![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
"This Act undermined the American revolutionaries' plans to gain the support of Quebecers, who saw their rights being more protected under the Crown than in an independent American republic [citation needed]".
"Their demands were disregarded by the Lieutenant-Governor, Lord John Russell, an act which eventually led to the Lower Canada Rebellion."
""Part then in peace. I urge you to unanimity and accord. Let me hear no more of the odious distinctions of English and French. You are all His Britannic Majesty's beloved Canadian subjects." It was reportedly the first time the word "Canadian", which had previously been reserved only for Francophones, was used in a manner that included all colonialists."
FYI, reference one (^ a b CBC Archives: 1964 Quebec Visit, speech) points to an Ontario site, and doesn't have anything to do with the facts cited. Cmprince 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What's with the quote of Queen Liz being happy to speak in French at the beginning of the article? This clearly shows some bias in favour of the monarchy. The quote can be kept, but it should be placed somewhere else in the article.
"However, University of Toronto Professor Richard Toporoski held the theory that a sovereign, not independent, Quebec would still be under the sovereignty of the Queen"
If a constitutional amendment made the provincial Crown sovereign, would this automatically result in equality with the federal Crown and thus sovereignty within confederation? Laval ( talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This part should be rewritten. It sounds as if the Liberals were seeing the monarchy "as a distinct and essential part of the province's national structure". That a single premier said something positive about the monarchy is far from enough to let the reader think such a thing. In fact, the claim is not sourced. Also, the PQ isn't only "generally hostile to the Crown in Quebec", it is against the monarchy, period. That it is a federal institution is far from the only problem they see with the monarchy. The main reason is probably that it is seen as a symbol of the British colonialism. -- zorxd ( talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
sorry, i know it's not a big deal, but said goal broke the "NHL record", not the "world record". The Queen's Royal Collection is not an authority on sports terminology. Nobody speaks of North American professional hockey records as "world records", nor of the Stanley Cup Champions as "world champions". It's just not done, chap. Markeilz ( talk) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This article should talk more about the opposition to the monarchy in the province. When reading this article, it seems that there is only a marginal opposition from some sovereignists. Just because Daniel Johnson said something positive about the monarchy doesn't mean that his view is shared among all federalists. Many federalists agree that the opposition to the monarchy is "almost unanimous" in the province [1] and they describe it as "divisive and irrelevant". 80% of the population think that it is useless [2] and 86% favor its elemination [3] -- zorxd ( talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sources are misunderstood in this part :
In 2006, plans were underway for the quatercentenary of the founding of Quebec City and both the city and provincial governments mused about inviting the Queen or another member of the Royal Family to attend the festivities,[43][44] as had been done a century prior.
However, this prompted PQ members of the National Assembly to complain about federal intervention in a provincial affair
but with support from 64% of polled individuals in the province
A biased paragraph. Each sentence is biased :
So Quebec nationalists are anti-federal and anti-English? Not very neutral. This sentence try to show that the Canadian monarchy is a poor victim of the racist Quebec nationalists.
Now, put the emphasis on trying to depict separatists as criminal terrorists. It will be easier to convince the reader that the opposition to the monarchy is wrong.
Now show how good the Queen is, especially to Quebeckers. How can you be against such a good sovereign? The only opposition must come from dangerous terrorists.
Again, insist on how violent the opposition is. Minimize them to separatists (which we know are all terrorists and racists anyways). Don't say a word about the peaceful majority which are probably opposed to the monarchy.
Of course, don't forget to say that some people really wanted to cheer the monarch, to show that the opposition is even more marginal.
What better than a Montreal based English newspaper to report the opinion of the French-speaking majority of Quebec city? Because the majority of those who came to see the Queen allegedly showed a positive reaction, we must conclude that it reflects the view of the majority of the population.
Yeah right, nobody else opposed the visit, of course. Students are known to be idealist revolutionaries anyway, so we could say that all those whose opinion count supported the Queen.
Though??? As if it was surprising that some people oppose a so good monarchy? Of course it is the conclusion that we make after reading the first part of this paragraph. Hard to be more biased. -- zorxd ( talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The even is covered in at least the following articles :
There is a common bias in the reporting of the even, which gives undue weight to a pro-monarchist POV. Each time, it minimizes the opposition to separatists (and by emphasizing on the threats of violence from some of the most vocals), and many statements are even false. It is written so that we think that the queen should have been invited (such as by telling that the monarch was present 100 years before). In most cases, it fails to explains that the majority of the population of the province was against the visit, just like against the British monarchy in general. It is not always said that the federal government blocked the invitation, the emphasize is instead on the "desire" from some politicians to invite the queen (as it if was a sign of support to the monarchy). In fact, the queen was on a long list of guests, mostly for marketing reasons, of the organising committee, and the politicians only defended their organisers. They didn't seem very upset that the queen wasn't invited, as they know she wouldn't have come. I think the issue should be described in details at one place, probably in this article, on a more neutral manner, and others could refer to it. -- zorxd ( talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor removed a sentence that spoke of support for the monarchy in Quebec. It was subsequently reinserted. I was going to move it elsewhere in the article, but realised that it may have nothing to do with the subject of this page. The sentence's source states "In Quebec, an overwhelming majority (86 per cent) favoured the monarchy's elimination," but this does not clarify whether the poll asked about abolition of the monarchy in Quebec alone or from Canada as a whole. If it is the former, it relates to this page; if it is the latter, it belongs at Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Polls. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you contesting the fact that there is no serious support for the monarchy in Quebec? -- zorxd ( talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The provincial crown didn't just magically pop up out of nowhere. That said, I've wondered for a while whether or not the history section could do with a good trim. But that is another matter all together, of course. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
All irrelevant to the point that the poll is irrelevant to this article. If you want to talk about strong feelings against the monarchy in Quebec in particular, find some other sources. They are out there; there are some that complain about the lieutenant governor, and I wasn't joking when I said there have been proposals for a provincial president in Quebec while Canada and the other provinces remained monarchical. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope you are joking? This revert was done about 1 month after I first added the sentence. During this month, you made many other edits to the article, which mean that you first accepted it. After someone first tried to remove the sentence, you removed it too based on dubious claims about your interpretation of the poll so that you can say that one more user contested the sentence. The first user to remove it however, didn't contest its place in the article. He contested the conclusion drawn from the article. He is welcome to explain his point here, but I think it is pretty clear that 86% oppose the monarchy. I am open to a better wording if needed. The other user removed it because he thought it didn't fit well at this place in the article. He is also welcome to discuss on how to integrate it better (or maybe move it somewhere else in the article?). From what I understand, you are the only one who do not want the information to be in the article at all. -- zorxd ( talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried to add content, but it was reverted. Sources I was based on are these :
Polls contently show that the population of Quebec is against the monarchy. I would like to modify the article to reflect this, and say more than a single poll, as it is clearly not a temporary sentiment. -- zorxd ( talk) 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This article attribute every single event of the history to the monarchy. I am sorry, but namming a road "le chemin du Roy" (king's way), or calling New France a "Royal province" (as was every province of France during this period I guess), is not important enough to be included in the history section of this article as it doesn't mean much about the monarchy. I also changed the part about the treaty of Paris, but a user reverted it [10]. As was shown with my edit, most sources talk about the transfer of the territory of New France from France to Great Britain. It was a transfer from one country to an other. But the user, who is obviously trying to connect everything to the monarchs, prefer to say that it is a transfer from Louis XV to George III. He also doesn't want "of France" and "of the United Kingdom" to appear in the article because in his view, they are two kings of Canada which passed the territory through uninterrupted inheritance, just like between to kings of the same country. The distinction is subtle, but there, so no, they are not synonyms in this case and the user knows it very well. Let's not forget that the monarch or "the crown" is often use to mean "the country" or "the government". -- zorxd ( talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that there is an ongoing discussion concerning the content of this article. I won't say anything about the discussion, but I hope to foster better collaboration on improving this article by stating my opinion on what I think the average reader is likely to expect from an article entitled Monarchy in Quebec:
At the moment, I find the article lacking in substance on things related to the French monarchy. Also, I see some issues with the current content:
-- Mathieugp ( talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should have a discussion similar to this one : Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#The_monarchy_of_Canada.2C_The_Crown_in_Right_of_Canada.2C_etc about the subject of the article. Possibles views are :
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Monarchy in Quebec. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Monarchy in Quebec. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Has there been legal challenges made, to the CAQ government's making the oath of allegiance to the king, optional? GoodDay ( talk) 00:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
"This Act undermined the American revolutionaries' plans to gain the support of Quebecers, who saw their rights being more protected under the Crown than in an independent American republic [citation needed]".
"Their demands were disregarded by the Lieutenant-Governor, Lord John Russell, an act which eventually led to the Lower Canada Rebellion."
""Part then in peace. I urge you to unanimity and accord. Let me hear no more of the odious distinctions of English and French. You are all His Britannic Majesty's beloved Canadian subjects." It was reportedly the first time the word "Canadian", which had previously been reserved only for Francophones, was used in a manner that included all colonialists."
FYI, reference one (^ a b CBC Archives: 1964 Quebec Visit, speech) points to an Ontario site, and doesn't have anything to do with the facts cited. Cmprince 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What's with the quote of Queen Liz being happy to speak in French at the beginning of the article? This clearly shows some bias in favour of the monarchy. The quote can be kept, but it should be placed somewhere else in the article.
"However, University of Toronto Professor Richard Toporoski held the theory that a sovereign, not independent, Quebec would still be under the sovereignty of the Queen"
If a constitutional amendment made the provincial Crown sovereign, would this automatically result in equality with the federal Crown and thus sovereignty within confederation? Laval ( talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This part should be rewritten. It sounds as if the Liberals were seeing the monarchy "as a distinct and essential part of the province's national structure". That a single premier said something positive about the monarchy is far from enough to let the reader think such a thing. In fact, the claim is not sourced. Also, the PQ isn't only "generally hostile to the Crown in Quebec", it is against the monarchy, period. That it is a federal institution is far from the only problem they see with the monarchy. The main reason is probably that it is seen as a symbol of the British colonialism. -- zorxd ( talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
sorry, i know it's not a big deal, but said goal broke the "NHL record", not the "world record". The Queen's Royal Collection is not an authority on sports terminology. Nobody speaks of North American professional hockey records as "world records", nor of the Stanley Cup Champions as "world champions". It's just not done, chap. Markeilz ( talk) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This article should talk more about the opposition to the monarchy in the province. When reading this article, it seems that there is only a marginal opposition from some sovereignists. Just because Daniel Johnson said something positive about the monarchy doesn't mean that his view is shared among all federalists. Many federalists agree that the opposition to the monarchy is "almost unanimous" in the province [1] and they describe it as "divisive and irrelevant". 80% of the population think that it is useless [2] and 86% favor its elemination [3] -- zorxd ( talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sources are misunderstood in this part :
In 2006, plans were underway for the quatercentenary of the founding of Quebec City and both the city and provincial governments mused about inviting the Queen or another member of the Royal Family to attend the festivities,[43][44] as had been done a century prior.
However, this prompted PQ members of the National Assembly to complain about federal intervention in a provincial affair
but with support from 64% of polled individuals in the province
A biased paragraph. Each sentence is biased :
So Quebec nationalists are anti-federal and anti-English? Not very neutral. This sentence try to show that the Canadian monarchy is a poor victim of the racist Quebec nationalists.
Now, put the emphasis on trying to depict separatists as criminal terrorists. It will be easier to convince the reader that the opposition to the monarchy is wrong.
Now show how good the Queen is, especially to Quebeckers. How can you be against such a good sovereign? The only opposition must come from dangerous terrorists.
Again, insist on how violent the opposition is. Minimize them to separatists (which we know are all terrorists and racists anyways). Don't say a word about the peaceful majority which are probably opposed to the monarchy.
Of course, don't forget to say that some people really wanted to cheer the monarch, to show that the opposition is even more marginal.
What better than a Montreal based English newspaper to report the opinion of the French-speaking majority of Quebec city? Because the majority of those who came to see the Queen allegedly showed a positive reaction, we must conclude that it reflects the view of the majority of the population.
Yeah right, nobody else opposed the visit, of course. Students are known to be idealist revolutionaries anyway, so we could say that all those whose opinion count supported the Queen.
Though??? As if it was surprising that some people oppose a so good monarchy? Of course it is the conclusion that we make after reading the first part of this paragraph. Hard to be more biased. -- zorxd ( talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The even is covered in at least the following articles :
There is a common bias in the reporting of the even, which gives undue weight to a pro-monarchist POV. Each time, it minimizes the opposition to separatists (and by emphasizing on the threats of violence from some of the most vocals), and many statements are even false. It is written so that we think that the queen should have been invited (such as by telling that the monarch was present 100 years before). In most cases, it fails to explains that the majority of the population of the province was against the visit, just like against the British monarchy in general. It is not always said that the federal government blocked the invitation, the emphasize is instead on the "desire" from some politicians to invite the queen (as it if was a sign of support to the monarchy). In fact, the queen was on a long list of guests, mostly for marketing reasons, of the organising committee, and the politicians only defended their organisers. They didn't seem very upset that the queen wasn't invited, as they know she wouldn't have come. I think the issue should be described in details at one place, probably in this article, on a more neutral manner, and others could refer to it. -- zorxd ( talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor removed a sentence that spoke of support for the monarchy in Quebec. It was subsequently reinserted. I was going to move it elsewhere in the article, but realised that it may have nothing to do with the subject of this page. The sentence's source states "In Quebec, an overwhelming majority (86 per cent) favoured the monarchy's elimination," but this does not clarify whether the poll asked about abolition of the monarchy in Quebec alone or from Canada as a whole. If it is the former, it relates to this page; if it is the latter, it belongs at Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Polls. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you contesting the fact that there is no serious support for the monarchy in Quebec? -- zorxd ( talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The provincial crown didn't just magically pop up out of nowhere. That said, I've wondered for a while whether or not the history section could do with a good trim. But that is another matter all together, of course. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
All irrelevant to the point that the poll is irrelevant to this article. If you want to talk about strong feelings against the monarchy in Quebec in particular, find some other sources. They are out there; there are some that complain about the lieutenant governor, and I wasn't joking when I said there have been proposals for a provincial president in Quebec while Canada and the other provinces remained monarchical. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope you are joking? This revert was done about 1 month after I first added the sentence. During this month, you made many other edits to the article, which mean that you first accepted it. After someone first tried to remove the sentence, you removed it too based on dubious claims about your interpretation of the poll so that you can say that one more user contested the sentence. The first user to remove it however, didn't contest its place in the article. He contested the conclusion drawn from the article. He is welcome to explain his point here, but I think it is pretty clear that 86% oppose the monarchy. I am open to a better wording if needed. The other user removed it because he thought it didn't fit well at this place in the article. He is also welcome to discuss on how to integrate it better (or maybe move it somewhere else in the article?). From what I understand, you are the only one who do not want the information to be in the article at all. -- zorxd ( talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried to add content, but it was reverted. Sources I was based on are these :
Polls contently show that the population of Quebec is against the monarchy. I would like to modify the article to reflect this, and say more than a single poll, as it is clearly not a temporary sentiment. -- zorxd ( talk) 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This article attribute every single event of the history to the monarchy. I am sorry, but namming a road "le chemin du Roy" (king's way), or calling New France a "Royal province" (as was every province of France during this period I guess), is not important enough to be included in the history section of this article as it doesn't mean much about the monarchy. I also changed the part about the treaty of Paris, but a user reverted it [10]. As was shown with my edit, most sources talk about the transfer of the territory of New France from France to Great Britain. It was a transfer from one country to an other. But the user, who is obviously trying to connect everything to the monarchs, prefer to say that it is a transfer from Louis XV to George III. He also doesn't want "of France" and "of the United Kingdom" to appear in the article because in his view, they are two kings of Canada which passed the territory through uninterrupted inheritance, just like between to kings of the same country. The distinction is subtle, but there, so no, they are not synonyms in this case and the user knows it very well. Let's not forget that the monarch or "the crown" is often use to mean "the country" or "the government". -- zorxd ( talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that there is an ongoing discussion concerning the content of this article. I won't say anything about the discussion, but I hope to foster better collaboration on improving this article by stating my opinion on what I think the average reader is likely to expect from an article entitled Monarchy in Quebec:
At the moment, I find the article lacking in substance on things related to the French monarchy. Also, I see some issues with the current content:
-- Mathieugp ( talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should have a discussion similar to this one : Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#The_monarchy_of_Canada.2C_The_Crown_in_Right_of_Canada.2C_etc about the subject of the article. Possibles views are :
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Monarchy in Quebec. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Monarchy in Quebec. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Has there been legal challenges made, to the CAQ government's making the oath of allegiance to the king, optional? GoodDay ( talk) 00:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)