Talk:Monarchy in Canada

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

Dunno. It's not the sort of thing that gets whispered from person to person. ("Hey, did you know that Canada's part of Great Britain? And there was this guy who got his kidneys stolen!") From the discussions I've had with foreigners, Americans mostly, I'd call it more of a vague misconception ("I'm not really sure - is Canada part of the UK? How does that thing with the Queen work anyway?") - Montréalais

!!!!! Canada is an independent nation and no it is not part of Great Britain. Canada is part of the British Commonwhealth, consisting of former British Colonies. Canada and the United Kingdom though do share the same monarch, but the monarch has very little power in Canada and is largely cermonial. But again, Canada and the United Kingdom are not part of each other, Canada has no more power over the UK than the UK has over Canada. The only ones that can make decesions for Canada are Canadians who elect thier government themselves!!!!!!

Canada's constitution requires Canada to have the approval of all the other Commonwealth realms in order to change the line of succession to the throne. The U.K. parliament, on the other hand, suffers from no such impendiment. Thus, Canada makes itself subservient to the U.K. (and all other Commonwealth realms) in a way that the U.K. (or New Zealand, for example) is not subservient to Canada. Jonathan David Makepeace

Well, speaking as an American, I can't say I've ever encountered anyone who didn't know that Canada was an independent country. soulpatch

Right, but a lot of people are unsure of just how independent it is. - Montréalais

It seems like there is misconception that "Great Britain" is the name of a country. Britain refers to a country, but Great Britain is the name of an island off the coast of Europe.

It's not a misconception: Great Britain is an island, but is also the political union of England, Wales and Scotland. On the other hand, Britain without the Great is quite an ambiguous term. British citizen means a citizen of the UK, which includes both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The British Isles, on the other hand, include the entire island of Ireland. G Colyer 23:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The U.K. parliament, on the other hand, suffers from no such impendiment." Actually, it does. It requires all the Commonwealth Realms' permission to change the Act of Succession.

I suggest that you read the article on parliamentary sovereignty. The current U.K. parliament can change any law it likes with a simple majority, including the Statute of Westminster, the law allegedly requiring the consent of other Commonwealth realms to change the line of succession. Ditto for New Zealand. Jonathan David Makepeace

Johnathan, I wonder how you can correctly state that the Statute of Westminster is law in the U.K., yet also claim the U.K. need not heed certain parts of said Statute. The U.K. must abide by it's own constitutional laws!

Certainly the U.K. parliament can alter the Statute. But, contrary to your claim, as the Statute is now part of constitutional law in *all* the other Realms, so can Canada. Still, it would be illogical to do so unless some drastic act or circumstance forced the Canadian parliament(s) to perform such changes. Otherwise, the Realms abide by the convention laid out in the preamble to the Statute, and do not alter the Statute, because they recognise that the Monarchy does not wholly belong to any one perticular Realm. On the symbolic side this represents the cooperative relationship between the Realms who share one Crown, and on the practical side it avoids a divided Crown with two members of the same royal family acting as Sovereigns of multiple kingdoms.

However, a shared Crown does not impede Canada's status as a completely independent country. It is the Canadian Constitution which creates Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada, and it is only the people of Canada, through their governments, who can alter that situation. Since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, Canada has been a seperate and independent kingdom which just happens to share its monarch with 15 other countries. gbambino

The Statute of Westminster is law in the U.K. but could be superceded by a normal act of parliament. Parliamentary supremacy is the bedrock of Britain's unwritten constitution. They don't need Canadian permission to change the order of succession. It's as easy to do with Canadian permission as without.

The only Canadian court to pronounce on the matter has ruled that the Canadian constitution requires that Canada have the same monarch as Britain. I disagree with their legal reasoning, but we both agree that the Canadian parliament is incapable of doing what Britain's parliament can do, i.e., unilaterally change the order of succession. Please read the "One Crown or Several?" section of the article. Canada would have to amend its constitution (itself an act of the British parliament) to unilaterally change the order of succession. The British parliament, acting at the request of the Canadian government and all the majority English-speaking provinces but not Quebec, made this very difficult by requiring that each and every Canadian province approve a constitutional change touching their monarchy. Jonathan David Makepeace

As per the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867, Canada's constitution is similar to that of the U.K. Therefore, is Parliamentary Supremacy not also a major aspect of Canada's government(s)? As well, you've disregarded what I said previously about the fact that, as both the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster are now parts of Canadian constitutional law, Canada can alter the Statute, or even the line of succession, without the permission of the other Realms. Certainly it would be easier, due to the nature of Britain's constitution, for the UK Parliament to make such changes, but Canada could definitely do it as well.

However, the convention that is laid out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, that which says one Realm wishing to alter the line of succession must seek the approval of all the other Realms, is a fundamental one to maintaining a single Crown operating equally in each of the 16 Realms. It is this convention which Rouleau refers to in his ruling when he speaks about the Canadian Constitution stipulating that Canada must have the same monarch as the UK. He even goes further to make clear that the Canadian Constitution, in the same manner, stipulates that Canada must have the same monarch as not only the UK, but all the Commonwealth Realms: "To [alter the line of succession] would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable..." Basically, he's saying that the Canadian governments (not the courts) have the legal ability to alter Canada's line of succession, but it would counter the conventions created by the preambles to both the Constitution Act 1867 and the Statute of Westminster 1931, and would cause the one Crown to become fractured, thereby creating serious problems with something that is "necessary to the proper functioning of our constitutional monarchy."

If the UK were to alter the Act of Settlement, and therefore their line of succession, the same problems and issues would arise. The UK would have one monarch, while the Canadian constitution would give Canada a different monarch. Just because Britain alters their line does not mean Canada's alters by default. --gbambino 16:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada's governor general already carries out all of the duties of the head of state, including all of the diplomatic functions. The only function the Queen does in relation to Canada is appoint the governor general. Besides, it's hard to imagine a Canadian president getting away with spending money as loosely as the current governor general has! Jonathan David Makepeace

---

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

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

---

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

OK...found corroboration that it was eight Senators. Also, the Constitution requires the Gov-Gen to advise the Queen in that case, instead of the PM. I tried to make that clear, without losing the fact that it was the PM who was the instigating force. - Cafemusique 12:55 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Senate was expanded to pass the GST not NAFTA. The Liberals conceeded Free Trade after losing the 88 election. SimonP 18:08 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Poked around, does seem to have been done to pass the Goods and Services Tax, although I'm not sure that NAFTA wasn't a bonus. This bit from this link (http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/cons9709.htm):

Using permission from the Queen and a previously unused constitutional clause P.M. Mulroney appoints another 8 Senators, this ensures the passage of the GST in the Senate (1990)

Graft 19:27 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am assured by several Canadians that NAFTA was indeed on Mulroney's mind when he stacked the senate. Still seeking written confirmation... Graft 22:49 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

From the Canadian encyclopedia: "In 1990 the Liberal dominated Senate effectively blocked plans of the Conservative government to pass the legislation for the unpopular GST. This led PM Brian Mulroney to use his power to add 8 senators in order to ensure passage of the legislation in 1990." The FTA was passed in 1988 and NAFTA was passed in 1993, neither had the enlarged senate at the time of thier passing. I'm afraid your Canadian friends might be misremembering. SimonP 00:15 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian and I can tell you that the government never used the 8 senators to pass the NAFTA agreement, the conservative government at the time used that crap power to pass the GST Tax, on another note, that is what caused the once largest majority government in Canadian history, to fall to just two seats in the next election. Ah, democracy works.

---

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

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

Canada was originally supposed to be called the Kingdom of Canada, but this was changed to Dominion (which itself was eventually dropped) to avoid irritating the Americans. - Montréalais

As an American, I cannot understand the assertion that the name matters to Americans one way or the other. I defer, however, to those more familiar with the motives of those who chose the name. --Habap 15:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was 1867. The French had recently imposed a puppet monarchy in Mexico, and there was lingering hostility toward Britain in the U.S. as Britain was perceived as having favoured the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War. While not explicitly hostile to Canadian Confederation (an unfortunate term to use right after the Confederate States of America had been defeated), the Monroe Doctrine did not make U.S. Americans well disposed to the cementing of Britain's North American colonies into a viable monarchist entity still tied to the U.K. - Jonathan David Makepeace

Just wondering, but in what sense does the Canadian monarchy cost the taxpayer anything? Surely the governor-general can cost no more than a republic head of state would (and, as has been pointed out, almost certainly costs less). Does the monarch herself impose additional costs on Canada in some manner? If so, how? john 22:31 29 May 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

I switched this page from "Queen of Canada" to "Canadian monarchy" since technically this page is not simply about the "Queen of Canada", Elizabeth II, but about the institution of the Canadian monarchy. user:J.J.

Someone did it incorrectly. Please use the Move command to do this in the future. - Montréalais 01:44, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I moved the page to "Monarchy in Canada" since "Canadian monarchy" is sometimes used by those who argue that there should be an indigenous or resident monarchy in Canada rather than sharing a monarch with other countries. AndyL 18:47, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, there are many republicans who argue that there is no "Canadian monarchy" that it's a British institution so the title "Monarchy in Canada" is preferable for Wiki since it's more neutralAndyL 19:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just saw the above.

Canadian monarchy means the Monarchy of Canada, which is different to the Monarchy in Canada. Since the 1920s (an imperial conference decision which later formed the basis for both the Royal Titles Act and the Statutes of Westminster) the concept of the singular crown in the Commonwealth has been replaced by multiple crowns, singular monarch. So constitutionally all states in the commonwealth are separate monarchies. The king in the Irish Free State went from being 'King in Ireland' to 'King of Ireland', a fundamentally different legal concept.

The statement that there are many republicans who argue that there is no "Canadian monarchy" that it's a British institution so the title "Monarchy in Canada" is preferable for Wiki since it's more neutral is comically wrong. There may well be some republicans who believe that but that is irrelevant. This is an encyclopaedia. It has to deal with issues in a way that are (i) neutral, (ii) factually accurate. Just because there are constitutionally illiterate republicans (as indeed no doubt there are constitutionally illiterate monarchists) does not mean we have to reflect their ignorance in our articles. FearÉIREANN 17:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Which Court? 2 What survey? 3 plug for republican group 4 Recent edits 5 Multiple crowns? 6 'Support & Opposition' as "point-counterpoint" 7 "Canada is a kingdom" 8 One Crown or Several?

Which Court?

Tony O'Donohue launched a court action in 2002 arguing that the Act of Settlement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that it discriminates against Catholics. His case was dismissed by the court... Which court dismissed his case? The Supreme Court of Canada, or some other, regional court? Please expand this.

___

Ontario Superior Court. The link has been added. MC Rufus 19:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What survey?

In fact in a recent survey it was found that only 5% of Canadians knew that Queen Elizabeth II was Queen of Canada.

This sounds incredibly unlikely. Until someone can provide an actual source for this, I've moved it here. -- nknight 03:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

It was by Ekos in 2002. I've added a link to the PDF. And yes, astonishingly, it's true. MC Rufus 18:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That survey notes that only 5% are aware that the Queen is the Head of State. This merely reflects a misunderstanding of the word and office, not a lack of knowledge as to who the Queen is. -- nknight 16:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

• A 2005 poll by Pollara garnered the following results:

Do you support or oppose Canada replacing the British Monarch as Canadian Head of State?

Strongly support 31% Somewhat support 22% Somewhat oppose 16% Strongly oppose 17% Don't know 14%

As you may know, Prince Charles has announced that he is going to marry Camilla Parker Bowles on April 8th. Do you approve or disapprove of his decision?

Approve 25% Disapprove 14% Do not care 61% Don't know 1%

Do you think that the British monarchy as an institution will be stronger, weaker or unaffected by the marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles?

Stronger 3% Unaffected 60% Weaker 23% Don't know 14%

I couldn't find this poll on the Pollara website or in any online periodical. Until a source is found, I think it's best to keep it here.

plug for republican group

It is stated on the Monarchy in Canada page: "In 2002, Canada's first nationally organized republican movement was established to promote the issue of Canadianizing the head of state and bring the issue into the mainstream. The non-partisan Citizens for a Canadian Republic now has chapters and members across Canada."

The points about the organization being non-partisan and having chapters across Canada is unnecessary. That information can be given on the already exiting page dedicated exclusively to the Citizens for a Canadian Republic.

Also, to say the group wants to "Canadianize" the head of state also does not belong here, as it is argued by monarchists that Canada's head of state already is Canadian.

The sentence should simply read: "In 2002, Canada's first nationally organized republican movement was established to promote the issue of making the Canadian head of state a president, and bring the issue into the mainstream."

This would make it more similar to the statement about the Monarchist League, which is as follows:

"The monarchist side, represented by the Monarchist League of Canada was formed in 1970 and currently exists as a strong lobby group advocating and promoting the monarchy in Canada." Additional detail about the organization is given on its own Wikipedia page. gbambino

_____

I'm with Gbambino on this: the reference to "Canadianizing the head of state" is contentious because monarchists view Queen Elizabeth as Canadian. Other info can be safely included in the org's own article, and is not necessary here. Kevintoronto 23:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

_____

OK, I’ll concede on the “now has chapters and members across Canada” but the description of “non-partisan” should stay – as in “the non-partisan Citizens for a Canadian Republic, was established.” This would be fair to counter “The monarchist side, represented by the Monarchist League of Canada was formed in 1970 and currently exists as a strong lobby group advocating and promoting the monarchy in Canada”. Otherwise, I’ll have to insist that it be changed to “The monarchist side, represented by the Monarchist League of Canada has was formed in 1970 and advocates and promotes the monarchy in Canada”, or similar wording of your choice.

Also, I’m not pleased that this phrase keeps finding its way back: “In contrast to Australian republicanism, there is not widespread support for a republic.” For the past 15 years, polls have consistantly shown Canadians’ views split down the middle on the issue. If half of Canadians supporting a republic is not enough to be catagorized as “widespread” then I insist that “support for the monarchy is not widespread in Canada” also be included.

Regarding the word “Canadianize”, its usage is widely used by political experts to refer to the conversion of the Governor General’s office into that of an elected President. One such person is David E. Smith, Professor of Political Studies at the University of Saskatchewan, who’s generally accepted by both monarchists and republicans to be the preeminent academic authority on the monarchy in Canada. He’s written several books and papers on the subject, including The Invisible Crown, which, I should add, was reviewed favourably by the Monarchist League of Canada’s very own [Richard Toporoski (http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/invisibl.htm)]. In the May 1999 edition of the public policy magazine Policy Options, Smith writes: “When our own federal government set out in the Bill C-60 Constitutional Amendment Bill, 1978, to Canadianize the office of governor general by codifying its powers and designating its occupant as “the First Canadian,” provincial premiers objected”.

Further entrenching the word’s use as “generally accepted” was the the New Democratic Party of Canada’s Report of the Social Democratic Forum on the Future of Canada "Elements of a Responsive Federalism" which was adopted by the National Convention of the party in August 1999. Note the following: “Recommendation #7: That the New Democratic Party vigorously advocates the revitalization of Canadian democracy through the development and promotion of : Canadianizing the head of state -- Canada should begin to explore the possibility of Canadianizing the head of state. However, this is not a priority for Canadians at this time. We advocate a cautious approach, one that involves, for example, keeping a close eye on Australia as that country undertakes its process of becoming a republic”.

Finally, regarding: “monarchists view Queen Elizabeth as Canadian”, they may in fact. However, they’d be wrong. Various dictionaries all refer to a “Canadian” as: a native or inhabitant of Canada, someone from Canada or a citizen of Canada. The Queen cannot be described as any of these. Even [Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/becoming%2Dhowto.html)] own definition cannot be used to apply to the Queen. According to the Citizenship Act 1947, in order to be a Canadian citizen, one “must be a permanent resident of Canada or have lived in Canada for at least three of the four years before applying”. There are no exemptions. In fact, Canada has never even gone so far as to extend “honourary citizenship” to the Queen. So Nelson Mandela, who was granted that honour in 2001, could arguably be classified as “more Canadian” than the Queen.

Monarchists can say what they want, but reality and Canadian legislation dictate that the Queen does not pass any of the requirements for status as either “Canadian”, “a Canadian” or “a Canadian citizen.”

So the bottom line with this issue is; what is Wikipedia really for, to educate or propagate fairy tales? MC Rufus

_____

"“non-partisan” should stay"

I don't have a problem with adding non-partisan. I think that's a fair comment.

"Otherwise, I’ll have to insist that it be changed to “The monarchist side, represented by the Monarchist League of Canada has was formed in 1970 and advocates and promotes the monarchy in Canada”"

I prefer your wording. The reference to a "strong" lobhby gropup doesn't belong in the article.

As far as "Canadianize" goes, since that word will generate more arguments, and really reflects the POV of anti-monarchists, I think it is best left out. I should have phrased the monarchist argument better: the position of Queen of Canada is a Canadian institution, as opposed to saying the QEII is Canadian. The argument over her citizenship is moot: she is the Sovereign, after all. The UK equivalent of citizenship is "British subject", which HM the Queen is clearly not. You have provided one relevant reference (Smith) on this - the NDP one is not relevant in this context because it reflects the anti-monarchy position - and that is not enough to convince me that we should use a word that will only cause more debate when it is not necessary here.

"there is not widespread support for a republic"

This could be worded better. The relevant point here is that Canadians generally don't care much one way or t'other. If asked, Canadians will express an opinion, but this sentence should be re-written to make it clear that, unlike in Australia, the issue of monarchy vs. republic has not attracted wide-spread attention, rather than trying to indicate Canadians' position on the issue because, as you point out, Canadians' views are split.

For the record, I would be quiet happy to see the monarchy come to an end in Canada and the remaining powers transferred to the Governor General (and not to a president), as long as we can find a non-partisan way of selecting the GG, but this is beside the point. Kevintoronto 18:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-partizan being used to describe the CCR is fine. But, if used, I will ammend the sentence about the Monarchist League to include the same thing, as that organization too is non-partizan.

As for including the word "strong" to describe the MLC, it's accurate when comparing it to the CCR. The MLC has been around longer, has far more branches in every province across the country, and well over 10,000 members. CCR has 3 or 4 branches and less than 1000 members. But, its not important to state on this page. Perhaps the actual number of branches and members for the MLC can be listed on the MLC page.

As for the level of republicanism in Canada, I don't think there are any accurate numbers to show just how strong it is. Opinion polls are just that -- opinion, and are notoriously unreliable. Simply look at the secion called Recent Polls for examples. Thus, there is no factual evidence to back up the claim that "half of Canadians" support a republic.

My opinion on using the term "Canadianize the head of state" stands as stated earlier.

There is no official document which states undeniably that the Queen is Canadian. Because she is in the special position of being Sovereign of Canada (and thus above citizenship laws) she cannot be defined so easily as a Canadian citizen. So, it is certainly only a point of view that the Queen is Canadian, but then its a point of view that she's not. If you want more on this debate, go here: http://members.boardhost.com/monarchist/msg/14161.html

And, for the record, I want to see Canada remain as a constitutional monarchy, unified under the Crown. gbambino

________

"But, if used, I will ammend the sentence about the Monarchist League to include the same thing, as that organization too is non-partizan."

--

I'm in complete disagreement. How can an organization founded to "counter moves by Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet to weaken the Monarchy" claim to be non-partisan? These are the words of founder John Aimers - copied from the Monarchist League of Canada's website. In contrast, Citizens for a Canadian Republic makes no negative references to any political party on its website. MC Rufus

The Monarchist League is not associated with any political party. Being contrary to the moves of a Prime Minister or government does not make one automatically partial to the Loyal Opposition. The League was against his push to remove the Crown from Canada, no matter what party he was leader of, and there is no negative reference towards a political party anywhere in League documents.

If you wanted to use your argument, then the Citizens for a Canadian Republic would be partisan towards the Liberals and against the Conservatives. The Liberal Martin government is currently trying to minimize the Crown even further (pro-rebublican), while the Conservative party states in its constitution that it will uphold Canada's constitutional monarchy (anti-republican). gbambino

John Aimers was an active member of the Progressive Conservative party for some years after founding the MLC. This mitigates against the claim of non-partisanship, does it not? AndyL 01:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

________

By the way, Britain has had "citizens" rather than "subjects" for 50+ years at least. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But was the change before or after the ascension of Queen Elizabeth II? She would surely have ceased to be a British subject on becoming Queen. Even if the change was before that, it's possible she is not a British citizen. (She may or may not also be a European citizen.) I think (although I can't now find a photo) that Prince Charles was described as British on the legal notice of his intent to marry posted outside Windsor Guildhall. Since he is not the monarch, this is unsurprising, although if the monarch is not a citizen, I wonder what the citizenship implications are for any children born to a reigning monarch whose consort is also not British? G Colyer 01:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"As for including the word "strong" to describe the MLC, it's accurate when comparing it to the CCR. "

"strong" is an absolute term, not a relative term. For a national lobby group 10,000 members is quite small, actually. AndyL 05:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

I just wanted to explain recent edits.

1) As Australia, Jamaica and Barbados all still have the Crown as the foundation of their constitutions, they are Commonwealth Realms.

2) The sentence "...it is widely predicted that there may be little real debate on the future of the monarchy in Canada until the current Queen's reign nears its end" is POV as there has been no planning for removing the Crown from Canada near the end of the Queen's reign, or before any other 'deadline', except amongst republicans. Its been changed to read: "it is widely predicted that there may be little real debate on the monarchy for some time to come." gbambino

I have just edited the 'Debate on the Monarchy' section to again make clear that the Toronto Star is no longer officially pro-republican.

Also added fact that the MLC is a national group.

Added that God Save the Queen is now sung only at some official functions, and that the only oath which has had the Queen removed from it is the one taken by federal public servants. gbambino

________

Territorial commissioners are not representatives of the Queen, but rather are federal employees.

"it is widely predicted that there may be little real debate on the monarchy for some time to come." Why replace one POV statement with another?AndyL 18:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Multiple crowns?

I've just started a discussion (well, it will become one if anyone else is interested) at Talk:Royal_and_Parliamentary_Titles_Act. G Colyer 02:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To elaborate a little the discussion is about the constitutional significance of the 1927 Act and its impact on the relationship between the Crown and the dominions. The article currently makes some very sweeping but questionable claims about the impact of the Act on the status of dominions such as Canada. Any outside input would be greatly appreciated. Iota 00:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Support & Opposition' as "point-counterpoint"

Andy L recently reverted an alteration I had made to the 'Support & Opposition' section of the page. I changed virtually nothing of the arguments themselves, instead only organizing them in a more legible and clear manner. Andy L felt this was unacceptable, and reverted the changes, stating his reasons for doing so as: "Sorry but this sort of "point -counterpoint" forumula where the article becomes a monarchist/republican dialogue is a) unencyclopedic and b) violates the "neutral voice" necessary in wikipedia."

No matter how the secion is organized, it remains always a "point-counterpoint" dialogue between the monarchist and republican side. I merely cleaned it up. If Andy L feels this is a) unencyclopeadic and b) violates the "neutral voice" necessary in Wikipedia, then why is the 'Support & Opposition' section not deleted entirely?

I've put it back to the more organized format, in the meantime. gbambino

There's a difference between a neutral voice stating both sides and putting things in the voice of each side which is what you've attempted to do twice now. AndyL 21:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

gbambino, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, specifically:

Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate.

The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them."

ie it is fine to present conflicting views which is why it's not necessary to delete the section. However, what you have attempted to do is to rewrite the section into a series of competing assertions of opinion and we do not assert opinions on wikipedia. AndyL 22:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AndyL-- the entire section is a series of "competing assertions," no matter how it is formatted. I cannot understand how monarchist vs. republican arguments presented in an ordered manner are somehow different to the same monarchist vs. republican arguments presented in a disarranged manner.

Throughout the section, as you wish to maintain it, there are words such as "monarchists argue...", "republicans counter...", "monarchists say...", "republicans point out...", etc., etc. To rearrange the same arguments into point format does not "advocate any side of the debate" at all! Both sides are still represented fairly and equally-- point/counterpoint, just as it exists now! The only thing point form alters is the removal of all that extra verbosity and a streamlining of the section for easier reading. Other than that, the essence of the "Support & Opposition" remains exactly the same.

If you will not accept a neutral voice speaking in point form, then come up with some better way to organize that secion, because as it sits now it is a thick and disoganized piece of reading. gbambino

I suggest you solicit the opinion of other editors.AndyL 20:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Canada is a kingdom"

I have deleted the reference to Canada being a kingdom because this issue has been discussed at length and resloved at Talk:Canada. User:gbambino has decided to try inserting that concept here since he/she did not win the argument on the Canada article. I don't really want to repeat all of the arguments here again, so I'll be brief. Saying that "Canada is a constitutional monarchy" makes the point clear, and does not get Wikipedia into the questionable territory of making a statement that no other encyclopedia makes. It is so very, very rare to see other sources refer to Canada as a kingdom, that it would make Wikipedia look kind of silly. The issue of the political situation is much better covered by the concept constitutional monarchy, that by kingdom, which includes unitary states where the king rules by decreee. I think it makes much more sense to lump Canada in with the sort of moarchy they have in the Netherlands, Sweden and Malaysia, than with the non-constitutional kingdoms in Brunei, Swaziland and Saudi Arabia. Ground Zero 21:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Winning" an argument neither has, nor had, anything to do with it. I conceded in the earlier discussion that kingdom was not necessary as no other pages for kingdoms (Holland, New Zealand, Japan, Thailand, etc.) mentioned the word 'kingdom' unless it was in the official name of the country.

However, in the months following that discussion, I reflected further on the matter, and felt that 'constitutional monarchy' is a term which many people do not know the meaning of. Yes, there is a Wikipedia page on 'constitutional monarchy', but adding, in brackets, the word kingdom, with a coresponding link to the Wikipedia page on 'kingdom' would actually help clarify matters. The idea of a kingdom is far easier for most to understand than constitutional monarchy.

Certainly, kingdoms include both absolute monarchies (Swaziland, Brunei, Morocco), but also includes constitutional monarchies (the U.K., Belgium, Norway). Constitutional monarchies can also be fascist (as stated on the constitutional monarchy page), but this does not deter Wikipedia from attaching the term to Canada.

Nor would Wikipedia look silly calling Canada what it undoubtedly is -- a kingdom. The United Kingdom is what it's name says it is -- a kingdom -- but it is also a constitutional monarchy, so why would Canada be any different? It may indeed be rare to see Canada refered to as a kingdom, as the country has only really been a fully independent kingdom since 1982; but this does not alter the facts.

Anyhow, seems I've "lost" again. Time to slither off.... gbambino

One Crown or Several?

Firstly, AndyL's addition of a section called "One Crown or Several?" is a carry over from a debate going on at the Talk:Monarchist League of Canada page, one which is specifically about the fact that there is no debate about the Crown in Canada being British. The only debate about this is AndyL's.

Secondly, the concept of one Crown operating seperately in each Realm, something not specific to Canada, is already covered on the Statute of Westminster 1931 page. --gbambino 19:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The information is factual, it is a short quotation from a court ruling and is pertinent to the article. The fact that I first cited it in a talk page is immaterial. AndyL 20:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The information is factual, but is of no concequence to the 'British Crown theory'. In fact, that is only your theory.

If you'd like to go to the admin page, then do so. You're behavior here and on the MLC page has been abhorrent. --gbambino 20:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino, please who live in glass houses.... Deleting a bunch of direct quotations from a court rulings, and then putting "corrections" in the edit summary is abusive. Those were not "corrections". You are just deleting something you don't like or don't think should be in the article, unless you can provide proof the AndyL misquoted the court ruling or fabricated the quotes, but I don't think that is the case. Ground Zero 20:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read what I said. User:AndyL did not misquote anything. What he has done is misinterpreted accurate quotes and applied them to an unrelated topic, when both the O'Donohue case is touched upon already in the "Republican Arguments" section, and the one Crown operating in its 16 realms is covered on the Statute of Westminster 1931 page.

If AndyL can't comprehend the structure of the Crown and its relationship to Canada then he should not be questioning it in a Wikipedia article. He states that there are "different theories" on how the Crown operates, but has failed to provide any but his own! He has also completely dismissed the Balfour Report, the Statute of Westminster, the Canadian Department of Justice, the words of a constitutional expert, and words from a link provided by Wikipedia about the Statute, as irelevant or false, and has misinterpreted the words of Justice Rouleau and the Royal Titles and Styles Act to suit his own republican POV.

Wikipedia is a place where facts are made available, not debated publicly. His denial of the fact that the Crown in Canada is no longer British is a) unfounded, b) a personal matter, and thus c) does not belong here. --gbambino 21:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that I warned gbambino that his action was vandalism, I have reported his activity on the incidents page. I've reviewed the vandalism policy and I believe I am authorised to ban him myself for a period of up to a month (gbambino is a repeat offender who has been blocked before). I'd prefer that another admin act, however. AndyL 21:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm glad you've brought attention to this. I believe it's about time another party stepped in to help resolve this situation.--gbambino 21:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well then I hope you'll agree with Ground Zero and stop vandalizing the article. AndyL 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I'd like other parties to decide on whether you have justification to push your own personal doubts about an existant and proven fact on Wikipedia pages. Either that or provide us with proof that others with more experience and knowledge about constitutional matters than you have questioned the established structure of the Crown and argue that the Crown in Canada is British. So far all you've given is your own theory, heavily influenced by your republican POV, and based on nothing more than a misinterpretation of a court ruling on a complex matter, as well as the irrelevant point that the words "United Kingdom" come first in her Canadian title. --gbambino 22:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And who are you to claim the court ruling was misinterpreted and the Royal Style and Titles Act is "irrelevent"? Seems to me that you have tunnel vision and are arbitrarily discounting any evidence that contradicts the theoretical pablum you've been fed by the MLC. AndyL 03:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino: "based on nothing more than a misinterpretation of a court ruling ". I think you will have to provide evidence that AndyL has misinterpreted the court ruling. You can't expect us to take it just on your say-so.
AndyL: "Seems to me that you have tunnel vision and are arbitrarily discounting any evidence that contradicts the theoretical pablum you've been fed by the MLC." Andy, I think you should tone down the rhetoric. That doesn't help further this debate. You're starting down the same road that Gbambino is on, heading toward attacking the person, rather than the argument. Ground Zero 13:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. Let me restate my criticisms in a better way. First of all, I think gbambino is confusing the talk pages with the article itself. In the latter I've quoted a direct source. This cannot be described as "my own theory" since I am neither a justice on the bench of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice nor a Prime Minister of Canada. This is the proof he asks for. Secondly, he gives no citation for his personal theory that the Royal Style and Titles Act is irrelevent or that the words of Justice Rouleau mean something other than their plain meaning. The proper interpretation of the Royal Style and Titles Act, incidentallly, can be seen in St. Laurent's comments which were made during the debate on that very act. Yet, gbambino argues that I have no "justification" despite the sources I cite, but somehow he gives himself the justification to dismiss these factual sources entirely (and does so without any citations) so that his theories, or those of the MLC, can be put forward as "fact". It is our custom on wikipedia to lay out competing facts and allow readers to decide for themselves rather than, as gbambino proposes, to lay out one particular interpretation as "the facts" and remove or censor inconvenient evidence that would support a contrary interpretation. I'm sorry gbambino but the MLC is simply a lobby group, they do not have the final say on constitutional theory regarding the monarchy. AndyL 14:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've provided numerous sources which point out that the Crown in Canada is not British-- ie. other people's actual words on the matter to back me up. And before you go spouting off about MLC propaganda, I think it's quite clear that the Balfour Report, the Statute of Westminster, the Canadian Department of Justice, and Richard Toporoski are not agents of the MLC.

I can even go further to provide words from Volume one of the Final Report of the 1988 Constitutional Commission in Australia:

"2.138 The disappearance of the British Empire has therefore meant that the Queen is now sovereign of a number of separate countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, amongst others. As the Queen of Australia she holds an entirely distinct and different position from that which she holds as Queen of the United Kingdom or Canada. The separation of these 'Crowns' is underlined by the comments of Gibbs CJ in "Pochi v Macphee" that 'The Allegience which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia'.

"2.151 As discussed earlier,112 the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in 1900 referred to the sovereignty of the entire empire of that country. There was in law and in fact no distinct Monarch of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. There was just the one and indivisible sovereign of all parts of the Queen's dominions. When the Queen, as distinct from the Governor-General or a Governor, acted in relation to either the United Kingdom or overseas possessions of the Crown she acted on the advice of ministers of the United Kingdom. The Crown, therefore, was one Imperial Crown. That is no longer the case. The sovereignty of each of the countries that recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their Queen is separate and distinct from that of any other country. Whether in domestic or foreign affairs the 'Crown of the United Kingdom' may pursue quite different policies from that of the Crown of Australia. The Queen's advisers are different in each case. The reference to the United Kingdom is therefore a source of confusion and does not reflect the position of the Crown in Australia today."

(Authors of the 1988 Constitutional Commission report include the Hon E G Whitlam, AC, QC and the Hon Sir Rupert Hamer, KCMG)

In addition, if you want the rulings of judges, again in Australia, the Sue v Hill case in the High Court of Australia written by Councillor Julian Leeser (Woollahra Council, NSW), Councillor Leeser correctly observes that:

"the (High) Court confirmed that the Queen of Australia does not act as a foreign Queen. One of the main arguments that was raised by Heather Hill was that the Queen of Australia is the same person as the Queen of the United Kingdom (and Northern Ireland). Therefore swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia was the same as swearing allegiance to the Queen of the UK. This argument was rejected by the Court on the basis that whilst physically it is the same person, Elizabeth II, they are "independent and distinct" legal personalities. This notion is known as the divisibility of the Crown which Justice Gaudron found to be "implicit in the Constitution." 1 (http://www.statusquo.org/republic_dummies/republic_dummies.html)

That these examples are from Australia proves that Canada is not alone in this matter. The Crown operates distinctly and separately in every Realm with no supremacy given to the "British Crown."

Meanwhile, you've provided two 'proofs' and then applied only your interpretations to them. You've given no other examples of experts or academics who interpret Rouleau's ruling and the Royal Styles and Titles Act in the same way as you. Therefore, the only "differing theories" are the majority of legal and constitutional experts vs. you. Hardly appropriate, I think. If there really are "differing theories" on the matter I'd accept that there actually is a debate in Canada on this issue, though I'd be seriously shocked to hear of any.--gbambino 15:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW-- does your removal of huge chunks of the Royal Style and Titles Act article simply because they do not conform to your theory not constitute vandalism? --gbambino 15:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I moved them to Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 because there was a tag on both pages saying the articles should be merged. See the June 6th version of the article with the tag on top saying This article should be merged with Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. If you disagree with this request, please discuss it on the article's talk page. In future, please try to ascertain the facts before making baseless accusations against editors.AndyL 15:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In any case, while your information on Australia is pertinent to an article on the crown in Australia you should be aware that Australian court rulings have no weight in Canada. Can you cite any Canadian court rulings that conflict with Rouleau?AndyL 15:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I would have ascertained facts had there been any evidence there. As you did not note that you were moving the information elsewhere when actually making the alterations, you thereby easily gave the impression that you had simply deleted the words.

But, I see that you've now added the words "according to some constitutional theorists." Can you provide the words of constitutional theorists who disagree?

Australian court rulings indeed have no legal weight in Canada, but my example is yet another one which points out that the Crown in each Realm is no longer British. --gbambino 16:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I understand. I would have ascertained facts had there been any evidence there. As you did not note that you were moving the information elsewhere when actually making the alterations, you thereby easily gave the impression that you had simply deleted the words."

Not exactly an apology, is it? Your evidence is in regards to the Crown's status in Australia, not the Crown's status in Canada. Given that you are arguing the crowns are different it's a bit odd that you'd be saying that the position of the Australian crown is at all germane to that of Canada's. AndyL 16:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To say that I am arguing the Crowns are different reveals that you are not paying attention. I've said all along that there is one Crown that operates differently within each legal jurisdiction created by the constitutions of each and every Realm, including the United Kingdom. The one Crown operates separately and equally as the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of Australia, the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, etc. Ages ago I provided passages from the Balfour Report, Richard Toporoski's essays, the Statute of Westminster to back that up. I've recently given passages from an Australian Constitutional Commission Report, and a ruling of the Australian High Court to show that the situation is indeed the same the other Realms. If lawyers, judges, constitutional experts and academics agree that the Crown operates separately and equally in every Realm then Britain is not given any position of supremacy therefore rendering your still almost completely unsubstantiated claim that the Crown is British defunct. You've been asked numerous times to provide any real evidence of a debate on this matter (outside of this one), for any words from experts or academics to back up your claim that there are "differing theories", and so far nothing has been produced.

And besides, it's you who's contradicted himself. You've been arguing that the Crown is simply the "British Crown" everywhere: "The fact that the Queen is British, lives in Britain and spends the vast majority of time there would tend to suggest that the crown is British." "In Australia the crown's Britishness is de facto, in Canada it's de jure." By now saying that the Crown has a status in Canada separate and different to its status in Australia (and therefore a different status again in the UK) agrees with my point (and that of every constitutional expert I've read) that the Crown is not a purely British institution.--gbambino 17:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The facts are that the only Canadian court ruling on the subject says that Canada is ruled by the British crown while Australian courts have said that there is an Australian crown. That tells me that there is a different legal situation in Canada and Australia and different constitutional interpretations in each country. The Australian ruling, however, tells me nothing about the Canadian situation while the Canadian ruling tells us nothing about the Australian situation. As for Richard Toproski, his views hold no weight in comparison to a Canadian court ruling. Can you cite any Canadian court judgement that contradicts Rouleau on the "British" nature of the Crown? AndyL 18:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you now retract your earlier statement that "in Austrlalia the crown's Britishness is defacto." That is at least a start. It also means you acknowledge that the Crown operates separately in it's different legal jurisdictions, and thus is not imperial in nature, working as the British Crown in every Realm. That too is a step forward. Considering this, plus the point that you still haven't provided any examples of constitutional theorists or experts who contradict the prevailing "one Crown equally over, but separately in, every Realm" ideology, you should therefore remove any questioning of the "multiple crowns" situation from Monarchy in Canada and Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927.

It then comes down to the fact that you interpret, based on the wording of an Ontario judge's ruling and the wording of the Queen's Canadian title, and barring all the other examples I've provided to back up my claims, the branch of the Crown operating in Canada as British. If you want to claim that republicans argue (though, you're still the only one, so far) that this ruling implies that the Crown in Canada is British, then that point should be added to the "Republican Arguments" section of the article, which already makes reference to the O'Donohue case. The article O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 also makes reference to this interpretation. --gbambino 19:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"So you now retract your earlier statement that "in Austrlalia the crown's Britishness is defacto." That is at least a start." So this is your twelve step program to becoming a monarchist?

De jure, the Crown in Australia is Australian. Culturally, historically and according to popular perception it remains British. De jure, as I said earlier, the Canadian Crown is British. I believe I said earlier that de facto (though not de jure) the crown in Australia is also British. Obviously, that is a matter of dispute in Australia. Unfortunately, since this a Monarchy in Canada article, the Australian issue is moot.

Personally, I think the One Crown or Many section is an interesting addition. You seem to think so too based on your ulitmate attempt to keep the section while completely removing the contents. In any case, Rouleau's comments are not "republican" or monarchist, they are simply a rendering on how the crown relates to Canada. I suspect there are a number of monarchists who believe the Crown is British and don't feel the need to kowtow to Canadian nationalism by pretending it isn't. I also suspect that some, perhaps most, republicans don't care if the monarchy is British or Canadian, they just want it gone. I think Rouleau's comments belong in the section they are in, particularly as we have no indication whether Rouleau is monarchist or republican. His decision is not an "argument" it is a ruling, a legal fact. The only thing I can determine with certainty is not whether he is a monarchist or republican but that he's a jurist which neither you, Toproski nor Amiers is.AndyL 22:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you do think the section is interesting -- you added it. However, my 'attempt' to keep the section was not driven by a belief that it should exist. Rather I state that it doesn't belong here at all because a) the concept of "multiple crowns in one" is not unique to Canada and thus is already covered on the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 article, and b) while Rouleau's ruling is neither republican nor monarchist (I'm not sure who ever said it was), what is republican (by your own admission) is your interpretation of the ruling, and that is currently all that is in the "One Crown or Several" section. As a republican interpretation, it therefore belongs in the "Republican Arguments" section. As well, the differing interpretations of the ruling are mentioned on the O’Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 page. If there really were a debate on the "Britishness" of the Canadian Crown, then it would still belong in the "Debate on the Monarchy" section. However, your complete failure to provide any words from any knowledgeable sources backing up your claim that there are "differing opinions" on the Crown and its operation shows that there is no debate or differing opinion besides yours! So far, without proof, it's POV. And what happens to POV on Wikipedia...? --gbambino 23:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"and that is currently all that is in the "One Crown or Several" section. " No, looking at the section, most of it is made up of a direct quotation from Rouleau. As for it being covered in another article, that doesn't diminish its relevence to this article. And I'm still waiting for you to cite a court ruling from this continent. AndyL 00:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, how do you reconicle your argument that the "One Crown or Several" issue is dealth with in an obscure article Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 and thus doesn't merit repitition with your advocacy of Elizabeth II of Canada which is redundant of Monarchy in Canada amongst other articles?AndyL 02:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the quotes from Rouleau, and AndyL's interpretation of them, to "Republican arguments." AndyL did not provide any references to constitutional scholars or academics who counter the common ideology put forward by most constitutional experts that the one Crown operates equally and distinctly in each Realm. He thus did not supply proof that there is any debate, or "differing opinions" about, the accepted view, aside from his own personal interpretation of Rouleau's ruling and the Royal Styles and Titles Act. If some republicans use Rouleau's ruling to say the Crown in Canada is British, then that belongs in the "Republican arguments" section.

And, Andy, I don't have to reconcile anything. I still believe that there should be an article on the Sovereign separate from the article on the institution. They may be related, but are actually two separate topics. --gbambino 03:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your rearrangement doesn't work as it results in a number of monarchist arguments being made under the heading "republican arguments". AndyL 03:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm working in the constraints of what exists now. I recognize there are monarchist and republican arguments under "republican arguments", and think that the whole section needs reworked and/or retitled. Remember, I tried to re-organize the section, before someone else had created the seperate "monarchist arguments" and "republican arguments," into clearer point form and was rebuted by you with your resoning being the disorganized points and counterpoints became too point/counterpoint for Wikipedia when organized. So, that section needs work, but your personal theories on the meaning of the O'Donohue case ruling still do not warrant a seperate section, and belong under 'republican arguments' -- though, even that is stretching it, as so far you're the only republican to openly express any theory that Rouleau's ruling refutes or negates the accepted view of the Crown's structure and operation over and in the Realms. --gbambino 05:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the previous "point - counterpoint" way you tried to reorganize it before was unencylopedic. I'm sorry gbambino, you can't just get rid of a section because you don't like it and the way you've tried to reorganize the article this time doesn't work so since you don't have a solution the status quo should remain. Thanks for trying though (seriously) this was better than your previous attempt to simply remove material you found offensive. AndyL 11:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't work? Says who? Oh, right... you. Get someone else to back you up. You haven't been able to provide any constitutional experts or scholars who back up your claim that there are "differing theories" on the Crown's operation over and in the Realms, you haven't even provided any proof that Rouleau's ruling has any effect on this theory -- it's all your own conjecture. So I doubt you'll find anyone to back up your push to express your warped republican POV, in its own section no less! Reverting a page again and again to push your POV constitutes vandalism, I think.

And, if you don't like the "republican arguments" "monarchist arguments" setup (and I don't either), and it's not getting edited fast enough for you, don't sit there and complain (and use it as justification for your POV section!), try working it out yourself. I did -- though it wasn't successful (again, according to you) it was at least an attempt. --gbambino 13:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say I "didn't like" the republican/monarchist arguments set up, I said your earlier attempt to turn it into a "point counterpoint" format was unencyclopedic and that your edit regarding Rouleau didn't fit the current format. AndyL 13:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You pointed out, correctly, that there are monarchist points in a section which someone titled specifically as "republican arguments". My editiing, putting republican and monarchist points re. Rouleau in that section, regardless of its inappropriate title, therefore fit the current format. --gbambino 13:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)