Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Monarchy of Canada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

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."[1] 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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/wiki/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" [2] 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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[3], (which also displays versions for 1921-1957 and 1957-1994), and, as I undertstand it, as officially registered (March 2005).[4]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[5] or cookie cutter or stencil or trade mark, or the standard metre in Paris,[6] 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 Wikipedia, 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)

I see no attempt here at passing off, and to pretend that there is, is actually way off the mark, and the attempt to argue the point by dstinguishing 'pictographic' from the 'heraldic textual description' is perhaps further off the mark. "Official flag", "Official Arms"? It is not sense, and we should not keep seeing this repeated. There may well be a lot of emotion associated with a Flag: formal ceremonies raising and lowering at the beginning and ending of the day at a military establishment, or daily saluting a flag or in many other circumstances intended to inculcate identity, loyalty or hegemony. But, Coat of Arms? G.K.Chesteron to F.E.Smith Chuck it, Smith!;[7] Samuel Butler on "Discobolus": O ---! O Montreal![8] (explained in The Spectator 18 MAY 1878, Page 16[9] Cheers, all! --Qexigator (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No conflict of "Arms"

The use in the caption of the words 'The Royal Arms of Canada' does not conflict with anything in the article, nor with any law or custom. In connection with the question discussed above (on whether to discontinue using in the infobox an image depicting the Royal Arms which is not the same as that at the linked article Arms of Canada), it may be noted that 'Arms' appears twice in the article: first, in the infobox caption, and secondly in the sentence An image of the Queen and/or the Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada is always displayed in Canadian federal courtrooms.... Both of those link to Arms of Canada where the infobox depicts the same blazon but ascribed on its file page to another artist: '...drawn by Mrs. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, Fraser Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority, office of the Governor General of Canada, and faithfully depicts the arms described in the words of the Royal Proclamation dated November 21, 1921. The present design was approved in 1994.' Given that the article does not state or imply that a copy of that image is what is invariably 'displayed in Canadian federal courtrooms' (nor that the image of the Queen is invariably a copy of one which is, perhaps, officially authorised) there is no good reason to see the infobox caption as in conflict with the text. It may be worth noting for comparison the practice in English parish churches, in which can be seen displayed, usually on a wooden panel, a painted representation of the arms of the monarch reigning at the time the painting was done. Seldom, if ever, are these identical in the sense of being an exact copy of a single authorised original. It has never been doubted that each of these likenesses are properly called 'Royal Arms': no other words would be as apt in ordinary speech or writing. Qexigator (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

We should try and see if we can get fair-use here. We are not going to get far.... some people see this as a defacement of a national symbol ...well others say its ok as long as it conforms to a written description. To display a version that does not look painted is my main problem....as the fact its painted is what gives it that Canadian feel....let alone there is an official one out there. People seem to be forgetting that this is a place of facts...not a were close enough is ok. Just happy this is not about the flag.. What do you guys think about a RfC? How can we word this properly (neutrally). -- Moxy (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There is ample information available online to settle the point without inviting RfC comment from persons who have not taken the trouble to peruse it. I have seen nothing that could ever support the povish claim that the image in question is a 'defacement of a national symbol', whether it looks painted or not, any more than a copy of a painting of a national flag could be a 'defacement of a national symbol'. There is no basis for letting such an eccentric pov determine what is acceptable in this respect. A websearch for images of 'Royal Arms of Canada' produced this[10] (with a link to Canadian Heritage [11]) and an image identical to the one at Arms of Canada,[12] commenting that a rendition made by Alan Beddoe, the Founder of the Heraldry Society of Canada, became very familiar to Canadians as the version used by the Government of Canada until the mid-1990s. 'This version also changed the design of the Royal Crown from the "Tudor Crown" depiction used for the previous half-century to one with depressed arches that more closely resembles the actual St. Edward's Crown. Upon her accession, the present Queen indicated her preference for the latter depiction. 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. It includes a new element: an annulus behind the shield bearing the motto of the Order of Canada, Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam ("They desire a better country"). This excellent yet minor addition provoked a great deal of debate (excerpts from Hansard Debates can be found here[13]), which demonstrated a thorough misunderstanding of heraldry by our parliamentarians. (emphasis added) This version has gradually replaced the Beddoe rendition as the one used by the federal government. The use of these arms by the government is determined by the Treasury Board Secretariat through its Federal Identity Program. Generally speaking, the arms of Canada are used by Cabinet ministers, Members of Parliament and Senators, and the federal judiciary.' That image is heraldically indistinguishable from the one in question here, and the latter is in no way a defacement: it is an excellent example of what heraldry promotes, which is to enable unmistakeable recognition, as might be in a book of symbols used for a military purpose. That is not surprising, given that a coat of arms is for battlefield recognition, and a blazon is a decorative embellishment, controlled by officially appointed heralds, from the days of chivalry. Qexigator (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure how copy and pasting all this info helps ...as we here are aware of the history of the arms. Nothing linked or copied above is telling us its ok to use non-official versions.....in fact one links talks about copyright and the fact anything close to the official arms cant be used. Another link even mentions the importance of being accurate with representations of Canadian symbol's .....from what I see from the links above is how important the symbol is....not that its ok to have home-made versions.-- Moxy (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for assuring us that you are well aware of that information. It seems pretty clear that not everyone is equally aware of it, or knows how to understand and apply it when discussing improving the article, which, as you also know, is the purpose of this page. We all sometimes need to be reminded of the necessary basis of a useful discussion when it tends to wander. Qexigator (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for annotation

In view of the discussion, to my mind the article will be improved by adding to the caption a note (see above DeCausa, 22:44, 12 February) that this is not the version used by the government of Canada.

My proposal for such a note is:

The version currently in use by the government is shown at Arms of Canada. For online explanation see Royal Heraldry Society of Canada website.[14]

Others may well be able to improve on this. Qexigator (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

+Please see possible interim way of making the position clearer.[15] --Qexigator (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid notes relating to images in the infobox don't go in as paragraphs in the article lede. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But how does this "relate to the infobox"? If the infobox image or all of the box were removed, this could stand in the text.

The coat of arms of the Queen in Right of Canada is also the official coat of arms of Canada. Qexigator (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I misread the note. Regardless, that's just a random factoid inserted into the lede; it's specific to the arms, for which this is not the article; the summary doesn't summarise anything in particular in this article; and the note only links to an article already linked in the text the note follows. There's no way to address Moxy's and trackratte's concerns about the arms in the infobox by editing the lede. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried adding a new field for a note to Template:Infobox monarchy, but, wasn't successful. I've asked at the template talk for someone else to do it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw the template talk, so thanks for that effort Mies and Qex.

Qex, "The coat of arms of the Queen in Right of Canada is also the official coat of arms of Canada" is a fundamental understanding of Canada's constitutional system. The Queen is Canada, so the sovereigns Arms are not also the arms of Canada, they are one and the same. And the issue has nothing to do with which depiction the Government of Canada uses, they can use whatever depiction they want. The issue is which design was legally signed off as approved by the Sovereign. trackratte (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

is also there = 'is identical with', 'also serves as', and other variations. But it is natural to put the monarch first, because it is only in consequence that the arms at the same time, but not in the same way, are granted/ given/ treated and accepted/ taken and regarded as that of Canada. But the notion that the "Queen is Canada" is pov, eccentric and not commonly accepted in ordinary usage or among those with sufficient expertise in the subject to be reliable guides. It seems that your comment surmises that one particular artist's depiction will be the one and only because it has been (supposedly) 'signed off as approved by the Sovereign', but, if that is not simply a misunderstanding of the use of the English language in this connection, it is a misunderstanding of the actuality. An official in a government department may be required to use that depiction and no other, a government department or the Governor General could urge senators and others to adopt it and not use any other depiction, but that is not binding on them or on others who are Canadian citizens and as such subjects of the Queen in right of Canada. Shall we let this go now? To my mind, it is ceasing to have whatever relevance it may have had to improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Qex, when I say "signed off" by the Sovereign, I mean exactly that. Every time the Royal Crown is depicted on a new set of Arms, the Queen physically signs it. It says "Approved." and then below is signed. I have seen originals exactly like this on three different occasions, it's just how it's done. So no, it's not "supposedly". As for government departments and civilians, that's all irrelevant. There is only one design used by the Queen of Canada at any given time. Since the Queen is the "human embodiment of the state/Crown" (Government of Canada), and "Because the Queen is the State" [16], the state legally only has one design at any given time. Interpretations can be used by anyone, governments, civilians, organisations, etc but there are exactly that, only interpretations (being heraldically correct or not is irrelevant). And the same rules and protections apply to any design that resemble the actual legal design.

As for improving the article, we are saying that this article does not require a depiction of the Coat of Arms. There is no clear and present reason to keep it. On top of that, it does not depict the state/crown/sovereigns one and only actual legal design. So, why are we showing an interpretation when we could be showing the real thing? If we can't show the real thing, then nothing should be shown at all. trackratte (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

First, my comment above was based on my surmise (which your comment confirms) about your experience of seeing the Queen's own sign manual, but if there is anything online to support what you describe it has not so far been produced, nor have I myself been able to trace it. Secondly, it had become apparent to me that you were and probably would remain unpersuaded by anything I had so far said, or could further say, with the intent of explaining that in my view your reasoning therefrom is flawed. That, too, is confirmed by your comment. I now see from your comment that the purport of your reasoning is solely to contend that this article does not require a depiction of the Coat of Arms. Knowing that to be so, if I read again the paragraph by which you opened this section, I can see it there, but obscured from my understanding by the camouflage of flawed reasoning in which it is enwrapped. But I note that an image of one of the royal crowns also appears in the article, and one of the maple leaf. Does any of your reasoning apply also to them? Qexigator (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Arms" in the lead

This addition to the lead:

"The coat of arms of the Queen in Right of Canada is also the official coat of arms of Canada.footnote The version currently in use by the government is shown at Arms of Canada."[17]

has been removed. The reasons for removal given above are:

that's just a random factoid inserted into the lede;
it's specific to the arms, for which this is not the article;
the summary doesn't summarise anything in particular in this article;
the note only links to an article already linked in the text the note follows.
There's no way to address Moxy's and trackratte's concerns about the arms in the infobox by editing the lede.

My first point is that the arms should be mentioned in the lead, whatever the infobox contains as now or as may be altered, unless (and until) the proposed alteration actually duplicates.

Secondly, given that Factoid is "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact...can also be used to describe a particularly insignificant or novel fact, in the absence of much relevant context", we may remark that, as is the way with items in the lead, the context is in the body: "An image of the Queen and/or the Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada is always displayed in Canadian federal courtrooms..."; and that the arms are sufficiently relevant to the topic of this article, 'Monarchy of Canada', to be used for the infobox, and sufficiently signficant to have been under much discussion here (as yet not concluded), and to have been discussed in parliament[18], and to be promoted as government policy: 'This version has gradually replaced the Beddoe rendition as the one used by the federal government. The use of these arms by the government is determined by the Treasury Board Secretariat through its Federal Identity Program. Generally speaking, the arms of Canada are used by Cabinet ministers, Members of Parliament and Senators, and the federal judiciary.'[19], meaning that the royal arms are not merely an attribute of the monarch of Canada, but are used for the purpose described in the opening sentence of the article : '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', which is expanded in the section headed 'Federal and provincial aspects'.

If duplicating the link is a problem, one or other link can be unlinked.

Therefore, I do not see that the reasons given are sufficient to keep the sentence above out of the lead. Qexigator (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The arms need not be mentioned in the lede. They're not the only arms of the Canadian monarch, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This coat of arms is specifically what is mentioned in the article and promoted, in the version cited, as government policy. What other arms are you referring to and why? Qexigator (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Government policy"? Nothing about arms is promoted as "government policy".

The federal arms are just one of many royal symbols, which are touched on in the "Symbols, associations, and awards" section. As parts of that section are themselves summaries of the content of Canadian royal symbols, the lede of this article needn't hold anything more than a brief sentence on royal symbols, if anything at all. The federal arms are too specific for the lede; they don't deserve the coverage there that you're proposing to give them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted that the royal arms/blazon are not displayed in Canadian royal symbols, but are in National symbols of Canada (Beddoes version), linked as a 'See also', but absent from Federal Identity Program. Qexigator (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The arms shown at National symbols of Canada aren't correct; they're outdated. But, that's a matter for that page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Qexigator (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disappointing to see such a bad coat of arms still here - A blazon does not define a coat of arms - Copyright law designed to prevent disparaging or confusing uses and to avoid misrepresentations.Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems -- Moxy (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Waning support for monarchy

According to this CBC news source, support in Canada for its monarchy is dropping. Recommend this be added to the article. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't support that statement. It says that in 2015, "Just fewer than four in 10 favour abolishing monarchy in Canada upon the death of the Queen", whereas in 2013, "The results in some ways mirror numbers from a poll taken in 2013 ... Thirty-seven per cent of Canadians polled were armchair monarchy abolitionists back then ... These measures appear to be static across two years". So, 37% in 2013, and 'just under 4 in 10' in 2015, so the numbers 'appear to be static'.

Secondly, the president of the research firm that ran the poll stated that "It is clear there are a substantial number of people who, while they support the monarchy in Canada, don't necessarily support the heir apparent". It seems like editorial staff trying to drive up viewer clicks with sensationalist headlines to me. trackratte (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Being CBC news, I found it quite interesting seeing the monarchy described as being British :) GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It was actually Forum Research that called them British and the CBC repeated their question using quotes. I do not see your objection though since they meet the criteria for being British that you argue on another talk page. TFD (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Forum Research used a loaded term like "British" in the poll question is enough to dismiss the whole thing as biased or inaccurate, at least. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Divisible monarchy

The article states as a fact that "Although the person of the sovereign is equally shared with fifteen other independent countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, each country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct". That is a debated and contentious argument, and certainly should not be recorded as a fact. There are practical and legal reasons for arguing against the idea of a separate monarchy, not the least of which is that British laws pertaining to the Crown have effect on the "Queen of Canada".Royalcourtier (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous sources supporting the fact, and refs within the lede are generally avoided, particularly if they are explained and/or substantiated further on in the body of the article. For example, see note 4 within the article: "The English Court of Appeal ruled in 1982, while 'there is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth ... in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada.'[32]". While there may be arguments against the idea of a separate monarchy, the way it is worded within the article is based on legal and political realities within both Canada and the United Kingdom. trackratte (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You would need a source that makes that argument. Certainly the accepted law today is that the Crown is distinct not only in each independent nation, but in territories and subnational units as well. TFD (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The theory that the "country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct" is not legally correct. The idea of separate sovereignties is contentious, and legally unsound. It should not be stated as a factRoyalcourtier (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any (modern) sources that question this? TFD (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There are no legal authority of which I am aware that suggests that "each country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct". It is for those asserting that strange proposition to prove it. The Statute of Westminster envisaged a single Crown. Of course the Queen in right of Canada is legally distinct from the Queen in right of New Zealand. Just as the Queen in right of Alberta is legally distinct from the Queen in right of Nova Scotia. That is not the same as the monarchy of Nova Scotia being separate and legally distinct from that of Alberta.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Two comments: 1_Use of the "divisibilty" concept for the purpose of determining a particular question under the Australian constitution is not sufficient for using that concept in respect of the several monarchies or the Crowns of the 16 realms.

2_R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association, QB 892 at 928; as referenced in High Court of Australia: Sue v Hill [1999 HCA 30; 23 June 1999; S179/1998 and B49/1998]. The relevant passage in Sue v Hill[20] is paragraph 57. "The second matter is that in 1982 it was settled in the United Kingdom by the decision of the English Court of Appeal in R v Foreign Secretary; Ex parte Indian Association[65]... /annotated [65]: [1982] QB 892. A petition to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal was refused by the House of Lords on the ground that the principal argument sought to be advanced by the applicant was "simply ... not arguable": [1982] QB 892 at 937./...as a "truism" that, whilst "there is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth ... in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada"[66]. In addition to those remarks by May LJ, Kerr LJ observed[67]: "It is settled law that, although Her Majesty is the personal sovereign of the peoples inhabiting many of the territories within the Commonwealth, all rights and obligations of the Crown - other than those concerning the Queen in her personal capacity - can only arise in relation to a particular government within those territories. The reason is that such rights and obligations can only be exercised and enforced, if at all, through some governmental emanation or representation of the Crown." It is to be noted that these conclusions were expressed in the United Kingdom even before the enactment by its Parliament of the Canada Act 1982 (UK) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK) ("the 1986 UK Act"). Qexigator (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Full agnatic or Male preference

This article is confusing me. Is the succession to the Canadian throne full agnatic or male preference? It's my understanding that it's the latter, unless & until the SCOC says otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The law in Canada, binding the government and the Crown, is as enacted by parliament, unless a court of competent jurisdiction eventually rules otherwise. At present, the line is the same down to 27th. Thus there is little prospect of the heir apparent being any different in the near future. A difference would occur if a third Cambridge child is born and he is a prince, but not if she is a princess. It may be surmised that by the time Prince George is heir apparent, the supposed problem under the law of Canada will be resolved. Qexigator (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It is neither full agnatic or male preference. It is male preference primogeniture for those born before 2011 and absolute primogeniture for those born after 2011. Psunshine87 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. (Unlikely, actually.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 43 external links on Monarchy of Canada. 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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monarchy of Canada. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930201656/http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Copps_Sheila/2006/04/26/1550711.html to http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Copps_Sheila/2006/04/26/1550711.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Too much obsolete/obsolescent information

The subsection 1.1 headed 'Succession and regency' would be improved by removing from the end of its first paragraph the clause with the piped reference to O'Donohue v Canada, and removing the second paragraph, which may have been suited to the article before the passing of the 2013 act, but is now obsolete. The present question, so far as concerns this article's topic, is whether a judicial ruling will be obtained to the effect that male-preference primogeniture persists in Canada, instead of the absolute primogeniture which is now the law in the UK and other realms. The second paragraph of 1.1 mentions the constitution of Canada and the third mentions Canada's constitution and the Constitution Act, 1982. A link to Constitution of Canada comes later, in the first sentence of the "Federal constitutional role", but It appears that the legal proceedings on the point of principle concerning amending the constitution has not been considered notable enough for mention there.

At the end of the first paragraph of 1.1: legislation limits the succession to the non-adopted, legitimate descendants of Sophia of Hanover and stipulates that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic, nor married to one, and must be in communion with the Church of England upon ascending the throne; these particular clauses have prompted legal challenge linking to O'Donohue v Canada, a case in the courts of Ontario. The linked article concludes by quoting the court's judgment, delivered in 2003, upheld on appeal in 2005: the lis raised in the present application is not justiciable and there is no serious issue to be tried. Public interest standing should not be granted. Given my ruling on these issues I need not deal with the other considerations that apply to the granting of public interest standing. The application is dismissed. In other words this "legal challenge" has next to no informative value relevant to the current legal proceedings in Quebec, whose outcome is likely to be of particular interest from the point of view of politicians and those actively concerned with interpreting and applying the Canadian constitution, but will not affect the line of succession, at least in respect of the four persons now next in line.
The second paragraph discusses in some detail the effect of Canada's adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931, and ends by saying if the UK were to breach the convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and unilaterally change the line of succession to the British throne, the alteration would have no effect on the reigning sovereign of Canada or his or her heirs and successors citing what appears to be a review published in 1997 of a book published in 1995. Neither the book nor the review could make any comment on the act of 2013, or the likely outcome of the current judicial proceedings in Quebec, or the question whether the current line of succession is male preference or absolute primogeniture. In other words its informative value for reporting to readers what the present state of the succession is appears to be not more than nil.

Qexigator (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not those words stay, that is what the legislation says. Please focus on the parts of the case that apply.
It is the opinion of someone who's written often about matters relating to the Crown. I believe there are a couple of others who agree with that opinion; the sources could be provided, I think. The criteria for inclusion isn't whether or not it comments on the Succession to the Throne Act. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what Mies.'s comments are addressing, but I do not see that they respond to the points I have raised, and must surmise he has no reasoned answer. Qexigator (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should be less verbose and get to your point more directly. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone interested in letting the article be further improved is advised not to be put off by the impetuosity of that remark. I believe a reasonably attentive editor willing to collaborate with others here for improving the article would have noticed that the main point is in the first sentence at the top of this section, which is followed by consecutive reasoning, and quotations to avoid the sort of misunderstanding that can arise even among attentive readers. In view of Mies.'s remark, I will point out that no one is obliged to engage in constructive discussion who finds that too difficult or too tedious, but dumping nonsense here instead is not welcomed. Qexigator (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Qexigator. We should mention the law has changed and not second guess whether it is valid, based on an earlier interpretation of the rules for changing the succession. TFD (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If you had an actual suggestion on how to improve the article, maybe then you'd find willingness to collaborate. I asked for proposed wordings earlier; not one of you has offered any. Above, you've written a lot, but it seems to mostly be cover for disconnections and the absence of an actual plan.

There's likely ways to edit the section. But, you can't simply dispose of cited material because it doesn't align with your POV. Stating it has to be kept doesn't equate with a mission to "prove" any particular viewpoint right, either. Reliably sourced information stays because it's policy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

...proposed wordings earlier; not one of you has offered any. inattentive? see above. Perhaps that commenter is too busy elsewhere, but nonsense is nonsense. Qexigator (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If the omission of his one suggestion he made for two lines of the section is the only thing the above editor chooses to remark on, he should perhaps consider re-prioritising so he can more productively contribute to resolving this dispute.

If it helps the editor, I should have been more clear that I was asking for proposed wordings for the section. Since it seems likely changing one part of the section is going to have impact on another or other parts (as the above editor's change did), and so on, working out the wording for the section--or the first three paragraphs, at least--here appears to be the better option in terms of article stability. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the discussions on this page, to my mind the earlier of these two versions is more suited to the article than the later: 00:33, 22 November (Miesianiacal) and 02:59, 22 November(GoodDay).[21] Qexigator (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I prefer my version, as it explains that the succession is now absolute primogeniture. Mies' version appears to suggest that succession is still male-preference primogeniture. What say you? Graham, The Four Deuces and FactStraight? -- GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I prefer your version. TFD (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Section's opening sentences re-revised[22] thus:

The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, was ~~enacted on 26 March 2015 replacing male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture, as it consented to the corresponding change in the,~~ passed assenting to proposed changes in the succession to the British throne.

Succession in Canada is determined by primogeniture,^[1] governed in part by common law.

Qexigator (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

In disagreement with that version. Once the British act of succession was enacted, the Canadian succession (via it's own act) was also altered. To date, the Supreme Court of Canada hasn't declared this action unconstitutional. PS- With all due respect to Toffoli, he's not the SCOC. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the change you've just restored, Qex. However, I don't wish to get into an edit-war with you & therefore, there's nothing I can do about it. The succession in Canada is absolute primogeniture & has been since 26 March 2015. If it's decided on this article, that's not so? then our readers will be misled. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

But the Canadian succession was altered by order in council not legislation. The OC allowed the GG to order the changes. Also, the order was made later than the date in which it came into effect. Instead of saying what the rules were before, perhaps we should just state what they currently are, then mention what they once were. TFD (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to the government that tabled the Succession to the Throne Bill, royal succession for Canada was not altered "via its own act" or by an order-in-council. It was altered simply because the UK altered its succession. Whether you hold that the UK can alter its succession without the assent of Canada's parliament (because that requirement is only a convention) or that the UK can't alter its succession without the assent of Canada's parliament (because that would be contrary to the convention), it was the enforcement of the UK Succession to the Crown Act that changed succession in the UK and, by extension, according to the Harper Cabinet, changed succession in Canada, too.

Though the wording is a little foggy, Qexigator's opening is essentially right. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with Mies' recent changes. But also, I don't wish to edit-war with him either. Again, if the article is going to mislead our readers into thinking that the Canadian succession is still male-preference & those who support that, refuse to allow this to be corrected? Then there's little I can do here. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to exactly what words "mislead" readers? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence (currently) doesn't mention that the Canadian succession has been changed from male preference to absolute, which is misleading our readers into giving the impression that the succession is still male preference. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting all the above comments, and arguing against none, I see the wording of the first sentence in the 16:39, 22 November version[23] as maybe odd at first sight, but, as we know, it is correctly in agreement with the Canadian act and compatible with the information which follows, including the Quebec judicial proceedings, and, to me at least, it looks the best so far. For reasons previously given, I remain doubtful about continuing to rely on the obiter dicta in O'Donohue's case, even as cited in Teskey's case of 2013. Both of these may be superseded as a result of the ongoing Quebec proceedings, which may be appealed to the federal court, but meantime, given the state of the legislation and political sensitivities all round in constitutional cases such as this, editors here will be aware that the legal reasoning either way is awkward, even for responsible experts acting in their professional capacity such as top government lawyers and judges, and editors here should take care not to write the article as if Wikipedia knows the ultimate answer, or that those two cases can be treated as having in any way resolved the issue currently before the Quebec court. We (not excluding loyal Canadians of monarchist or republican inclination) may also note that those proceedings must be treated as having enough justiciability to be entertained by the court, and for the federal government to be a party, whether or not any of us believe we have reason to expect the court to uphold the act's validity to the effect that the law of succession has been changed from male-preference to absolute primogeniture for persons born after a certain date. Qexigator (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the 16:39 Novmeber 22, 2015 edit. If the Canadian royal succession is still male preference (and marriage to Catholics is still barred, along with the monarch can still bar any marriages in the royal family), then I ask again - What exactly is being challenged in the Quebec superior court? If those 2 Laval University professors in the Quebec courts are arguing against a change in the succession & how it came about? then the change in succession must have already occured. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As we kow, the main issue is constitutional validity of the act, and whether it has been and will remain of no legal effect. The purpose of the act, which is outlined in the article, is secondary. If there is a source to say that the law was effective to change the succession but may cease to be as from the date of a judicial declaration but not before, please let us have a citation, perhaps from a precedent where a judicial ruling has been given in the highest federal court declaring a federal act unonstitutional and of no effect from the date it was passed. Whatever private opinion anyone may have, here, or in the whole of Canada, or in any Commonwealth realm, or elsewhere, really nothing but a clear precedent in the Canadian court will suffice. Whatever the opinions of the private parties, the Quebec and federal governments are also parties, and it could be interesting to see the arguments they have presented to the court, but more intereating to see the judgment when it is delivered. Qexigator (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Will shall have to agree to disagree, on how the opening to the section should read. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Encylopedically speaking, what's not to like? If anyone comes up with something better, why disagree? Do not fail to notice that the section should be read as a whole, and agree with the known facts properly sourced, including The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, is under judicial review in the Quebec Superior Court over, among other issues, its effectiveness and alleged failure to "follow the amending procedure" set out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982...It is not disputed that under both male-preference and absolute primogeniture, the heir apparent is Charles, Prince of Wales and the next three currently in the line of succession after him are the Prince's elder son and his two children, a son and a daughter. There may be inquirers who have a need to be properly informed about this, including those who knew nothing of it until seeing it for the first time in the article. Qexigator (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I approach these disputes in a practical way. You've chosen to support Mies' position & so far we 3, were the only ones to edit the section. TFD supports my changes, but his support has been limited to the talkpage (i.e he hasn't restored any of my changes). Furthermore, Graham11 & Factstraight haven't posted at this Rfc for days (let alone make any edits). The only way I can restore my corrections is via edit-warring (as you & Mies will likely revert) & that's not an option for me. If it's been decided here, that the succession hasn't been changed? then so be it. This is merely a Wikipedia article, not the real world. There's really nothing more to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

+Nor let us forget that the current heir apparent's sister, the present queen's daughter, remains down the line under male-preference. Qexigator (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The change in succession is post-2011 birth & limited to Charles' descendants. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It may help GoodDay if I confirm that my present position is unchanged from 22:15, 26 May 2015(UTC), linked by Mies. at "Succession" above. "The law in Canada, binding the government and the Crown, is as enacted by parliament, unless a court of competent jurisdiction eventually rules otherwise. At present, the line is the same down to 27th. Thus there is little prospect of the heir apparent being any different in the near future. A difference would occur if a third Cambridge child is born and he is a prince, but not if she is a princess. It may be surmised that by the time Prince George is heir apparent, the supposed problem under the law of Canada will be resolved." Qexigator (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As Blackstone wrote, judges are "not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one."[24] An adverse decision would declare the changes to be a nullity that did not and never had any force. However, the court's decision could be wrong and a future court could re-impose the law as if it had been in force since it was ordered by the governor general. The same is true of all laws. So there can never be absolute certainty what the law is. The issue is whether the challenge is of sufficient strength for us to question where a proclaimed law is valid. I think it is contrary to policy for us to determine that on our own, we need to rely on outside sources. Would we say for example that murder is illegal in Canada unless a court decides otherwise? So far they treat the law as valid. TFD (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

TFD, that may be opening up at least one new debate, possibly off topic, and certainly recondite. Or is it the basis for some proposal to revise the present version of the article? Qexigator (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

We should not say, "The law in Canada, binding the government and the Crown, is as enacted by parliament, unless a court of competent jurisdiction eventually rules otherwise." Since the same is true of all legislation in Canada, you need a reason to mention it. We should just mention what the rules of succession are. Perhaps we could put O'Donoghue and the other cases in a section about litigation on the Crown. TFD (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you intend to imply that I was proposing anyone should put in the article the words you have quoted from my comment? Qexigator (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to see a proposal on how to insert "mention [of] what the rules of succession are", since, according to the previous cabinet, which tabled the Succession to the Throne Bill 2013, there are no rules of succession in Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source. Is it really the position of the Canadian government that in the event of a vacancy that no one would be entitled to the crown? Or are they saying that there is no current incumbent? TFD (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I already did: [25] "The laws governing succession are UK law and are not part of Canada's constitution... the line of succession is therefore determined by UK law." (Though, they do seem to get a bit confused by their own story, as the cite just given refers to amendment of "the changes to the laws governing succession in Canada", but Rob Nicholson said "The United Kingdom Parliament is not making law for Canada, and there is nothing in the United Kingdom bill that purports to extend to Canada. The British bill is amending the United Kingdom laws that define who may become the sovereign of the United Kingdom in the future."[26]) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

IOW the rules of succession to the Canadian crown are the same as in the UK. That is not to say there are no rules. TFD (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did say it was the then-government's position that there are no rules of succession in Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. And there are few constitutional laws in Canada either, because most of them are in the UK. For example, there are no rules for appointing senators in Canada. TFD (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the Canadian royal succession must always be the same as the British royal succession? I've made the following changes, as the British royal succession rules were altered 26 March 2015. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, in future, you should propose your wordings here first. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to check with you, first. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You do seem to be in over your head. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, there is only one "rule": given that the same person who is the UK monarch is at the same time Canada's monarch, then by Canadian law (it is said) a demise of the Crown of Canada and of UK is simultaneous and whoever is next in line to the British throne necessarily becomes, simultaneously, the next monarch of Canada. It remains to be determined whether that proposition will be the outcome of the judicial review now proceeding in Quebec. It appears that the current version of the article is compatible with the position adopted by the Quebec government as well as by the federal government. We need not speculate about the outcome, or about what might happen if at some time in the future a person who would not be an heir apparent under the old UK "rules" became heir apparent in all the other realms. Qexigator (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

By the time the Quebec court announces its decision, Canada may have already become a republic ;) GoodDay (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

...and merged with some other countries in perpetual and indivisible union to form Eurasia or Oceania, or Commonwealthia, or Omnipopuliana, or Phantasmogoria. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha.... :) GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

^ Changing the Rules of Succession to the Throne for Canada, G. Toffoli, The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust [27]

[1] Changing the Rules of Succession to the Throne for Canada, G. Toffoli, The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust [27]

[1]