand the concern that this problem will have to played out on every article where it occurs, and I must admit that I found this article far less problematical than some of the related articles. ("Kingdom" was only a problem in one place in this article.) But regrettably I think that this problem can only be solved one article at a time.... if only because each article is likely to draw its own different community of participants. Eclecticology (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is variability in definitions; Canada is not a "kingdom" in the same way that pre revolutionary France was a kingdom. Nevertheless, I think that you would agree that when using the most basic definition of "having a king or queen as head of state," Canada is a kingdom according to the text of the constitution (even though the head of government is doing all of the actual "ruling" and at times acting himself as a head of state). I agree that it is a bit cumbersome to have to differentiate between the de jure and de facto realities, but I think that is our best solution. In some cases, we only need to mention one of those realities. For example, in an article about prime minister's economic policy, we can treat Canada as a parliamentary democracy and the prime minister as both a head of state and a head of government. In other articles, it provides better encyclopedic knowledge to give the reader both realities, such as in the main article about Canada, wherein the info box defines Canada's government as both a parliamentary democracy and as a federal constitutional monarchy. In this article, given that it is about the Canadian monarch, I think that the basic de jure reality of "queen ergo kingdom" would be useful to the readers. That paragraph is talking about whether the monarch rules the UK and Canada as one multi-state kingdom or as two separate kingdoms. Maybe to help avoid confusion we could either link the word "kingdom" to constitutional monarchy or add a sentence explaining the use of the word. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The constitution of Canada in no place says that Canada is a kingdom. To say that it does is willful misrepresentation of the facts. In the absence of a reliable source that says "Canada is a kingdom", to say so is original research. Arguing that it is on the basis of your favorite dictionary definition is sophistry. The best solution to dealing with your cumbersome differentiation is to leave "kingdom" out entirely. The concept is not important to the article, which is about nothing more than the Royal Style that Canada has allowed to be used by the queen. For that matter a statement about economic policy has no need to talk about parliamentary democracy; it would be absolutely wrong to state that the prime minister is head of state. The "queen ergo kingdom" claim is not useful to the reader when it seeks to impose the tendentious point of view of the monarchists. Eclecticology (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do not want you to think that I am promoting a POV argument. I do not consider myself to be a monarchist, but saying that a country is a kingdom when it has a king/queen as head of state seems to be a self-validating statement, like saying that the offspring of a duck is a duckling, or that a box for shoes is a shoe box. Saying that the constitution does not use the word "kingdom" looks like a debate about syntax rather than about the substance of the argument. It is possible to avoid using the word "kingdom" or "monarchy", but in a paragraph discussing the sovereignty of a monarch, I don't see why you would want to. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both Arctic Gnome and Eclecticology have said things worthy of consideration. But in the final analysis I would have to agree with Eclecticology: the article is about the style of the Canadian sovereign. Since neither kingdom nor dominion are part of the Queen's Canadian title, there is no need to go into the issue. Unfortunately many of the articles about this great nation get bogged down in talk pages over the kingdom/dominion thing. These discussions are often way out of proportion to those notions' significance in the articles. They often become part of the great monarchist/republican debate that rages the length and breadth of the history and politics articles.--Gazzster (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are taking the word kingdom out of that paragraph, much of it needs to be rewritten. That section is discussing the transition from there being one empirical crown to several national crowns, and I can't think of a great way of discussing that topic while not acknowledging Canada's legal status as a constitutional monarchy. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Constitutional monarchy, certainly. But I and Eclecticology are suggesting that if the word 'kingdom' is contentious, there is no need to use it. The constitutional circumstances can be described without using the word. But note the article is about the style of the Canadian sovereign. There is no need to go beyond a statement and a dablink to any other number of Canadian monarchy related articles to explain the constitutional independence of the Canadian institution.--Gazzster (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand why it is contentious. As I wrote above, it looks like a mere issue of syntax; saying that a country is a kingdom when it has a king/queen as head of state looks like a self-validating statement, like saying that the offspring of a duck is a duckling, or that a box for shoes is a shoe box. If the word is truly tied to a monarchist POV, then Wikipedia will have to avoid it to remain unbiased, but I still think that it is just a legal truth based on a dictionary definition. If we are going to change it, I agree with Eclecticology that "country" is the least controversial term, though even that one has been used in different ways the way that "nation" has been.--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're sayin mate. I don't think it's really an issue about the technicalness of it, but about common usage. The same issue came up at Monarchy of Australia. The word was excluded, not because Australia is not a monarchy, but because the term is never used. One simply never talks about the Kingdom of Australia. Australians do not describe their nation as a Kingdom. It was decided that 'realm' was descriptive enough. Similarly, it was decided that 'Australian Royal Family' should not be used either; obviously not because the Queen of Australia didn't have a family, but because the term is not in use. Australians do not talk about their Royal Family.--Gazzster (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Kingdom of Canada" isn't used here either in a normal context; neither is there such a thing as a "Canadian royal family" except in occasional tongue-in-cheek metaphorical references to a prime minister's family. Only the queen has any sort of official status. Sometimes official wordings are there for a purpose. "Dominion of Canada" was formerly in common use, but it has been discouraged in recent years. Conclusions can also be drawn in the change of name from British North America Act, 1867 to Constitution Act, 1867. The queen herself knows her place and has the personal dignity and grace not to push the limits of her role. She is intelligent enough to know the consequences of doing so. Those with an appreciation of the balances in Canadian society know better than to insist on push-button terminology, and "kingdom" is a push-button term. The king-ergo-kingdom argument may very well have a wisp of logic, but it is POV to insist on terminology that few people find acceptable; it's a common technique of propagandists. Original research (which is even more relevant here) is about drawing unsupported conclusions. Surely if this syntactic exercise is so valid, it must have been reported before in a reliable source. Eclecticology (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stick with the Canadian Constitution, concerning the usage of 'Kingdom'. PS: Though it doesn't apply here, a Kingdom doesn't necessarily have a King/Queen (example: Spain 1947-1975). GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll concede that the word kingdom has too much controversy behind it. I kind of like the Australians' use of "realm" for a subject like this, but if that word is also too controversial, country would be our next best option (as someone has already said, the word "nation" has too much weight behind it in Canada). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, there's no "controversy" behind the use of the word "kingdom" in relation to Canada besides that which a few Wikipedia editors try to raise from time to time. In other words, it is completely manufactured, and doesn't exist beyond a couple of articles in this encyclopaedia. Even the Department of Canadian heritage refers to the country having become a kingdom in 1867! Frankly, a dictionary definition should be a source enough to affirm the use of the term in this, or, indeed, any article. --G2bambino (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state firstly that I decided not to read this lengthy section or get involved in any monarchy-related controversies. I saw a request for comment and decided to post my view here. Canada is not a kingdom but, rather, a constitutional-monarchy. The difference being that a kingdom has a ruling monarch that answers to no one. A constitutional monarchy has the monarch limited in ways by the constitution and has effectively become a simple head of state with ruling power in parliament instead. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide a source for your assertion. Dictionaries, numerous present day kingdoms with constitutions similar to Canada's, or other resources, make no such distinction. --G2bambino (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A dictionary is not a reliable source for the controversial claim that Canada is a kingdom; instead that claim would require a reliable source that says exactly that. This kind of specious argument from a dictionary definition is exactly the kind of thing that the prohibition against original research was intended to prevent. Eclecticology (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my bluntness, but bull crap it's not. We're not creating an essay with a thesis and arguments here, we're simply asserting two sourced facts: 1) a kingdom is a country headed by a king or queen, 2) Canada is headed by a queen. Further support is added by the Department of Canadian Heritage source. The controversy is all your own creation. --G2bambino (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't introduce the term "bull crap"; I merely said that your original research was specious. If, however, someone wants to call it bull crap I will be glad to agree with him. Eclecticology (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Monarchy" and "kingdom" are completely synonymous terms in the first place, and "monarchy" has the benefit of being both more widely recognized by most Canadians and more compatible with modern conventions around gender-inclusive language (since a good many monarchies, including Canada, are currently reigned over by queens rather than kings). While it's not at all untrue that Canada is technically a kingdom, it's a completely unnecessary and trivial debate since the word "monarchy" conveys that fact just as accurately, and inspires a lot less sniping and bickering. There's simply no remotely practical or encyclopedic need for Wikipedia to ever replace "monarchy" with "kingdom" in an article pertaining to Canada — it's just irrelevant and unnecessarily tendentious nitpicking about words which have no practical difference in meaning. "Monarchy" is a perfectly acceptable synonym which is pretty universally used in reference to Canada; "kingdom" is only necessary in direct quotes or if you're intentionally trying to sound archaic or unctuous. So could we please let this rest and get on to something that actually matters? Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymous they are not, but on a different basis than in the present discussion. "Monarchy" describes a form of government; "kingdom" describes a territory. Eclecticology (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Then you agree "kingdom" is acceptable in this context. No reason to censor a perfectly acceptable term because of imagined, fantastical controversies. --G2bambino (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's unnecessary in this context. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is? So you feel the sentence would be fine as: Its usage has continued since the country became a in its own right in 1867,[8][9] and after a process of constitutional evolution ending with full sovereignty from the United Kingdom, is now applied to the Canadian monarch? I disagree. --G2bambino (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know damn well that the alternative is Its usage has continued since the country became a monarchy, not Its usage has continued since the country became a (blank). Is there an actual reason, apart from pure tendentiousness, why the word in that sentence has to be kingdom rather than monarchy? Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected that was the alternative you were thinking of. But, indeed, is there a reason why the word in that sentence has to be monarchy rather than kingdom? It's accurate, it's sourced, it fits, and even by Eclecticology's own argument (regardless of its validity) it's appropriate; so why, again, should we take it out? --G2bambino (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who changed the word to kingdom in the first place, so you're the one who bears the burden of justifying why the change was necessary. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change the word from anything. It's been "kingdom" since I filled this article out back at the end of January last year. --G2bambino (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the Royal Style and Titles Act[edit]

User:Eclecticology asserts that the Royal Style and Titles Act (RSTA) only applies to Elizabeth II. However, a reading of the 1953 Act doesn't affirm this in any way, and nor does the 1985 Act, which itself does not repeal the earlier Act. Each just says the act "establish[es] for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles..."

By my reading, that might mean the Act locks Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith as the title for all future Canadian monarchs, but something tells me that can't possibly be true. Would Charles really be known as Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, until a new Act is passed by parliament? I highly doubt it. --G2bambino (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's funny. Of course, apon Charles' succession (assuming he does succeed), the title would become (for example) Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. PS (just a side note) Charlie prefers of the Faiths. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One wonders if United Kingdom will be removed from the Style, upon Charlie succession. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made no assertion about the British RSTA whatsoever. The 1953 Act was repealed and replaced by Section 3 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 Act. While there was no apparent substantive change in this Act, that was not necessarily the case with many other Acts. It is a routine process when statutes are consolidated. The 1953 Act also had the effect of bringing about certain changes to the Interpretation Act, but that is a separate Act, and the more generic events that would happen upon the demise of the crown are covered by that Act. The big difference between the Interpretation Act and the RSTA is that the latter makes specific mention of Lizzie. I am speculatively sure that if Lizzie had not stuck around for so damn long we would have had a new Act. In the interim I'm sure that an adjusted style and titles would would be used for Charlie on an extrajudicial basis, since its only about symbolism rather than something of any real importance. Eclecticology (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who suggested you made any assertions about the British Act? Where's the evidence the 1953 Act was repealed? So what if the 1953 and 1985 Act refer only to "Lizzie"? Both explicitly say they set down royal styles and titles for Canada, without any reference to a cessation upon the demise of the present sovereign. --G2bambino (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did! ... in the first sentence of this section by referring to the Royal Style and Titles Act, which is for the UK Act. That Act may very well say as you say. I neither know nor care. It's a UK Act with no applicability in Canada. The repeal and replacement covering also a wide range of laws is in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 Act. In fact the current Act, despite its name, only establishes the title and not the style. The style remains established in the Interpretation Act. Eclecticology (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the article Royal Style and Titles Act again; it is not solely for the UK Act, nor even just the 1927 one. --G2bambino (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't old Charlie want his title changed anyway? I hear he's not too keen on 'Defender of the Faith', for one.--Gazzster (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poor "old" Charlie! He'll have a hard time living up to the reputation of his two preceeding namesakes. Lizzie could even end up outliving him out of the most royally decorous spite. At least the Kingston Trio's Charlie had a wife to hand him a sandwich through the train window. I don't think that Charlie will go so far as retaining the style "Charles III ... Queen ...", but even adding the "s" to "faith" could upset a few Brits who are already concerned about the number of Moslems and Hindoos in the country; they could even treat it as blasphemy against British pompery. Eclecticology (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a line from the bloke who played Prince George in The Madness of King George: 'being Prince of Wales isn't a job; its a predicament!'--Gazzster (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny movie - though Prince George wasn't fat at that stage of his life (1788-89); also, did he actually need Charles Fox to explain to him what a regent was (OK, that was for the audience)? I'm getting off track here; what was the topic? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and Grenada[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Title and style of the Canadian monarch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Style and Titles[edit]

The Royal Style and Titles Act makes it clear that it was "establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely:" so I do not believe it sensible to assume that the law somehow simply 'neglected' to include any Royal Styles. In fact, the definition of style is "designate with a particular name, description, or title", in which this act does exactly that. So, in this case the act has said that the "Royal Style and Titles" are:

"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

Looking at the definition of Style, there are two components, 1: particular name, 2: description or title. Since the act purposefully breaks out the "Titles" we are left with a particular name and a description. So, "name" + "description" = "Style", and "Titles" = "Titles" as follows:

Name: Elizabeth the Second

Description: by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realm and Territories (by the grace of God, she is equally, in terms of nationality, British, Canadian, and of her other realms).

Titles: Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, and Defender of the Faith

Therefore, the Royal Style and Titles Act clearly outlines the Royal Style (her name, and her description), and the Royal Titles (she legally has three titles in Right of Canada). This is a plain reading of the law based on common language as defined in the dictionary. There is no reason to believe that, unless sources point to the contrary, that the law should not be accepted as written. For example, "Her Majesty" is also referred to as a style of address, but this Act clearly does not cover styles of address, nor does it mention styles of address in any way. Subsequently, "Style" in this case is meant in the plain, commonly understood way as defined in the dictionary. Any interpretation of Style in a very particular way specifically referring to styles of address needs to have a source stating that the common, dictionary meaning should not be used. trackratte (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines a style as a term such as "Her Majesty", "His Royal Highness", "Their Excellencies", etc. So too does the Department of Canadian Heritage. In this article, the 'Style of the monarch' section sticks to that definition, which means the article is now internally inconsistent. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To note Style (manner of address) is not the common or plain reading term, but a specific term more like a term of art. Absent a source saying that the act uses the word "Style" to mean "manner of address", then I see no reason why the law wouldn't be read simply as written. And there is also a difference in terms of Style as a noun and as a verb. Oxford Dictionary defines the verb as "[WITH OBJECT AND COMPLEMENT] Designate with a particular name, description, or title: the official is styled principal and vice chancellor of the university
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
If his future wife is styled Duchess of Cornwall, she will be taking his name, since that is one of his existing titles.
Well-known atheist, Richard Dawkins, now styles himself as A Devil's Chaplain, the title of a recent book."
In terms of the Act, there is no reason to suspect it is not using Style in this way, as in Elizabeth II 'Styled Queen of Canada", or "the official is styled" Queen and Defender of the Faith.
The Canadian government doesn't define "style" as a manner of address. It uses the word to mean a specific part of the way a person is addressed. The prime minister is addressed as The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada. According to the Department of Canadian Heritage, only "The Right Honourable" is the style.
We're also not certain the act uses your definition of style, either. So, it seems like OR to say the full title contains styles and titles and which are which. Further still, the issue of the article's internal inconsistency remains. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source you're using to determine that the government's definition of style in relation to the Act means "the way a person is addressed? As for what style means, it's not my opinion, it's the plain meaning of the word in the dictionary. And yes, the PM is styled (manner of address) Right Honourable, and the Queen is styled (manner of address) as Her Majesty, but the Act does not mention these manners of address at all so it is illogical to assume that the Act is using that word in this very specific way. However, the Act does specifically legislate a Style and Titles. "Her Majesty" is not an option for the meaning of style as it's not present within the act. What is present however, is the plain meaning of style in that the Act legislates a 1) name and 2) description, as well as Titles, which is exactly what the dictionary tells us Style means, is exactly what the Act tells us it's purpose is ("establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles"), and is exactly what it does.
The onus here is to find a source to show why we need not accept the Act at face value, and why we have to use an illogical construction to interpret style as meaning a form of address such as "Her Majesty" when no such forms of address are outlined in the Act.
This is a problem inherent in relying on a primary source, although in this case a secondary source spelling out that the Act is to be interpreted in its plain meaning, or otherwise, is very unlikely to exist. In such a case a plain reading of the primary source prevails unless a reliable secondary source says otherwise.trackratte (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the link at 06:00, 10 December 2015.
I didn't say anything about not accepting the act "at face value". I said we shouldn't be making assumptions about what part of the title is what and there's going to have to be some kind of reconciliation between the titles part of this article and the styles part. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is making assumptions in that style means form of address, where it clearly doesn't, as no forms of address are present within the Act. Either we use the dictionary definition of style (a name, description, and title) in line with the Act, or we assume that the Act is out to lunch and the people who wrote it messed up since there are no styles (forms of address) in the Act once so ever. The current version of this article does the latter, which quite frankly is improper and not inline with policy. I'm advocating for the former.
And I saw that link you put up, Heritage Canada does not make and definitive or broad sweeping definition of what style means in relation to the Act. It's simply a table called "Table of titles to be used in Canada" and says how people will be addressed (styled as a form of address). There is no clear link between that website and the Act at all, particularly as the Act does not deal with forms of address in the slightest. trackratte (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the DCH source makes definitions directly related to the act or not. What matters is that it does define honorifics like 'His Honour' and 'Her Excellency' as styles:
"1. The Governor General of Canada to be styled [emphasis mine] 'Right Honourable' for life and to be styled [emphasis mine] 'His Excellency' and his wife 'Her Excellency', or 'Her Excellency' and her husband 'His Excellency', as the case may be, while in office
2. The Lieutenant Governor of a Province to be styled [emphasis mine] 'Honourable' for life and to be styled [emphasis mine] 'His Honour' and his wife 'Her Honour', or 'Her Honour' and her husband 'His Honour', as the case may be, while in office
3. The Prime Minister of Canada to be styled [emphasis mine] 'Right Honourable' for life
[etc.]"
So, while 'Her Majesty' (the monarchical equivalent of the above) is, by the DCH's logic, a style, that style isn't in the Royal Titles and Styles Act. What, then, in the act is the style, according to what source, and how do we distinguish that style from the other style shown in this article? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been saying, there are multiple meanings of style in the dictionary. One is "a distinctive appearance, typically determined by the principles according to which something is designed", however, we do not assume the Act is using that definition as it doesn't talk about appearances or design, so to assume such would be nonsensical and OR. There is also Styles of address, as well as Styles of address, also defined in the dictionary under form of address, however, once again the Act does not use any styles of address so making the assumption that the Act is using this definition is as nonsensical and OR as the first example. The only definition of style that this Act uses is the verb, which is to "Designate with a particular name, description, or title". Now, "of Canada" is not a title, it is a description. "Elizabeth II" is not a title or a description, it is a name. "Queen of Canada" is a title. No sources are required as that is what those words mean in plain English, so to require a source saying that "Elizabeth II" is a name would lead us to having to cite every single individual word within the Encyclopedia.

This is what I mean in taking the Act at face value. One cannot say that "Elizabeth II" is a description, "of Canada" a title, and "Grace of God of the United Kingdom" the sovereign's name as all of those statements are simply false in accordance with what the word title, description, and name means. And as we can see from the PCH link, PCH does not dictate that only one meaning (form of address) shall be used to interpret laws, as that would clearly be ridiculous and second, is beyond their authority to do.

So, to say that the Act uses the word "style" to mean fashion sense would require a great deal of reliable sourcing. In the exact same way, to say that the Act means style to mean "Her Majesty" would similarly require a great deal of sourcing. To say that "Queen" is a title however, does not require a source as that is quite clearly what the Act is saying in plain language. Conversely, to say that "Queen" is not a title would require a source.

In this way, the entire section of the article devoted to Styles of address has absolutely no bearing to the actual Act itself as the PCH table of forms of address such as "Her Majesty", "His Excellency", and the "Right Honourable" has no basis in legislation, particularly not within the legislation that is the topic of this article. Logically, it amounts to the same fallacy as devoting an entire section in this space to the Queen's style (fashion sense) because the word style appears in the Act. trackratte (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the 'Titles of the monarch' section states the Royal Style and Titles Act sets out the monarch's style and title, as the act's name would suggest is true, but it doesn't say what part of the whole title is the style and which parts are the titles. That's because we don't actually know. What you say above is all quite interesting and plausible, but, it's really still OR and so doesn't help us with article content. Then there's the 'Style of the monarch' section. A reader may wonder how it is the monarch's style is "Her Majesty" while the Royal Style and Titles Act doesn't contain the words "Her Majesty".
Keep in mind, this article isn't about the Royal Style and Titles Act. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but when I see the "Royal Style and Titles" I see it as a term of art stipulated by law, ie the Act. I think it would be perhaps beneficial to have the section titled "forms of address" with the lead sentence something along the lines of 'Canada uses the same terms of address as the UK, with the sovereign styled as "Her Majesty"...
And you're quite right, the word used in the Act and word used in terms of forms of address actually have different (but related) meanings which is the root of this entire conversation I think. trackratte (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a "style" in the Royal Style and Titles Act, is there any way we can verify what part it is and thus differentiate it from the other style mentioned in this article? Until then, what I said earlier about confusing readers with the article outlining what the style is but that style not appearing in the Royal Style and Titles Act still stands. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "if", the law is clear that it is "...establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."
It doesn't really matter if you discern a difference between style and title, although it is obvious that "Queen" is a title, as is "Head of the Commonwealth", and equally so that "by the grace of God" is certainly not a title. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter which is which. To say that the above is only a title is plainly wrong, the sources says the phrase is a style and titles. trackratte (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"defender of the faith"[edit]

Does Her Majesty have any role with regards to the 2 Royal Chapels in Canada? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Title and style of the Canadian monarch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Title and style of the Canadian monarch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Emperor of India" were actually omitted in August 1947 instead of 22 June 1948[edit]

A proclamation issued in 18 August 1947 which was included in the Canada Gazette Part I (1947-1997), volume 81, number 35, 30 August 1947, page 21 omitted the words "Emperor of India" for the King's title. All other proclamations issued after August 1947 also did not contain the words "Emperor of India". You may verify that from the archive of The Canada Gazette[1]--203.218.141.177 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only non-UK Commonwealth realm, to keep the UK in its styles & titles[edit]

Now that Grenada has changed its styles & titles. Should we mention, Canada is now the only non-UK Commonwealth realm that has the "United Kingdom" mentioned in its styles & titles? GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up/update on this, but a title change is imminent with an amendment to the Royal Titles and Styles Act being added in a draft omnibus bill. Presuming the amendment goes unchanged when it actually is passed, the title will omit the UK and the Defender of the Faith (so Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth). Leventio (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Royal Style and Titles[edit]

As noted above, the style and titles has changed to Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.[2] This was included in the government's budget bill.[3] It received royal assent on June 22, 2023, so is now the law of the land.[4] We need to update the article accordingly. I will take a stab at that but would appreciate help from others.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darryl Kerrigan: The act has indeed been given royal assent, but according to the text of the act, that does not change the title. It just allows the King to issue a royal proclamation changing his title, and the royal proclamation hasn't happened yet. We should edit the article to make this situation clear. Indefatigable (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indefatigable: I reckon we're still waiting for Chuck's okie dokie. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is correct, we are still waiting. But it seems BC jumped ahead using the new styles at least once, whether intentionally or simply by mistake.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely a boo boo by BC, to do that Before Charles's permission. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if they are holding off on the proclamation so that it can be issued when the King and Queen are in Canada this spring? Indefatigable (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite likely. PS - Oh no, when they visit in the spring, another push to claim they reside in Canada, will occur. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proclamation has been published on the Canada Gazette. It is dated January 8, 2024. https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2024/2024-01-31/html/si-tr4-eng.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.194.134 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Style_and_title_of_the_Canadian_sovereign&oldid=1205489411"