Talk:Monarchist League of Canada

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (22 Aug 2003 and 24 Jun 2005):

(duplicate?) Issues concerning this article[edit]

I've been observing these articles on Canadian monarchy for some time, but have chosen not to get involved due to my focus on other articles. Firstly, I believe that if there were copyvio issues with the previous version, then it should have been completely rewritten, not deleted. Secondly, I would like to urge all parties involved here to stick to the facts concerning the Canadian monarchy. Though an American, I am well acquainted with the Monarchist League to know that their positions do not generally deviate from the official positions of the Canadian government (despite potentially revisionist attempts first put into motion by the Trudeau government) concerning the status of the constitutional monarchy. For example, the Queen of Canada is just that - the Queen of Canada. This is a fact. I was greatly saddened to see that the Queen of Canada article was deleted and redirected to Monarchy in Canada, which explained in detail her distinctly Canadian position. This redirection is, in my view, an attempt to deny her position as Queen of Canada.

Again, I would like to reiterate that the Monarchist League is an organization which seeks to promote awareness and education of the Canadian monarchy - it's positions are not based upon mere opinion, but are firmly grounded in history - the same history which is also officially promoted (though often neglected, considering the current state of Canadian awareness concerning the monarchy) by the Canadian government. Canadian heritage should not be denied, no matter what anyone's politics might be. Canadian republicans can argue against the monarchy (and the Monarchist League), but IMHO, they should not promote their views as being fact (i.e. that the Canadian monarchy is actually British). SouthernComfort 5 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)

I think you've gotten things somewhat reversed. No one is saying that the article should assert *as fact* that the monarchy is British. Rather, the objection is to asserting, as fact, that the monarchy is *Canadian* when that is actually contested. What should be said is that some people believe that the monarchy is Canadian, others assert it is British ie we should be NPOV and not take a position. AndyL 5 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

It is well established that the Crown in right of Canada is legally Canadian, and that the person of the Queen is simultaneously British, Canadian, Bahamian, New Zealander, etc. The point of view problem arises with the republican myth that the Crown in right of Canada is in some strange legal way dependent on or inferior to the Crown in right of the United Kingdom. Peter Grey 5 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

Legally Canadian, perhaps though Rouleau and the Royal Titles Act suggests more legally British than Canadian' in any meaningful sense "simultanesouly British, Canadian, Bahamian, New Zeladander" contestable, "distinctly Canadian" or with "distinct Canadian features" also debatable and not something most reasonable people would agree to. What the MLC advocates argue is "distinct" others would say is minutia. AndyL 5 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Relying on decisions of Canadian courts of law and on Canadian legislation pretty well defeats your argument before it even gets started. Peter Grey 5 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

"Relying on decisions of Canadian courts of law and on Canadian legislation " both of which refer to the monarchy as British. The only thing gbambino could come up with in response was an Australian ruling from a court that has no jurisdiction in Canada. AndyL 5 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Is there a post-Pearson/Trudeau source for this claim that the monarchy is British? The official position of the Canadian government (at least since Trudeau) is that the monarchy is 100% Canadian, hence the official use of the phrase, "Canadian monarchy." The Canadian government also officially promotes the fact that the tradition of Canadian monarchy (or monarchy in Canada, if you prefer) began with the French kings, was continued by the British, and became a completely Canadian institution upon the affirming of Canadian national sovereignty and independence.

In other words, the Canadian monarchy was officially linked to the United Kingdom (as well as the French) in the past, but no longer is so (since the 1960s, if I am not mistaken). But it was always a Canadian institution, with aspects distinct from those of the British monarchy. Furthermore, it's fairly obvious that the changes that Pearson and Trudeau made were primarily cosmetic, and that the new national identity they wished to establish also was inclusive of the monarchy (hence the promotion of "Canadian monarchy"). AFAIK, most of what I've stated here is the official Canadian position. In this area clarification would very much be appreciated if there is any dispute.

I also think it best to stick to the current facts and state of Canadian monarchy, rather than relying on legally obsolete sources (big difference between Canada pre-1950s and post). If no one can quote any relevant sources, someone could call up Canadian Heritage (and maybe the Parliament) and obtain some references concerning the legal status of Canadian monarchy - I can also do this myself if no one else has time. Please let me know. SouthernComfort 5 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

"Is there a post-Pearson/Trudeau source for this claim that the monarchy is British?"

Yes, scroll up and read the excerpts from the Rouleau decision made in 2003 in which the learned justice repeatedly refers to the "British Crown" that Canada is "under". Mandarins in the Department of Canadian Heritage can write what they like on their websites but they do not interpret the law or the constitution, that's left to judges. AndyL 5 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)

"I also think it best to stick to the current facts and state of Canadian monarchy, rather than relying on legally obsolete sources (big difference between Canada pre-1950s and post)."

Again, the Rouleau decision came down in 2003. I suggest that when you jump into the middle of the debate it's best to acquaint yourself with what's been said rather than assume you're up to speed. Please take a moment and read the entire talk page so that we don't have to cover the same ground again. AndyL 5 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

"n other words, the Canadian monarchy was officially linked to the United Kingdom (as well as the French) in the past, but no longer is so (since the 1960s, if I am not mistaken)"

Sorry but you're mistaken. For one thing nothing happened in the 1960s that would have changed the constitutional relationship in question. Secondly, when something did happen in 1982, it changed the relationship but did not break it.

Again, read Rouleau and read the Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1982 and you'll find that we remain linked through the Act of Settlement amongst other constitutional documents.AndyL 5 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

I have read the entire "debate" and the judge's reference to the "British Crown" does not say anything about the Canadian monarchy actually being British or non-existent or whatever else. It only states that the Crown is of British origin. It doesn't say anything about the monarchy not being a Canadian institution nor does it invalidate the position of the Queen of Canada. I hope that is not the only source you wish to quote. As for "Mandarins" in Canadian Heritage, what is this supposed to mean exactly? SouthernComfort 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

There's no disagreement that there's a link - that is the point in sharing the same physical person as head of state. Canada is under the Crown in exactly the same way that the Grenada, the United Kingdom, etc. are under the crown. You're trying to imply an equal relationship is really an unequal one. Peter Grey 5 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)

"It only states that the Crown is of British 'origin."

Where is the word "origin" used in Rouleau's decision?

I see:

To do this would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure.

He specifically refers to the Crown as "the British Crown" but I don't see the word "origin" anywhere. Do you? Or did you just interpolate the word? Earlier you asked "Is there a post-Pearson/Trudeau source for this claim that the monarchy is British?" Clearly Rouleau (above) says that the Crown is "the British Crown". He doesn't say we are united under the Candian Crown, or that there is a British Crown and a Candian Crown and that they're good friends but distinct from each other. No, he says that we and other Commonwealth nations are in a "Union under the British Crown". The phrase "British origin" is your invention; it exists no where in Rouleau's decision.

have read the entire "debate" and the judge's reference to the "British Crown" does not say anything about the Canadian monarchy actually being British or non-existent or whatever else.

Then explain why the phrase "Canadian monarchy" or "Canadian Crown" does not appear at all in the judge's ruling while "British Crown" or "Crown of Great Britain" appears several times and not just in context to ruling over Britain but ruling over Canada? I'm sorry if this contradicts your preconceptions (or what you've read on some Ministry of Canadian Heritage website) but if you read what is actually there and not what you think it should say you'll see you're claims are completely false. AndyL 6 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

As for the word mandarin, it's a synonym for civil servant. See for instance [1] or [2] or [3] AndyL 6 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Re mandarins, see also the first definition listed on wikipedia's mandarin page or the Mandarin (China) article which states:

A Mandarin was a bureaucrat in imperial China. The term originates from the Portuguese word mandarim, meaning "minister" or "counselor", used to translate the Chinese word guan (Chinese: 官; pinyin: guān; lit. 'government official'). The term is also used to refer to the northern spoken variety of Chinese because it was the language used among officials during the Ming and Qing dynasties.

AndyL 6 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of the term "British Crown" in the context of that decision - I wasn't trying to say that he himself used the word "origin." He does not use the term to imply that the British monarchy rules over Canada (which would be false). If that were true, then if the UK abolished the monarchy there, then Canada would also cease to have a monarchy. But that isn't the case. The Canadian monarchy is separate from the British monarchy. I believe I'm correct on this, as Canada is an independent country and the UK has no power or jurisdiction over Canada. The Crown itself is British, but the Queen does not rule over Canada as Queen of the UK, but as Queen of Canada. SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the term "Mandarin." I thought at first it was meant as a reference to the current Governor General's ethnic background. As for my claims being false, I don't believe they are, but I can accept evidence to the contrary. And mind you, we're just discussing these issues here. As for "Canadian Crown," Gbambino stated that the Canadian monarchy has no official name, which is why the judge used "British Crown" in the absence of an official name. But this doesn't mean the Canadian monarchy doesn't exist, nor does it imply that the British monarchy rules over Canada - technically, they are separate institutions, even though the argument could be made that they are not. But again, it's a moot point since if the British abolished their monarchy, that would have no effect on the Canadian monarchy or Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy (unless Canadians also wanted to abolish their monarchy). SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

For you to prove your claims, you would have to present evidence that the Canadian monarchy does not exist, and that Canada is ruled over by the British monarchy (with the Queen of the UK as head of state). In other words you would have to prove that if the UK abolished its monarchy, that this would end Canada's status as being a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state. Such a claim, if true, would also mean that Canada is not really independent and sovereign that the government of the UK, in reality, controls Canada. Needless to say, I find any such claim to be absurd. SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

" I wasn't trying to say that he himself used the word "origin."" You implied it. +

No, I did not, and please do not assume bad faith. I was describing the use of the term in it's specific context. SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

"He does not use the term to imply that the British monarchy rules over Canada" He explictly said that Canada is "under the the British Crown" How can you possibly interpret that to say the British monarchy does not rule over Canada?

Can you actually prove that the British monarchy rules over Canada? The term "British Crown" is not the same as saying "British monarchy" - I think you may have a misunderstanding of this point. The British monarchy itself only rules in the UK, not in Canada or Australia or other realms. SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

" If that were true, then if the UK abolished the monarchy there, then Canada would also cease to have a monarchy. But that isn't the case."

Are you seriously suggesting that if Britain abolished the monarchy nothing would happen in Canada?

Legally, no. What the government of the UK does would have no legal impact upon Canada's constitutional monarchy. It would be up to the Canadian government and people to decide independently whether or not to abolish the Canadian monarchy. Canada is a sovereign nation after all, and must make it's own decisions. SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

"the Queen does not rule over Canada as Queen of the UK, but as Queen of Canada." She is "Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom".

"The Canadian monarchy is separate from the British monarchy." If that were the case then the Queen of Canada would be free to be a Roman Catholic or marry one. AndyL 6 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

Do the courts, whether in Canada, or the UK or Australia, have the authority to force the monarchy to change its traditions? SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

"As for "Canadian Crown," Gbambino stated that the Canadian monarchy has no official name, which is why the judge used "British Crown" in the absence of an official name"

That is the most illogical thing I've ever read. The use of the term "British Crown" does not logically follow from the absence of an "official name" for the Canadian monarchy. It does not explain why the judge chose to use the phrase "British Crown" to the complete exclusion of the phrase "Canadian Crown". Gbambino is no authority, just because he makes up an explanation to rationalise away an inconvenient fact does not make it so.AndyL 6 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

But you see, what I am trying to convey is that for you to interpret "British Crown" as meaning that the British monarchy rules over Canada, that is your personal interpretation and opinion. You can't state that as fact and the Canadian government apparently disagrees with you, otherwise they would go around talking about the "British monarchy" rather than "Canadian monarchy." Gbambino has sufficiently explained these points (concerning the technicalities of the Crown) in this talk and Talk:Monarchy in Canada. SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

For you to prove your claims, you would have to present evidence that the Canadian monarchy does not exist, and that Canada is ruled over by the British monarchy (with the Queen of the UK as head of state). In other words you would have to prove that if the UK abolished its monarchy, that this would end Canada's status as being a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state. Such a claim, if true, would also mean that Canada is not really independent and sovereign that the government of the UK, in reality, controls Canada. Needless to say, I find any such claim to be absurd.

That is the whole point of reductio ad absurdum arguments, isn't it? I'm still waiting for you to tell me how you can read Rouleau's statement that we are "under the British Crown" as meaning the opposite of those words. I'm still waiting for you to explain where Rouleau says the Canadian and British monarchies are "seperate" and "distinct" when he says no such thing? I'm still waiting for you to explain how it is that the rules of succession to the position of monarch in Canada are determined by an arcance British law? Please explain to me why a Catholic cannot be Queen of Canada even though we have no state church and have a Charter of Rights that bans discrimination on the basis of religion? I'm waiting for you to expalin how all this can be when, at the same time, the monarchy is "not British"? I'm still waiting for you to explain how Canada can be a sovereign country independent of Britain and British laws when, at the same time, we cannot change the rules governing the succession to the "Canadian throne" without the consent of the British parliament? The British parliament, however, can unilaterally amend the preamble of the Statute of Westminster and then the Act of Settlement if it so wishes with or without our consent. How so? Because the Act of Settlement and Statute of Westminster are mere statute law in Britain and can simply be amended by the British Parliament while, in Canada, the Statute of Westminster is entrenched in our Constitution which is not statute law. AndyL 6 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Let's stick to the facts of how the Canadian government operates, and the position of the Canadian monarchy. You seem to disagree that Canada is a sovereign and independent nation, and I think you've addressed such issues already in the relevant articles (i.e. the republican viewpoint)? What we were originally discussing is the current legal status of the Canadian monarchy, i.e. what is the official position of the Canadian government on the monarchy and on sovereignty, etc? Don't get too worked up over this. I'm not your enemy - I can understand these concerns over sovereignty and being subject to a foreign power. But I don't believe this is the case in relation to the Canadian monarchy (i.e. I don't think the monarchy gives the UK any rights over Canada - if this were true, Canada would've become a republic back in the 60's and 70's). SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

"Such a claim, if true, would also mean that Canada is not really independent and sovereign that the government of the UK, in reality, controls Canada."

The British Crown and the British government are not the same thing. We are not ruled by the government of the UK. We are, however, reigned over by the British Crown.AndyL 6 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Alright, so we agree on something. Now we need to address what is meant by "British Crown" and what this means in relation to Canada. Out of curiosity, is there any sort of neutral commentary on the Rouleau decision (which would officially clarify the use of the term in context)? SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Do the courts, whether in Canada, or the UK or Australia, have the authority to force the monarchy to change its traditions? SouthernComfort 6 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement is not a "tradition", it's an act of the parliament at Westminster. Catholics are not barred from the throne out of "tradition", they are barred by law. [ And while Canadian or Australian courts cannot, it seems, strike down the Act of Settlement it is conceivable that a British (or European) court could if it rules that the Act is in violation with the EU's human rights charter. And, as I said, the British Parliament can unilaterally rescind the bar on Catholics while Canada's parliament cannot. So yes, the UK has more power over the Crown in Canada than Canada itself does. AndyL 6 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)

"Please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox" The point is that the claim some are trying to put in the article that the Crown is "not British" is not an objective fact, rather it is POV and contestable. That is the entire point of my argument. The arguments you dismiss make that point as does your inability to rebut them. No where am I arguing that the wikipedia article(s) should state as fact that the Crown is not Canadian (meaning you are putting forward a straw dog argument). If Britain were to change the rules of succession unilaterally, that would change the "Canadian Crown". If Canada were to somehow change the rules of succession uniltarally the converse would not be true.AndyL 6 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)

how you can read Rouleau's statement that we are "under the British Crown"
- Rouleau referred to the Crown as shared by the Commonwealth Realms, not Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom. He very clearly underlined the symmetric relationship between Her Majesty in right of Canada and Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom. This tells us 1) Her Majesty in right of Canada and Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom are separate legal persons, and 2) they are in a relationship of equals.

I'm still waiting for you to explain where Rouleau says the Canadian and British monarchies are "seperate" and "distinct" when he says no such thing?
- Rouleau referred to the Crown as shared by the Commonwealth Realms, as above.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it is that the rules of succession to the position of monarch in Canada are determined by an arcance British law?
- Rouleau clearly established that succession is governed by Canadian constitutional law, which happens to incorporate the Act of Settlement.

Please explain to me why a Catholic cannot be Queen of Canada even though we have no state church and have a Charter of Rights that bans discrimination on the basis of religion?
- That was the point of Rouleau's decision. Try actually reading it for once.

I'm waiting for you to expalin how all this can be when, at the same time, the monarchy is "not British"?
- Rouleau referred to the Crown as shared by the Commonwealth Realms, as above.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how Canada can be a sovereign country independent of Britain and British laws when, at the same time, we cannot change the rules governing the succession to the "Canadian throne" without the consent of the British parliament?
- Canada can, refer to Constitution Act, 1982.

The British parliament, however, can unilaterally amend the preamble of the Statute of Westminster and then the Act of Settlement if it so wishes with or without our consent. How so? Because the Act of Settlement and Statute of Westminster are mere statute law in Britain and can simply be amended by the British Parliament while, in Canada, the Statute of Westminster is entrenched in our Constitution which is not statute law.
- No amendment by the UK Parliament would have any legal force in Canada. Refer to Statute of Westminster, 1932. Note also the precedent of His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.

Peter Grey

No, Rouleau did not speak of different crowns. He explicitly spoke of a single crown ie "Union under the British Crown". Like our American friend, you are reading into Rouleau's ruling what you think should have been there, but isn't.AndyL 6 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
Yes, he *did not* speak of separate or distinct crowns. I'm glad you agree.
An Act which is designed to meet historical British interests. There is no reason for Catholics to be excluded from the Canadian throne as the Church of England is not our state church. The only reason for this requirement is to meet the needs of Britain's constitutional arrangement.
The question is rhetorical. The point is that we cannot have a Catholic Queen because it violates the precepts of the *British* constitution. There is no domestic reason for this requirement, the reason is entirely British yet it means that we have rules governing the succession to our throne which are anathama to Canadian values of religious equality.
Rouleau referred to the Commonwealth Realms being united under the "British Crown".
We cannot change the rules of succession under the constitution as it is currently written without getting approval from Westminster and the other Commonwealth realms.
The UK can unilatarally change the rules of succession for Britain. Canada, however, can only change the rules of succession for itself (under the Constitution as it is currently written) if the Canadian parliament, the British parliament and the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms all consent. In practice, if Britian were to change the rules of succession, Canada would have little choice but to follow suit. If, conversely, Canada were to somehow change the rules of succession for Canada, Britain could safely ignore it and carry on as it wished. The abdication of Edward VIII occured at a time when Britain still cared about its Empire. The political situation in the UK has changed and there is very little public or barely more political interest in the Commonwealth. Britain is far more concerned about the EU than the Commonwealth. AndyL 6 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)

And, as I said earlier, a UK or European court could conceivably strike down the Act of Settlement. A Canadian court cannot. AndyL 6 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)

Mere republican disinformation. No UK or EU court has such authority with respect to Canada. Canada might choose, under the amending formula of the 1982 Constitution, to follow suit, but that's not the same thing. Or possibly, the succession could be re-interpreted in light of such a decision, but only by the Canadian courts. It's quite clear nothing in any of the cited sources supports the conjecture of an asymmetric relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. Peter Grey 6 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Also note the following in the Rouleau decision: [33] As a result of the Statute of Westminster it was recognized that any alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain and, if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to be maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth. This arrangement can be compared to a treaty among the Commonwealth countries to share the monarchy under the existing rules and not to change the rules without the agreement of all signatories. While Canada as a sovereign nation is free to withdraw from the arrangement and no longer be united through common allegiance to the Crown, it cannot unilaterally change the rules of succession for all Commonwealth countries. Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession, whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would be contrary to the commitment given in the Statute of Westminster, would break symmetry and breach the principle of union under the British Crown set out in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Such changes would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Peter Grey 6 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

it cannot unilaterally change the rules of succession for all Commonwealth countries.

I didn't say Canada could and indeed, as you point out (and as I argued) Canada is unable to amend the succession rules unilaterally. However, Britain can and that's my entire point! You've said nothing that disagrees with my point, indeed, everythig you says only further affirms it.

No UK or EU court has such authority with respect to Canada.

But they do in regards to Britain and that is my point. Let's say the European Court of Human Rights strikes down the sections of the Act of Settlement barring Catholics from the British throne. What would happen then? AndyL 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

The law is unlikely to be struck down because the Sovereign is not a private citizen. Britain cannot unilaterally change the succession with respect to Canada. How is that not disagreeing with your point? Canada can change its own succession unilaterally, what it can't do is unilaterally alter the constitutions of all the Commonwealth Realms. This is identical to the situation of the United Kingdom and all the others. Peter Grey 6 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)

"But you see, what I am trying to convey is that for you to interpret "British Crown" as meaning that the British monarchy rules over Canada, that is your personal interpretation and opinion. You can't state that as fact and the Canadian government apparently disagrees with you, otherwise they would go around talking about the "British monarchy"" rather than "Canadian monarchy."

Again, look at what the court says. "British Crown". What the government says is all nice and dandy but what matters is the court interpretation and no where does the court say "Canadian crown" or "Canadian monarchy". AndyL 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Gbambino has sufficiently explained these points (concerning the technicalities of the Crown) in this talk and Talk:Monarchy in Canada

Gbambino cites no sources. What matters is evidence and gbambino has none; all he has is his imagination and we cannot cite that as a source in wikipedia, I'm afraid. AndyL 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Peter, I noticed you grouped all my points together and then failed to respond to any of them. Is that because you are conceding those points? Do you affirm or deny the following, for example: 1. (Rouleau) *did not* speak of separate or distinct crowns. I'm glad you agree. 2. (The Act of Settlement/exclusion of Catholics from the throne) is designed to meet historical British interests. There is no reason for Catholics to be excluded from the Canadian throne as the Church of England is not our state church. The only reason for this requirement is to meet the needs of Britain's constitutional arrangement. 3. The point is that we cannot have a Catholic Queen because it violates the precepts of the *British* constitution. There is no domestic reason for this requirement, the reason is entirely British yet it means that we have rules governing the succession to our throne which are anathama to Canadian values of religious equality. AndyL 6 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

1. Rouleau did refer to "the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain" and pointed out these are not intrinsically the same, they are the same because legislation establishes the relationship. This is the same point, repeated many times, that there are distinct legal offices and one physical person in question. You are basing your argument on mixing up the two meanings, and there is no ambiguity as to which one Rouleau meant when he referred to the 'British Crown'.

2. and 3. The 1701 political situation is irrelevant. Rouleau made clear the requirement is part of the Canadian constitution. Roulean made no interpretation of UK law, he interpreted Canadian law that by design is identical to the law of all the Commonwealth Realms. Peter Grey 6 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)

There are two principles in the succession of the Crown in Canada: the succession is unchanged from the constitutional situation in 1931, and the succession is identical in all the Commonwealth Realms. (Rouleau alluded to these.) The (highly unlikely) hypothetical situation you're discussing could, possibly, bring these principles into conflict. Rouleau made a useful analogy, that of an international treaty, and your scenario would be like the UK renegging on its obligations. As the UK is a sovereign state, Canada cannot prevent this (and vice versa). Either Canadian courts of law would resolve this, or Parliament (of Canada), or constitutional amendment would resolve the conflict, if it was determined there was one. You're suggesting the UK solution would be automatically adopted in Canada, which is obviously incorrect, not to mention original research. Peter Grey 6 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)

Automatic, no, virtually assured, yes. It is inconceivable that if the UK changed the Statute of Westminister or Act of Settlement on its own (and while for Canada's purposes the Statute may be "like a treaty" for Britain's purposes, it's a simple statute) Canada would want to go it alone and risk having its own resident monarchy. Indeed, Canada's political system has developed around the assumption that the monarch is an absentee monarch (hence the need for a Governor-General). Actually having a monarch permanently resident in Rideau Hall is simply not politically palatable either to the politicians or to the general population. Therefore, the practical reality is that if the UK were forced to or chose to unilaterally change the Act of Settlement, Canada would be bound to either accept that or ditch the monarchy entirely - the possibility of maintaining the succession rules as they are is so remote as to not be worth serious consideration. Also, if the UK were to decide to become a republic, the chances of Canada not following suit are so remote as to be neglible for the same reason - there is no appetite in Canada for a resident monarchy, the constitution is not designed for it, the political establishment would not want it and I suspect there'd be minimal support amongst the population and a great deal of opposition. We've had 50 years or so with a monarch who is only here 2% of the time and almost a century before that with monarchs who were around none of the time. Going from 2 miles an hour to 100 would be a shock the Canadian political system would not be prepared to undertake, I'm afraid. Conversely, if Canada were to become a republic tomorrow the impact on the UK would be zilch.

Even if you are not prepared to concede that if the UK became a republic, so would Canada, you have no choice but to admit that Britain becoming a republic would unleash a huge debate in Canada. Moreover, the coming of a resident monarchy would open up a hornet's nest of constitutional and political difficulties - even you have to admit that - since our constitution is designed with an absentee monarch in mind.AndyL 6 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

You're acknowledging this is political speculation, not interpretation of constitutional law. Peter Grey 6 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

I am acknowledging that whereas I am dealing with practical reality, you are dealing with fantasy and legal fictions. Are you willing to bet $10,000 that if the UK became a republic Canada would not follow suit? AndyL 6 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

You also have to recognise that constitutions are informed by convention and the convention, I dare say, is that our succession rules will not diverge from the British succession rules. The notion that our monarchies are separate and distinct is a fantasy and Rouleau, does not say our monarchies are separate, quite the opposite, he speaks of unity "under the Crown of Great Britain" and that is what this debate is actually about, whether or not our Crown is "not British". You have presented no evidence that it isn't, you've only given us sophist theory that has a complete lack of grounding in reality or, for that matter, in constitutional law. AndyL 6 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

Political speculation does not belong on this talk page.
Calling the overthrow of the monarchy in the UK without opportunity for consultation with the Commonwealth Realms a "practical reality"... I didn't think your credibility could get any lower. Peter Grey 6 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

Recently, it has not been the custom of the British government to consult with the Commonwealth realms on matters dealing with the monarchy. For instance, there was no consultation on the matter of Charles' divorce some years ago, nor was there any consultation on the whole question of Charles marrying Camilla Parker-Bowles or her future title.

In any case, you avoid the relevent question regarding the "Canadian Crown" being "not British". Do you stand by that? If not then it has no place in the article. AndyL 6 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

That isn't the relevant question. The article says both the larger body of the Crown as an shared link between the Commonwealth Realms, and the Crown in right of Canada as an integral institution of the Canadian state. Peter Grey 6 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

As for "political speculation", you are speculating that if Britain were to become a republic it would have no impact on Canada's constitutional situation. Obviously that is wrong since our constitution is not designed for a resident monarch. A change in the UK monarchy impacts Canada, the opposite does not impact Britain; to say this is not "speculation", it's a realistic assesment based on our constitutional and political realities. Constitutions exist in the real world, not in text books. Simply saying discussion is out of bounds is not a refutation, rather it's an admission that you cannot refute the point being made. What has "no place" in wikipedia are the personal attacks you've descended to. AndyL

Besides being original research by definition, it has no connection to the Monarchist League of Canada, which is what this article is actually about. That doesn't mean it isn't worthy of consideration, just that it doesn't belong here. (And you might want to double-check who it was who went from reality to hypotheticals.) Peter Grey 7 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

Yes, and I haven't objected to the article's current wording. AndyL

I agree, we've gone off on a tangent. AndyL

As for "original research", I wasn't suggesting that any of this go into the article, I was just explaining how it is incorrect to assert that the "Canadian monarchy" was distinct and separate from the British monarchy. AndyL 9 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)

See facts (1) and (2) in the summary below. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)

Point 3 below refers to governments, not to "Crowns". AndyL 9 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)

The government is one meaning of Crown. Try to be more precise. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

I guess the drafters of the Statute of Westminster were incorrect then when they used the phrase "His Majesty's Governments" if the crown is part of the government. Indeed, I guess the phrase "His Majesty's government" and "Her Majesty's government" must be thrown out. Perhaps you should send an email to Buckingham Palace asking the Queen to be "more precise". Anyway, the Statute is in regards to the equality of the British dominions with Westminster, it does not deal with the Crown and does not imply there are seperate crowns rather than one (as the phrase "His Majesty's Governments" makes clear). Indeed, Rouleau makes it quite clear there is a British crown under which we are united.AndyL 9 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Instead of the entire rest of civilization, maybe you could be more precise. One of Her Majesty's many governments? (32 of them if I've counted right). Or the Windsor dynasty? All of your arguments come down to taking a quote out of context and trying, unsuccessfully so far, to fabricate an over-generalization of the authority of the UK Parliament. Read (1) and (2) below again. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

Stop being tedious. What do you *think* the Statute of Westminster meant by the phrase "His Majesty's Governments" and what do you think is usually meant by the phrase "Her Majesty's Government"? If you want to split hairs I suggest you go to a barber shop. AndyL 9 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

"Read (1) and (2) below again." I was referring to (3) below which is an inprecise reading of what the Statute actually says. Anyway, you're getting into tediously arcane arguments, yet again which may hold great fascination for monarchists but bore the rest of us to tears.AndyL 9 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Your statement was unrelated to (3). You're trying to use (1) to contradict (2), which is essentially a fallacy of four terms. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)

":Your statement was unrelated to (3)."

I find that hard to accept as my statement was: "Point 3 below refers to governments, not to "Crowns"."

Are you now going to start arguing with me about what the word "unrelated" means? Or perhaps the meaning of "was" or "statement" or "your"?AndyL 9 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

In response to your picayune nit-picking, let me rephrase my original statement to "Point 3 (below) refers to Her Majesty's Governments existing concurrently in Britain and the various realms and not to the Crown itself. AndyL 22:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously applies to both, since trivially the Queen is the equal of herself. Peter Grey 00:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV. AndyL 01:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC) - It's the definition of "equal". Peter Grey 04:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no indication in the Statute that there is a "both" ie that there is more than one crown. You are reading that in. 01:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC) - Not everything has to be in the Statute of Westminster. The person of the Queen is the Crown shared between the Commonwealth Realms, Canada Post is a Crown corporation, meaning Her Majesty in right of Canada is the sole shareholder, a Ward of the Crown is a responsibility of Her Majesty in right of a province. Peter Grey 04:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is there is nothing in the Statute of Westminster that refers to there being different crowns in each country, let alone anything that comments on their status to each other ie nothing to contradict Rouleau's notion that we are all "under the British Crown". 67.70.21.67 05:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, you're spouting trivia that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. 67.70.21.67 05:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestioningly

No, there is nothing in the Statute of Westminster that refers to there being different Crowns because, as has been explained to you ad nauseum, there is one Crown! Peter is completely correct in stating: "The person of the Queen is the Crown shared between the Commonwealth Realms." The wording of the Statute, as well as the Balfour Declaration, makes this clear by referring only to "the Crown," not, as I'm sure you can note, to "the British Crown," "the Crown of the United Kingdom," or anything of the sort. That's because, even at that time, Balfour, St. Laurent, and the others who attended the Conferences and helped draft the Statute of Westminster, recognised that governments which were now equal in status to the U.K. government (as your favourite Rouleau ruling illustrates through his constant references to "sharing," "symmetry," "consistency," "commonality," etc., in regards to the Monarchy) could no longer derive their power from a purely "British Crown." To imply or impose such a thing would go against the very concept of equality itself!

Add to that the point that the constitutions of each and every one of the Realms, as well as their states and provinces, today create completely sovereign legal jurisdictions within which the Crown operates, and outline how the Crown operates distinctly within them. This causes the situation where the Crown remains as a singular body which functions separately within each Realm, giving us the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in right of the United Kingdom, the Crown in right of St. Kitts and Nevis, as well being divided among the states and provinces so that we see the Crown in Right of Ontario, the Crown in Right of New Brunswick, the Crown in Right of New South Wales, etc. The governments of each of those countries, states and provinces are all, as Peter explained, Her Majesty's governments-- being separate, distinct, and equal governments of the one Queen (read: Crown) within separate, distinct, and equal constitutional jurisdictions (read: countries).

For Canada it was the Constitution Act 1982 which severed completely and utterly all ties between the Canadian and U.K. parliaments. As Canada, as well as each of her provinces, now has its own constitution forming a sovereign and independent government, the Crown from which they derive their very power, and more importantly their very sovereignty, cannot be British, any more than it can be Australian or Jamaican. Again, refer to your beloved Rouleau ruling to see just who the respondents in the case were: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario -- two obviously separate entities residing in the same person/institution, and neither of which is British.

And lastly, I'll refer again to Rouleau's ruling in which he states: "[34] The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16. This Canadian statute effected changes to the rules of succession in Canada to assure consistency with the changes in the rules then in place in Great Britain. The changes were necessary in light of the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936. Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII’s abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster. Arguably, without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada." Not only does this outline that even prior to the 1982 patriation of the constitution Canada was a sovereign nation from the U.K. in charge of its own line of succession, separate from the U.K.'s, the judge also clearly refers to "the Crown of Canada" as separate from the Crown of the U.K.

Given all of the above it can be nothing but illogic to call the Crown in Right of Canada "British." To do so is as inane as calling the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom "Australian," or the Crown in Right of Alberta "Jamaican." The boundaries don't cross, and that includes those between the U.K. and Canada.

While all of this is certainly a complex matter which at times can be rather difficult to understand, it is not, as they say, rocket science. I get it, Peter gets it, Rouleau gets it, Australian judges get it, constitutional experts get it... only you, AndyL, stand alone in this misguided belief that the Crown in Canada is British, and that Rouleau's ruling somehow backs you up. --gbambino 17:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(duplicate?) Monarchy and the Constitution - A Summary[edit]

A few points referred to elsewhere:

The institution and person of the monarchy is shared between all of the Commonwealth Realms. Statute of Westminster, 1931. Also confirmed in O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003.
The legal person of Her Majesty in right of Canada is separate from the Queen's constitutional roles in the other Commonwealth Realms. Note 1953 coronation.
All of the Commonwealth Realms are in a relationship of equals with one another. Statute of Westminster, 1931. Also confirmed in O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003. Also 1926 Imperial Conference: "They are autonomous Communities [within the British Empire], equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown."
New legislation of the UK Parliament has no force in Canada. Canada Act, 1982. Also Statute of Westminster, 1931.
The Sovereign is not a private citizen. Therefore notions such as citizenship are meaningless.

Sources: Statute of Westminster, 1931. Constitution Act, 1982. O'Donohue v. Canada, 2003. Wade and Phillips, Constitutional Law, Metropolitain College of Law. Smyth, Soberman, and Easson, The Law and Business Administration in Canada, Prentice Hall.

Peter Grey 6 July 2005 20:22 (UTC) Also, Wikipedia's article on monarchy makes this observation:

A monarchy...is a form of government
The term monarchy is also used to refer to the people and institutions that make up the royal establishment

Peter Grey 9 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

(duplicate?) Republican websites[edit]

An anon editor keeps adding republican websites to the external links section - they don't belong in this article. Monarchist website links don't belong on Citizens for a Canadian Republic, and rightly so, and republican web links don't belong here. This article focuses on a single organization - Monarchist League of Canada. SouthernComfort 8 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

Please cite policy stating that relevent external links to opposing organizations do not belong? I am not familiar with this policy. Are you saying "they do not belong" because it is against the rules or because you don't want it there? I'm afraid the two are not the same thing. AndyL 8 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)

The connection between the groups is indirect, but I imagine, since this is wiki media, that the more links the better. Maybe the fact that the Monarchist League of Canada is about constitutional status quo and the other organizations are about change should be pointed out. Peter Grey 8 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)

I can see that maybe republican links could be limited to the Citizens for a Canadian Republic article, and monarchist links only here, with a reference to each article on the other. However, though Wikipedia is not a place for debate, that there are opposing viewpoints is a fact, and they need to be recognised as existing. So, I'm fine with republican links on this page, as long as the CCR article maintains links to the monarchist sites.--gbambino 8 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Added a link in the CCR article to the League website to balance things out. SouthernComfort 9 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (22 Aug 2003 and 24 Jun 2005):

Issues concerning this article[edit]