This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monarchy of Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Monarchy of Canada is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 21, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 17, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed April 24, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 23, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted December 19, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Governments Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. Commonwealth This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

@ ScottishFinnishRadish: Does the RFC call for deleting any mention of the monarch residing in the United Kingdom? Would seem to me, by not mentioning he resides in the UK, that removes the explanation for the existence of the governor general & the lieutenant governors. GoodDay ( talk) 16:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

They very clearly stated the RfC "question [...] was not particularly well described"; it never covered article wording, nor was article wording discussed until SFR closed the RfC. It also never said we can't just avoid the whole question of where the monarch resides (which you, yourself, tried). The constitution actually says nothing about where the monarch resides, let alone that the governors exist and can use most of the monarch's powers because the monarch resides in the UK. A governor (general or lieutenant) exists and can use most of the monarch's powers when the monarch is standing right next to him; a fact the article presently confuses, at best.

Most sources simply state the governor represents the monarch and leaves the sovereign's residency out of the description of the viceroy's role: "His Majesty King Charles III is King of Canada and Head of State. The Governor General is the representative of The King in Canada." "In 1947, Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the governor general of Canada (under King George VI) authorized the governor general to exercise most of the Crown's powers on behalf of the Sovereign." "The Governor General is the Monarch’s representative in Canada." This government publication states, "given that the Queen's principal residence is in the United Kingdom, she cannot be in Canada at all times. It is for this reason that her Canadian representatives--the governor general (federally) and lieutenant governors (provincially)--are appointed and act on her behalf in performing certain duties and responsibilities." But, oh, no, there's the adjective principal in front of residence.

One wording seen while researching is, "as our head of state, His Majesty The King, cannot be in Canada at all times. In his absence, his direct representatives ensure that the role of the Crown functions as an integral part of our system of government." That might be altered to suit this article: "As the person who is the Canadian sovereign is equally shared with 14 other monarchies (a grouping, including Canada, known informally as the Commonwealth realms) within the 56-member Commonwealth of Nations, he cannot be in Canada at all times. As such, viceroys (the governor general of Canada in the federal sphere and a lieutenant governor in each province) represent the sovereign in Canada; though, they remain able to carry out most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties when the monarch is in the country." -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've already pinged the RFC closer for clarification. GoodDay ( talk) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

And, after that, I addressed you. Now that the short history of this conversation has been summarized, do you have any response to my remarks? No response can only be taken as an approval of the suggested wording. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm aware of your determination to keep out of this page, any mention of the Canadian monarch residing only in the United Kingdom. But, we can't have our readers wondering where the monarch is at, while the governor general & lieutenant governors are performing the monarch's duties. Again, I've already pinged the RFC closer for clarification, on their RFC decision. GoodDay ( talk) 17:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You're making presumptuous, bad faith, personal remarks. My determination is to present accurate information, not mislead readers with untruths like the existence and abilities of the Canadian viceroys are dependent on the monarch's whereabouts, let alone on the subjective opinion that the monarch resides only in the UK.

Why does this article need to track "where the monarch is at"? This isn't a news site. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The RFC closer is not on Wikipedia at the moment. Let's wait until he chimes in & clarifies his RFC decision, please. GoodDay ( talk) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've asked once more, if the RFC closer would step in & clarify their decision. If they don't in the next 24 hrs? I'll open a somewhat related RFC, with the question - "Should we include that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom". GoodDay ( talk) 21:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

A week is a sufficient amount of time to have waited.

That proposed RfC question is deceptively limited and irrelevant to what you've been attempting to insert into the artile and need to find a source for: the claim the governors exist and are empowered as they are because the monarch resides in the UK. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You're continuing to deny (via deletion) that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom & therefore are going against the RFC result. PS - It would help, if you'd contact the RFC closer for clarification, if you've got doubts. Being contacted by both of us, may get them to give more input. GoodDay ( talk) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no basis to your accusation; the RfC concluded the popular opinion among a handful of Wikipedia editors is that the King of Canada resides in the UK. I did not insert anything that claims the King of Canada resides anywhere other than the UK. Please adhere to the facts. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've opened an RFC concerning whether or not we should mention in the article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom. I'm confident you'll respect the result of that RFC, as will I. No matter what the result is. It's time we put an end to this particular content dispute, on this particular article. GoodDay ( talk) 21:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

""given that the Queen's principal residence is in the United Kingdom, she cannot be in Canada at all times." - Reviewing the list of royal tours and making a rough calculation it would appear that in the roughly 157 years since confederation the various monarchs have been in Canada for a cumulative total of 249 days. For the sake of ease of calculation let's call it a full year. This means that throughout Canada's existence since 1867, the monarch has been here roughly 0.64% of the time (or put another way, the monarch has been absent from the country 99.3% of the time. To say "she cannot be in Canada at all times" would be something of an understatement. Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Wellington Bay: - I think that's something that needs mentioning in the 'consensus' subsection of the following RFC, too. GoodDay ( talk) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The article states "the monarchy has evolved through a continuous succession of initially French and later British sovereigns into the independent Canadian sovereigns of today." The term "continuous succession" is inaccurate. First of all, it neglects the fact that the "succession" was in fact interrupted by the overthrow of the monarchy by Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England. While the monarchy was restored after 10 years to say there was a "continuous succession" is simply wrong. Secondly, while the sentence does say there were French and then British monarchs there was not a "continous succession" between the two. Rather, New France was conquered. There are also other incidents that mean there was no "continuous succession" such as the Glorious Revolution that deposed James II of England and put William of Orange on the throne. The notion of a "continuous succession" is a romanticism at best, propaganda at worst, and elides over the messy details of history and is certainy not NPOV. Wellington Bay ( talk) 20:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Indeed, the history bits read mostly like the article should be named "Monarchy in Canada", rather than "Monarchy of Canada". GoodDay ( talk) 20:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Cromwell can be discounted - at the time, the only part of present-day Canada claimed by England in a substantive manner was Newfoundland, which was not part of Canada as it was defined in the 17th century: 17th-century Canada was a territory of the King of France. The same applies to the 17th-century Glorious Revolution. The "conquest" of Canada is misnomer from a legal perspective. It was militarily occupied by Great Britain from 1759/60 to 1763, but during that time it was still a territory of the French king. The territory was transferred by treaty to the King of Great Britain, so no interregnum occurred. Indefatigable ( talk) 00:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If Cromwell can be "discounted" then Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Phillip II, Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I should not be included in the List of Canadian monarchs. Either we have an expansive claim that English monarchs have ruled parts of Canada since the 16th century, or we don't. We can't both claim these individuals were Canadian monarchs and then make no mention of Cromwell. Wellington Bay ( talk) 00:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

" The "conquest" of Canada is misnomer from a legal perspective." - Indigenous people would disagree with that claim, as too would French Canadians (the latter, at least in request to the Conquest of New France.) Wellington Bay ( talk) 00:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

In the interest of brevity I did omit the Indigenous perspective in my talk page comment, but the article should absolutely include it. I'm not advocating to eliminate the term conquest - from a cultural perspective it's valid and it's the established term. Indefatigable ( talk) 00:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

From a "legal" perspective, France gained Canada through settlement and George II obtained it through cession.

I see however some merit in the comment about Nfld because the text reads, "no part of what is now Canada has been a republic or part of a republic." Clearly Nfld was part of what is now Canada. There could also be territories ceded by the U.S. when the borders were adjusted after the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1841. TFD ( talk) 01:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with your point here - this is a major inconsistency. I'll give some thought on a way a to resolve it. Indefatigable ( talk) 00:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, quite frankly, it's absurd to claim that there was no conquest under a legal perspective given the military occupation and British military regime in New France. If there was no occupation from a "legal perspective" then what was the legal foundation of British military occupation of New France? Our modern constitutional arrangement may exist as if there was no conquest - but from a historical point of view that would be a legal fiction, or a constitutional niceity that exists for political reasons, but historically there clearly was a conquest of both New France and the Indigenous peoples, though the latter is quite a complex history which also involves alliances between competing colonial powers and various Indigenous nations. Wellington Bay ( talk) 00:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Quebec was ceded to George II under the Treaty of Paris 1763 when both kings exchanged territories. TFD ( talk) 01:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That's a bit like arguing that Eastern Europe entered the Soviet sphere as a result of the Yalta Conference without making any reference to World War II or Soviet victories on the Eastern Front. Wellington Bay ( talk) 02:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The fact is that the King of France ceded Quebec to the George II. It doesn't matter what went on before, from a "legal perspective" under international law and the domestic laws of France and the UK, Quebec was transferred.

If you want an Eastern European comparison, the Soviet occupation of all states except the Baltic states was, from a legal perspective, legal, while the current occupation of parts of Ukraine by Russia is not. While parties may complain the law is unfair, it's still the law. TFD ( talk) 03:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You're engaging in a straw man argument. No one is saying it wasn't legal, the point is that the Treaty of Paris was not a freestanding event, it was the consequence of a war. Britain did not gain control of Quebec because of the Treaty of Paris, they did so as a result of a series of military conflicts culminating in the Conquest of New France. The Treaty of Paris simply recognized the conquest and signified France's acceptance of it and gave it legal form. But to talk of the transfer of power from France to Britain without mentioning the military conquest is unfactual. You simply would not have had the Treaty of Paris had there not been a war and you would not have had the transfer of Quebec from France to Britain without Britain conquering New France first. Wellington Bay ( talk) 04:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No need to link to strawman argument. I am a high school graduate.

You might want to brush up on your North American history, though. I explain it further in my comment below.

Are we agreed then that Canada was legally transferred to George II, or should the citizens of Quebec and Ontario worry about French troops returning to get back their territory? TFD ( talk) 04:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If you understand what a straw man argument is why are you continuing to make one? No one is arguing whether or not the land transfer was legal. The point is what was the cause. The Treaty of Paris didn't fall from the sky, it was an outcome of the Seven Years War and in relation to the British monarchy it gained hegemony over New France as a result of military conquest. Wellington Bay ( talk) 04:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If your argument isn't whether the land transfer was legal, why mention the ""legal perspective?" Anyway, following the war, some territories that were conquered were returned and territories that had not been conquered were handed over. The Seven Years War was wide ranging and was fought over a number of continents, so that you cannot say that any cession of territory was the direct result of conquest.

As you should know, unlike Britain, France did not want to send its population to build settler colonies, instead needing them in France to protect the country. So they were quite willing to trade Quebec, Lousiana and Florida for spice islands, which at the time were far more valuable than any territories in North America. So they probably would have traded Quebec without the conquest. TFD ( talk) 18:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"If your argument isn't whether the land transfer was legal, why mention the ""legal perspective?" - you should ask User:Indefatigable that as he was the one who mentioned it by saying "The "conquest" of Canada is misnomer from a legal perspective." His comment was a non sequitur since no one was arguing it was illegal. Any reference I made to "legal perspectives" were in response to his comment and were arguing that one cannot talk about how the British monarchy came to reign over what is now Canada without referencing the military conquest of French Canada. Wellington Bay ( talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, but the ceding of territory didn't occur spontaneously, it was the result of a war in which British forces conquered and militarily occupied New France. Without the British military conquest, France would not have ceded the territory. It would be ahistorical to pretend there was no military conquest involved and the fact that an article on the monarchy in Canada made no mention of the role in colonial expansion or military conquest in the establishment of monarchy or the British monarchy becoming hegemonic is a stunning omission. Wellington Bay ( talk) 02:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No, I think we should follow rs and date its beginnings to New France. TFD ( talk) 03:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You don't know that. France might have ceded the territory without a conquest and they refused the British offer to return it. Or France could have refused to sign the treaty and could have held its claim just as Argentina lays claim to the Falklands/Malvinas. Instead, France legally transferred possession to George II. TFD ( talk) 03:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hypothetically, the King of France could have lost New France in a drunken poker game but he didn't. The historical fact is that the British conquered New France militarily. This isn't speculation, it's established history. Wellington Bay ( talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Seeking clarification. Shall we consider 1763, as the beginning of the Canadian monarchy of today? GoodDay ( talk) 02:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's not productive to correct your historical inaccuracies and personal interpretations on a point by point basis. See Treaty of Paris (1763), which explains the circumstances of the cession of Quebec. TFD ( talk) 04:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

My point remains, without the territorial gains made during the Seven Years War and the conquest of Quebec there would not have been a treaty that recognized those gains. Without military conquest Britain would not have gained Quebec. While there were territories that the respective powers returned there was no territory ceded by the Treaty of Paris that wasn't first gained through military conquest. Wellington Bay ( talk) 08:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

France ceded Florida and East Louisiana to Geo II even though the UK had not conquered them. Similarly, Geo II and France ceded some of the territories they gained during the war. The UK did not want Quebec, but was offered it hoped to trade it for another Caribbean Island.

In any case, France ceded its claim to Quebec. That is legally binding on them, reqardless of the circumstances. The U.S. became independent following a war. That does not mean their independence is illegal. It was recognized by Geo III under the 1783 Treaty. TFD ( talk) 16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The direct quote from the cited reference that has been in place for a very long while now I think is the best way forward, not least of which as it has the advantage of representing the long-standing consensus, is well referenced, and avoids any synthesis.

Second, it seems now that half of the lede is dedicated to an overly detailed exploration of why or how "Canada is one of the oldest continuing monarchies in the world today" which strikes me as unsuitable as the lede should summarize this simply and succinctly. Ideally then, almost all of that nuanced material should go into the History section of the article, and just a few summarizing sentences remaining in the lede. trackratte ( talk) 15:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Saying Canada is one of the oldest continuing monarchies in the world says more about continuing monarchies than it does about Canada. Who knew that most monarchies were only created in the last several centuries? Most people would associate monarchy with the Middle Ages. TFD ( talk) 18:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Whatever its overall import, it does seem rather fluffy in the context of a clearly oversized lead section. That entire paragraph rather cries out for some heavy editing down. And ideally, refactor them down to (at most) four in total. As @ Trackratte says, much of the detail would be better kept to the body sections. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Trackratte: This has already been reverted but I just want to make one stylistic comment for your future reference. You wrote:

as the King does not live in Canada (aside from certain circumstances where they may "take up residence" in Canada such as during Royal Tours), the King of Canada is represented by the governor general who carries out most of the sovereign's duties in Canada. [16]

- and you put the phrase "take up residence" in quotation marks. Please, please, please do not use quotation marks unless you are providing an actual quote and if you are providing a quote - cite it. I know it's become common for people to use scare quotes or air quotes for emphasis but in proper writing they should only be used for an attributable quotation. Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks mate. It's always a bit funny these sorts of things but we all have our own foibles and hobby horses certainly.

I would offer that quotes can be used for technical expressions, words, or terms of art, in addition to any phrases that have a colloquial meaning as per Peck's English housed with the Canadian Style by the Government of Canada. trackratte ( talk) 00:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"Take up residence" is not a colloquial term, technical expression, or term of art. There's no need to put it in quotation marks. Wellington Bay ( talk) 01:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That's an opinion, or perhaps more properly, a preference. All of which to say is that the rule you portray isn't actually, and your first sentence was quite right, it's a stylistic comment.

Now, if you're happy with that I see little value to be added to the subject of the system of monarchy in Canada continuing to debate what, exactly, constitutes and differentiates the colloquial from the non-colloquial. trackratte ( talk) 12:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"Thank you". Wellington Bay ( talk) 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You're most welcome mate. Cheers. trackratte ( talk) 13:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I have removed the list of residences from the infobox. Also there is an IP user who keeps adding references to official residences in Canada. I believe this is inaccurate and not supported by official sources.

1) According to the Parks Canada website:

"The Rideau Hall Complex contains the official residence, the landscaped grounds and the outbuildings, which together constitute the vice-regal estate of the Governor General of Canada." No mention is made of the monarch or of it being a royal residence. [17]

2) According to Canadian Heritage's schools page Rideau Hall is the:

"Official Residence of the Governor General of Canada" again no mention made of it being a royal residence [18]

3) The Governor General's website says Rideau Hall is:

"has been the official residence of every governor general of Canada since 1867 and their workplace since 1940." No mention of it being the King or Queen's official residence [19]

4) The website of the National Capital Commission, which administers the property, says:

"Rideau Hall has been the official residence and workplace of every governor general of Canada since 1867." Again, with no reference to it being a royal residence or the residence of the monarch. [20]

5) The Government of Canada (National Capital Commission) publication Official Residences of Canada says:

"Rideau Hall is a National Historic Site of Canada and has been the official residence and workplace of every governor general of Canada since 1867. Traditionally the home and workplace of the Governor General, Rideau Hall has played a prominent historical and constitutional role in Canada since Confederation." (pg 24) with no mention anywhere of it being a "royal residence" or official residence of the King or Queen. [21]

6)A Crown of Maples on page 5 has a portrait of the Queen with the following cutline:

"QUEEN ELIZABETH II STANDS BEFORE A PORTRAIT OF HER GREAT-GREAT-GRANDMOTHER QUEEN VICTORIA, PHOTOGRAPHED AT RIDEAU HALL, THE RESIDENCE OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL. OTTAWA, ONTARIO. JULY 1, 2010" Note that even though the Queen here is in situ in Rideau Hall itself, the building is not described as her official residence but as "the residence of the governor general". [22]

Wellington Bay ( talk) 19:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I am not privy to when the Canadian royal residence thing came to be in Wikipedia nor based on what as I've never been involved in that area. It could appear that that fact may be wholly editorial synthesis. I've been an editor here for going on 21 years so generally have a fairly long memory, but not on this matter. I would suggest that [[User:]Miesianiacal] be asked to shed some light on the matter as I assume he was involved at the outset.

My second point would be of trying to find the best forum to discuss this, as it really has very little to do (I would actually argue nothing to do) with the system of monarchy in Canada which is the topic of this page. The issue of status of the Citadelle and Rideau Hall, and the provincial government houses, are actually somewhat far reaching in terms of existing at the Government House article, each building's article, and perhaps elsewhere as well. So, perhaps the Canadian Government Houses Talk would be the best place to solicit the widest input on this particularly niche matter. trackratte ( talk) 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As per WP:NOCON, I've restored the last stable version from Dec '23 on the area under dispute (one single sentence and the infobox) predicated on my understanding that this debate began in January '24. From NONCON: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". trackratte ( talk) 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to get involved over at Rideau Hall & Citadelle of Quebec. But, I'll ask you again to respect the last RFC result & 'stop' removing, replacing or modifying "...lives in the United Kingdom" on this article. As for the infobox? I'll leave that for you & others to work out. GoodDay ( talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I didn't remove any such thing, the version I restored in line with policy stated "The monarch lives predominantly in the United Kingdom", nor have I ever disagreed with that, so you appear to be attacking a strawman. What I am arguing for is that policy be followed when there is/was no consensus for exactly how that fact is articulated in a way that works for everyone (i.e. consensus). trackratte ( talk) 14:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Using the description "predominantly", is misleading. Such a description suggests that the monarch resides/lives outside the United Kingdom, which isn't the case. GoodDay ( talk) 20:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

To say "there is an IP user who keeps adding references to official residences in Canada" seems a less than charitable characterisation, given that I made two distinct edits, both reflecting an existing assertion that was the case in the article, and our own apparently heavily sourced article on the topic. Until WB themself removed both. So let's at least present the facts in the right order, even if we can't quite do so neutrally.

If there's been a more-recent movement away from referring to these as royal residences then potentially that resolves the descriptive problem. But I'd want more than absence of evidence before ignore these earlier references. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 23:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I was pinged for input here. Rather than looking at when information was added, it seems to me we should be asking: why is well-sourced information being deleted, from this and other articles? The statements, "Rideau Hall is the residence of the governor general" and, "Rideau Hall is the residence of the monarch" aren't mutually exclusive; the hall can--and does--have two residents. This has all also been previously discussed and a consensus reached: Talk:Rideau Hall#Monarchial residence?, Talk:Rideau Hall#Queen's official residence, Talk:Rideau Hall#Monarch & Governor General sources, Talk:Rideau Hall#"The Queen's Official Residence when in Ottawa", Talk:Rideau Hall#RfC about being called "the official residence of Canada's Monarch" in the first sentence.

What's been deleted at Rideau Hall is one matter. The reasoning for deleting Rideau Hall and La Citadelle from the infobox here is entirely unclear, particularly when the article body explains the roles of those residences. The whole point of the infobox is to summarize information in the article. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If official sources such as the National Capital Commission, Parks Canada, and the Department of Canadian Heritage refer to Rideau Hall only as the official residence of the governor general and make no reference to it as being a royal residence or official residence of the monarch there is no reason for Wikipedia to make that claim. Similarly, Canadian Heritage webpage on King Charles III makes no such claim. [23] Wellington Bay ( talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The links you provided were noted and support the assertion Rideau Hall is the governor general's residence. However, the buildings being the monarch's residences is both relevant and supported by reliable sources. As such, the information meets the standards of inclusion in Wikipedia. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Indeed, but too often one hears editors argue "but that's already in the infobox, we don't need to say in the article too!" At least we're aiming at consistency of reference here... albeit we can't agree what the actual facts to be referred to are. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Which source, exactly, refers to the Citadelle as a royal residence or a residence for the King or Queen? The source Trackrette re-added only refers to it as a vice-regal residence. [24] I assume he didn't read the citation before adding it and that he was acting in good faith - but it appears whoever added it originally was taking liberties as to what the source actually says. Wellington Bay ( talk) 19:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

While this appears to be discussion of edits to a different article, it admittedly has a (potential, indirect) bearing on this one. Two sources are given for (different parts of?) that sentence, did you check both? Now admittedly, if the "royal residence" claim has only one reference in that case, it starts to look rather more suspect. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 22:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The book by Skaarup states "The Citadelle....has been also an official residence of the Queen in Right of Canada and the Governor General of Canada since 1872..."

Also, I'm not re-adding anything, I'm just asking that cited portions of an article not be removed whole-sale along with their references without any discussion or consensus, and that the process be respected. Second, I was never part of any of the edits revolving around residences, and frankly care far less about the topic than I do about the process in this case.

And to be clear, I've already stated above that the royal residence piece could be nothing but editorial synthesis. Now we know there are a couple sources, but there is still a question of weight. Or in other words, I very well acknowledge the potential that the royal residence bits should be removed, however, there has to be discussion and consensus before doing so, particularly for cited and extremely long standing portions of Wikipedia. trackratte ( talk) 00:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Indeed, or at least removal from the lede para, given that (at the least) a predominance of sources doesn't mention this aspect at all. But first of all, do we even have a sufficient number of sufficiently high-quality sources for this to pass WP:V? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 01:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, I should clarify I was referring to the source added to Citadelle of Quebec. I checked the source that was publicly available, linked above. Fifty Years the Queen: A Tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on Her Golden Jubilee isn't available but frankly given the POV of the authors I don't think it's a credible source to use on its own. Wellington Bay ( talk) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok, I've been able to access the book. It quotes Queen Elizabeth saying of Rideau Hall "this is my home in Ottawa" (it also refers once to it being her "home" when she visited as a princess.) I don't think such a colloquial and anecdotal reference is sufficient to prove that Rideau Hall is a royal residence or the Queen's official residence. The book makes a passing reference to the Citadel as an official residence but the book has no source to support its claim (indeed, the book has no footnotes at all and no bibliography) and given the florid tone of the book's prose - it's really more of a coffee table book than anything else, I don't think it stands as a serious source. Wellington Bay ( talk) 23:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Are you challenging only that one source or all eight that say Rideau Hall is the monarch's residence in Ottawa? And Skaarup's work? -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

(It's nine for Rideau Hall, actually; there's also Lanctot, Gustave; Royal Tour of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth in Canada and the United States of America 1939; E.P. Taylor Foundation; 1964. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)) reply

I haven't been able to go through all the sources and some are not accessible online. My view though is that if a building is an "official residence" of a head of state then there would be an official document stating that - a law, a regulation, an official document from the Department of Canadian Heritage or NCC or Parks Canada. Otherwise, we're dealing with opinion which might merit mention but should not be treated in the same way as an official statement. We can say such and such author describes RH as an "official residence" of the monarch rather than have the article state unequivocally that it is.

In any case, we've gone down a bit of a rabbithole here because even if for the sake of argument Rideau Hall and the Citadelle are "official residences" of the monarch that's still not sufficient to say he lives or is a resident. George V never even set foot in Canada - would a reasonable person say he was a resident of Canada or lived in Canada? The statement you proposed earlier, "given that the Queen's principal residence is in the United Kingdom, she cannot be in Canada at all times," is highly misleading as it implies the monarch is in Canada a significant amount of the time when, in fact, they are not literally 99% of the time. One can have a residence without being a resident. I have a relative, for example, whose "ancestral home" is overseas. Her family still owns it, she has a legal claim to it or to part of it, but she has only been there twice in the past 20 years. She has a "residence" in Calcutta but could not be described as a "resident" of Calcutta. Similarly, even if Rideau Hall is the monarch's "official residence" (and I'm not convinced that it legally is) since the founding of Canada in 1867 a monarch has only "resided" at Rideau Hall for about 40 days out of the last 127 years - and no monarch even set foot on Canadian soil for the first 72 years of the country's existence. To imply that under these circumstances monarchs have "lived" or "resided" in Canada even on a part-time basis is not credible. Wellington Bay ( talk) 17:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. It's a bit of a stretch to call Rideau Hall & the Citadelle official residences of the monarch. When the monarch doesn't reside in either place. GoodDay ( talk) 17:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I was asking to get clarity on what to ask at WT:RS. I see now it's all the sources you feel don't meet the RS standards. A discussion has been initiated there. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Never mind. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a rather silly and unhelpful discussion. As are these edits: [25], [26]. Many countries deem various castles or other buildings as "official residences" of their head of state, whether the country is a monarchy or a republic, and whether the head of state actually lives there or not. Spain has something like 47 royal residences. Calling something an "official residence" doesn't stand as proof that the monarch actually lives there but similarly proving that a monarch doesn't (or very rarely resides there) doesn't prove a building is not an "official residence". What makes something an official residence is a law, declaration, or proclamation of some kind calling it an "official residence" not the practicality of how often (or whether) it is actually used. The government of Canada clearly says in official publications that the Government Houses are official residences of the Queen/King: Government House (“Rideau Hall”) is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen (when in Ottawa) and her representative in the federal jurisdiction — the Governor General) and Government House: Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall. ^[1] Can we please stop this silliness?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Unless you can prove to me that Charles III (and his predecessors) actually resided in Canada? I'm not going to be convinced by your arguments. GoodDay ( talk) 21:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There are many other residences the world over that are called "official residences" whether or not an official resident actually lives there. 24 Sussex Drive is still the official residence of the prime Minister of Canada despite the fact that Justin Trudeau doesn't live there, because the government of Canada says it is his official residence. The standard you and others are attempting to apply here (and on other related articles) is nonsense.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 22:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

24 Sussex Drive is currently under major repairs, which is why Trudeau isn't physically staying there. Whether or not Rideau Hall is under major repairs is irrelevant, as the monarch doesn't physically reside there at all. We're not going to agree on this infobox topic, apparently. GoodDay ( talk) 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There's a list here of every visit by Elizabeth II to Canada which actually includes the number of days she spent in the country. From that you can at least come up with an estimate of how many days were spent in Ottawa and Quebec City. In addition, there was the 1939 royal tour of Canada by George VI and his consort. George VI and Elizabeth II are the only monarchs who have spent time in Canada during their reign. Wellington Bay ( talk) 17:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This dispute started over the designation of buildings, not how often they're used by whom. WB, you say a source from the Department of Canadian Heritage is needed to support the statement Rideau Hall is the Canadian monarch's official residence in Ottawa. We have it: A Crown of Maples. Additionally, WP:RS states "articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". We have nine of those. That's more than enough to justify the insertion of the information. Can we wrap this up now, return the deleted content to Rideau Hall, and take the CN tags out of the infobox here? The cites are already in the Monarchy of Canada#Federal residences and royal household section. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This dispute started over claims that the status of Rideau Hall and La Citadelle as "official residences" of the monarch is proof that the monarch is a resident of Canada and not solely a resident of the UK and, secondarily, whether these structures should be listed as residences in the infobox. The point remains that having a residence in a country does not make one a resident of that country. On the second point, the residences are officially termed "vice-regal" in nature which means even if they may also nominally serve as residences of the monarch, their primary role (at least in the case of Rideau Hall) is as a residence for the governor-general. The Citadelle's primary role is as a fortification, its secondary role is as a vice-regal residence, and it also is nominally a residence of the monarch. I think listing these structures as residence of the monarch in the infobox may be misleading given that that is not their primary role and as monarchs have spent very little time in either residence. Wellington Bay ( talk) 00:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Miesianiacal: "Can we wrap this up now, return the deleted content to Rideau Hall, and take the CN tags out of the infobox here?" - In fact, the Rideau Hall article states under function "It is also the residence of Canada's monarch when he is in Ottawa" with three sources, which is a sufficient number. As to whether or not the residences should be listed in the infobox of Monarchy of Canada there is no consensus for that which I can see to put it in the infobox as there are concerns about undue weight etc though the article itself does state "Buildings across Canada reserved by the Crown for the use of the monarch and his viceroys are called Government House, but may be customarily known by some specific name. The sovereign's and governor general's official residences are Rideau Hall in Ottawa and the Citadelle in Quebec City" with an excessive number of nested sources. Wellington Bay ( talk) 03:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The literal opening of this argument is you stating you removed the residences from the infobox (in conjunction with your deletion of well-cited and long-standing info from the lede of Rideau Hall) and listing sources as "proof" Rideau Hall is the official residence of the governor general only. That means we're now arguing over whether or not Rideau Hall is the monarch's official residence in Ottawa. That is an entirely separate matter to how often a official resident resides in his official residence. (24 Sussex Drive remains the official residence of the prime minister, despite no prime minister having resided in it for years.) Before we proceed to anything else, infobox, number of words and where, or any other matter, do you or do you not accept that, based on two government sources (the Department of Canadian Heritage and Elizabeth II) and eight other reliable sources, Rideau Hall is the Canadian monarch's official residence in Ottawa? -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

My response is below [27]. Wellington Bay ( talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

An infobox is meant to summarize key facts that appear in the article ( MOS:INFOBOX). A fact's weight in an article is, in turn, proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject ( WP:ASPECT). Do the sources treat the nominal status of these buildings as royal residences as an important aspect of the Canadian monarchy? I don't think they do. Many official sources about the buildings don't mention the fact at all. The Crown of Maples document, which provides an overview of Canadian monarchy, relegates the fact to an appendix. The sourcing at present appears to be so slight we aren't even able to explain in what manner these are "official" residences. On that basis, I don't think it is a key fact that belongs in the infobox.-- Trystan ( talk) 22:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd tend to agree, based on what I've seen (or heard tell of at one remove) of these sources. Those articles shouldn't have listed that as their primary function, and very possibly not in the lede at all. So far, so better. OTOH that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all, if the sources stand up to WP:V. Perhaps explicitly attributedly if there's a sense this is a more old-fashioned thought that the present regimes don't care to go long and strong on, or if it's under reasonable suspicion of being POV.

This is all really more fodder for those articles, but perhaps we need to stabilise and come to a consensus on those before we can fully resolve this one. But my current best guess would be that it doesn't need to be in the IB, and consequently that removes any particular motivation for it to be in the lead section, whether or not it merits some mention later in the body. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 01:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This article mentions the residences in one sentence: "The sovereign's and governor general's official residences are Rideau Hall in Ottawa and the Citadelle in Quebec City." They're not mentioned in the lede at all. There's a field for residences in the infobox and the residences are entered in it. It's unclear how any of that is giving undue weight in an article of this one's length.

At Rideau Hall, the lede contained one sentence (now deleted)--"Rideau Hall (officially Government House) is the official residence in Ottawa of both the Canadian monarch and his representative, the governor general of Canada"; this was agreed to via many discussions at Talk:Rideau Hall. Under "Function" is the only other mention of the building's role as an official royal residence--"Rideau Hall's main purpose is to house the governor general of Canada and his or her offices, including the Canadian Heraldic Authority. It is also the Ottawa residence of Canada's monarch." Again, where the undue weight is remains unclear.

A Crown of Maples mentions that Rideau Hall is the monarch's residence on pages 35 and xvii. There are nine other supporting sources, including Queen Elizabeth II herself. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure which edition you're looking at but on page 34 of the most recent edition of A Crown of Maples, that statement is qualified: "Government House (“Rideau Hall”) is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen (when in Ottawa) and her representative in the federal jurisdiction — the Governor General." [28] Futhermore, while there are numerous sources that refer to Rideau Hall as a "vice-regal residence" or "vice-regal estate", I'm not aware of any that call it a "royal residence". So while Rideau Hall is the official residence of the monarch, at least for the monarch "when in Ottawa", its primary role is as the residence of the governor general. As pointed out before, this article states "Buildings across Canada reserved by the Crown for the use of the monarch and his viceroys are called Government House, but may be customarily known by some specific name. The sovereign's and governor general's official residences are Rideau Hall in Ottawa and the Citadelle in Quebec City." Why do you think that is insufficient? (And if it's not insufficient, what exactly are we disagreeing about?) As for the infobox, given that Rideau Hall is a vice-regal residence and given that even Crown of Maples qualifies its description by saying it is the official residence of the monarchy when in Ottawa rather than an official residence - full stop - and that there do not appear to be sources that actually call it a " royal residence", what is the argument for putting it or the Citadelle in the infobox? Wellington Bay ( talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I think you're slightly over-egging the nature of the "qualification" here (parenthetical as it is). The distinction between an "official residence" and an "official residence (while that officer is in the jurisdiction" is pretty slender. Schrödinger's Pad, as it were. And the same source makes another reference to it as an "official residence", without any such qualification (or parenthetic comment). But it's problematic in its own way: Government House: Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall. So that's implicitly contradicting the take here, that the two federal GHs are officially royal residences, unlike the provincial ones, or other countries sharing the same HoS.

I do agree that "royal residence" in isolation isn't appropriate wording, as it might well be read as implying "actual" residence, in a way that "official" very much does not. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 19:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with Wellington Bay. As I said in the RFC above, sources seem to always state that Rideau Hall is a residence with a caveat, often after saying that the monarch's residence is in the UK. We should do the same in the infobox. It's misleading to state that the monarch's "residences" are in Canada when "residence" without caveat clearly implies primary residence. Why not add the caveat or clarification? Consigned ( talk) 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Infoboxes aren't the best places for extensive and detailed adding notes and nuances. It might be footnoted, but apparently style purists dislike that, too. Certainly any mention in the lead section should be. Or perhaps we could get away with saying something like "official Canadian residences"? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 07:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Miessy, my point is they formerly were mentioned in the IB here, which if correct would logically mean they almost certainly should be mentioned in the lead section (as I tried to do at one point). And similarly, at their article the lede sentences said this, and indeed said this first. Is that indeed correct? As I say, my best guess currently would be "no". If there's big signs out front said "GG's residence", and we say "king's and GG's residence", that'd be counterintuitive, and would not seem to be due weight, on the balance of available sources. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 23:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Having looked at the other non-UK commonwealth realm monarchy pages' (examples Monarchy of Papua New Guinea, Monarchy of New Zealand, you get the idea) infoboxes. This page is the only non-UK commonwealth realm page that lists a residence (let alone two) in its infobox. I suspect this is because all the other non-UK commonwealth realms have their viceregal residences described as only the governors-general official residence. IMHO, Rideau Hall & the Citadelle should be deleted from this infobox. But, it's not up to me. PS - Charles III's been king for 'bout 19 months now & still hasn't had even a sleep over. This goes for the provincial levels, too. GoodDay ( talk) 22:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is frankly a bit of a crazy discussion. The facts as I see them currently are:

1. The longstanding status quo here is that Rideau Hall and the Citadelle were noted as official residences of the Canadian monarch
2. There are reliable references saying that Rideau Hall and the Citadelle are official residences of the Canadian monarch
3. The actual occupation or where an individual lives have zero relevence or bearing on the actual status of something being designated an "official residence", so the question as to where the person of the monarch lives is entirely irrelevent to the topic of an official residence.
4. Noting where a natural person lives, and where an official residence is, are not mutually exclusive, you can note both. In this case, the person of the monarch predominantly resides in the UK, and the official residence of the King of Canada seem to be Rideau Hall and the Citadelle.

As a result, I do not see any compelling reason to change the status quo (noting that the person of the monarch predominantly lives in the UK thus why we have a governor general, and that Rideau Hall and the Citadelle are official residences of both the sovereign and therefore also the GG). So, why has there been over three months and crazy amounts of digital ink spent at all in the first place? trackratte ( talk) 23:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I assume you mean the former status quo, not the article's current... well, status. But the FSQ -- or at least the one I edited -- did not note the disparity between the actual and (claimed) "official" residency. Just ploinked one in the IB, and the other in the lead section. Not ideal. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Trackratte, you're not convincing those who you should be trying to convince, that the monarch resides in Canada. That's why this infobox discussion is ongoing. GoodDay ( talk) 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Strawman. No one is arguing the person of the monarch lives in Canada. That's not what an official residence is. trackratte ( talk) 03:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Who are "those who you should be trying to convince"? Strong whiff of WP:OWN and WP:ILIKEIT. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 04:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Should we just have an RFC on whether or not to list residences in the infobox? Wellington Bay ( talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ideally we'd straighten out the content of those other articles first. OTOH, it might end up being all the same discussion anyway. OTOOH, people might process-nitpick about "scope of this RfC"... So in short, "dunno". 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 22:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You'd need to chose a proper place for such a RFC. I do know that the other non-UK commonwealth realm monarchy pages don't list residences in their infoboxes. GoodDay ( talk) 22:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note - Undiscussed changes were made ('bout 4 days ago) to the intro at the Official residence article, while this discussion was/is ongoing, by one of the participants here. GoodDay ( talk) 15:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Straw poll 1

This argument covers two articles: Monarchy of Canada and Rideau Hall. But, the majority of discussion has already taken place here. So, it seems tidier to just continue here.

Instead of a formal RfC, I think an informal series of straw polls should be tried first, beginning with the simple question:

Are the following reliable sources enough to verify Rideau Hall and la Citadelle are the Canadian monarch's official residences in Ottawa and Quebec City, respectively?

• "Government House ('Rideau Hall') is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen (when in Ottawa)".[ 1; pg 34
• "Government House: Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall."[1; pg xvii]
• "Rideau Hall is the sovereign's home before it is the home of his or her representative".[ 2; pg 113
• "The Queen's residence in Canada, Rideau Hall."[2; pg 168]
• "Rideau Hall (the Queen's Canadian residence)."[ 3; no page number given
• "Rideau Hall, one of the Queen's Canadian homes [...] Rideau Hall has evolved in tandem with the Canadian Crown. Serving as the sovereign's primary Canadian residence" [...] La Citadelle is the Queen's second Canadian home".[ 4; pg 92
• "Rideau Hall was her home [...] her Ottawa residence".[ 5; pg 10
• Rideau Hall [...] has been the Royal Family's Canadian address since 1865".[5; pg 29]
• "She [the Queen] stayed at the Citadel, her official residence".[5; pg 190]
• "The last time I spoke to you from this, my home in Ottawa". 6; 1:25
• "They [King George VI and Queen Elizabeth] had only a short drive to their Quebec residence, the Citadel."[ 7; pg 8
• "[I]n the study of Rideau Hall, the governor general's and the monarch's official Canadian residence".[ 8
• "They [King George VI and Queen Elizabeth] then returned to their official Canadian residence [Rideau Hall] to prepare for their departure from Ottawa."[8]
• "Rideau Hall, the official residence in Ottawa of both the Canadian monarch and the Governor General of Canada".[ 9; no page number given
• "When Their Majesties walked into their Canadian residence [Rideau Hall], the Statute of Westminster had assumed full reality: the King of Canada had come home."[ 10] 11
• "The Citadelle [...] has been also an official residence of the Queen in Right of Canada".[ 12; pg 119

If it is determined we have sufficient verifiability for the information, the matter of where and how the information is presented, taking into account the governor general's place as official/co-official resident, can be addressed next. I believe we just need absolute clarity on the matter of sources and their ability to support the information about the buildings' statuses as official residences of the monarch. (This is not a challenge to the settled matter of which country the monarch resides in.) -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Yes There are more than enough reliable sources to verify that Rideau Hall and la Citadelle are regarded as official residences of the Canadian monarch. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment - as far as I can see the issue isn't whether these structures are nominally "official" residences of the monarch but whether a) this is their primary function or are they primarily vice-regal residences b) does their status as official residences of the monarch justify greater prominence in the articles than is currently the case c) should they be listed as residences in the Monarchy of Canada infobox and d) if so, then should all Government Houses in Canada (including residences of lieutenant governors) also be listed? e) does having an "official residence" the same as being a resident of Canada or residing here, even part-time.

It makes more sense to jump directly to these issues rather than precede them with a series of Leading questions. Wellington Bay ( talk) 18:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

As stated in the OP, the idea is to work on placement and composition next. Without getting too far ahead, I'd think the next question would be: should the residences be mentioned in this article's infobox and, if yes, how? But, I think there were doubts expressed about the sources in the previous discussion and I want to make sure we've got clarity on that subject first. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No - It's best we not give the false impression that the monarch resides/lives in the aforementioned residences. GoodDay ( talk) 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Were someone to get this "false impression" -- or to be inclined to repeat it, having been assured otherwise many times -- they could do worse then refer to our own official residence article. An official residence is the designated residence of an official such as a head of state, head of government, governor, religious leader, leaders of international organizations, or other senior figure, and may not always be the same place where the office holder conducts their official functions or lives. Helpful emph added. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 12:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I've doubts about the intro to Official residence. Check that articles' recent undiscussed changes, which were made mere days ago. GoodDay ( talk) 15:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, I think the more helpful part of that article is that it notes many buildings that are ceremonial and where the office holder does not live. Denmark lists six residences for its Monarch. Spain lists the Royal Palace of Madrid as an "official residence" but notes it is actually only used for ceremonies. Sweden lists Stockholm Palace as the official residence of the monarch despite no royal living there since 1981. There are many other examples. The argument that an official residence is only where a person actually lives is at odds with the article.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 20:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Does the King of Sweden reside in Sweden & does the King of Spain reside in Spain? We know the King of Canada does not reside in Canada. GoodDay ( talk) 20:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. Darryl's point was that where a person lives and what constitutes an official residence are two completely separate things. Saying that the Citadelle is an official state residence does not mean anything as to which people live where. No one is saying Charles III lives in Canada, and continuing to attack that strawman isn't productive. trackratte ( talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We are clear in that we disagree on the general topic-in-question. GoodDay ( talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Indeed, which itself is the justification for that piece of text in the lead section, per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD. Though a direct dicdeffish source would be an additional help. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 10:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Procedural oppose. Yet another attempt to sabotage, delay and defer consensus by reiterating the same discussion over and over, endlessly repeating the same RfC in different forms. DrKay ( talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The first RFC that was closed determined that "There is clear consensus is to describe the monarch as residing in the United Kingdom", which is not under discussion here. The article does do that, and no one is disputing it. This poll is specifically about the suitability of sources stating that two places are official residences, which has nothing to do with where the monarch lives.

The second RFC is for "should it be mentioned in this article that the Canadian Monarch resides in the UK", which has not been closed, but once again, is not what this poll is about as the article already mentions that fact and I don't think anyone currently opposes that.

I would suggest then that to not AGF and accuse an editor of just "another attempt to sabotage", particularly where there is no rational connection as I mention here, is inappropriate. trackratte ( talk) 18:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Yes - This issue is ridiculous. As trackratte notes above an "official residence" just means that somewhere has been deemed as a residence. It is not necessarily where someone hangs their hat. This never ending debate is ongoing because some editors are rejecting that distinction. We can note these as official residences, while also noting that the current monarch, Charles III lives in the UK. Some nuance and balance is needed in this article and the ongoing discussions. Hopefully, we will get there eventually.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 21:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Indeed, "official" sources, while somewhat inconsistent on which are Chuck's "official residences" in the UK (notably Hillsborough), are pretty clear that he doesn't live at one at all (but does some official business there), and he's very rarely to be found in any of the others, either. So it's not entirely shocking that the issue is fuzzier-still in his "other realms". 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 12:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes. We have ample sources, including one or more official sources from the Government of Canada itself which would be a highly persuasive if not definitive source for what is or is not an official residence and for what purpose, given that the Government of Canada is the sole authority to designate something as an official residence. Second, the only thing that makes an official residence an official residence is it's official designation. For example, see this Canadian official residence and this American official residence, both of which are explicitly labelled as official residences, and both of which as guest houses do not have anyone living in them nor are they meant to, yet they are still official residences. So, the argument as to where Charles III actually sleeps at night on a semi-regular basis is a strawman as that fact has nothing to do with the designation of something as an official residence. And no one is arguing that Charles III lives in Canada, in fact the opposite, every single person part of this discussion is for it being noted that he lives in the UK. trackratte ( talk) 18:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is crux of the dispute. A disagreement over the definition of "official resident" & "official residence". GoodDay ( talk) 20:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It isn't, and those terms aren't helpful. "Official resident" is more an immigration or taxation concept as to if someone is a permanent resident, or officially resides somewhere for purposes of income tax. And that whole sideline isn't even pertinent to Charles III who is not an official resident nor even a citizen of any country, including the UK.

An official residence can be a guest house where no one lives or is ever meant to live, and so the only thing that makes it an official residence is its official designation as such. No one is arguing that Charles III spends all of his time in Canada, just as no one is suggesting that Justin Trudeau lives at 24 Sussex. So, I don't see how continuing to attack a strawman is particularly productive, particularly as this poll is about the sources and what they support, and has nothing to do with where any particular person happens to live. trackratte ( talk) 20:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Your arguments aren't convincing me. Unless you or somebody else can prove to me that King Charles III resides/lives in Canada? I won't agree to having Rideau Hall or the Citadelle listed in the infobox. GoodDay ( talk) 21:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Straw poll 2

As it seems most everyone involved agrees that the sources we have collectively state Rideau Hall and la Citadelle are the Canadian monarch's official residences in Canada, I think the next question is:

Should Rideau Hall and la Citadelle be listed as official residences in the infobox of this article and, if yes, how?

• Yes Template:Infobox monarchy includes a field for residences. The template is for monarchies, not persons who are monarchs (that's Template:Infobox royalty); this article is about the Canadian monarchy, not the person who is monarch of Canada; and the article body makes clear the King doesn't spend most of his time in Canada. So, I don't see how showing Rideau Hall and la Citadelle in the infobox would mislead readers into believing Charles III lives even the majority of the time in Canada. However, if others feel otherwise, I'd propose a footnote explaining something like the residences are lived in mostly by the governor general and/or changing the infobox template itself to say "official residences" and link to Official residences. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• No - Best we not give the false impression that the monarch resides/lives in Canada. FWIW, King Charles III hasn't yet even step foot in Canada, during his (going on two years) reign. GoodDay ( talk) 21:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Yes. It is the extremely long-standing status quo, is factually accurate based on the sources presented, the fact that Charles III lives in the UK is mentioned multiple times in the article body, the existence of Charles III and Official Residence articles, and so with all of that there is little to indicate that any reasonable person would truly believe that Charles III lives full-time in Canada based solely on the fact that Canada has designated official residences to its own head of state. Also mindful of WP:NOCON and that the long-standing status quo (in this case the residences being in the infobox) until such time as clear consensus for change is established. trackratte ( talk) 21:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Yes per Trackratte. Or convert to a compressed See list format as is being used in the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article which links to List of British royal residences. Many other monarch's have multiple official residences, too many, to fit in an infobox. For that reason, Monarchy of Denmark also utilizes this format. Perhaps the see list format is an appropriate compromise. It could just link to Government Houses in Canada which could provide appropriate context.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak no, as while this seems to be just-about-verified, the silence of other prominent sources on the topic makes me lean to thinking this needs a degree of nuance and attribution, which would be much better done in the text. If we must, let's a) change the field name to make it explicit this is an official residence (rather than an "actual" one in most senses), and b) footnote it. But better, a strong yes to @Darryl's above secondary suggestion of a "see list" list, which seems to me to land on a page that discusses this in decent detail already (and can be further improved as required). 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 00:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• No they are vice-regal residences or estates [29] [30] any role as official residences for the monarch is secondary and marginal. (Interestingly, if the King and family had relocated to Canada during World War II they would have resided in neither of these two residences but at Hatley Castle which underscores the fact that their status as official residences of the monarch is nominal at best). Additionally, if Rideau and La Citadelle are to be listed in the infobox then all nine provincial and territorial Government Houses in Canada need to be listed as well as they too are nominally official residences of the monarch. Wellington Bay ( talk) 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• No. The parameter is optional and infoboxes aren't designed for nuanced or complex issues. The monarch has only been in Canada twice in the last 20 years, both times for about a week, and neither time living in either building. Celia Homeford ( talk) 10:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• No. Per Wikipedia:Article size, the article is already long and where cuts can be made, they should be. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the less information an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Wherever possible, exclude any unnecessary content and avoid in-article links. DrKay ( talk) 17:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• No. An infobox is meant to summarize key facts that appear in the article ( MOS:INFOBOX). A fact's weight in an article is, in turn, proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject ( WP:ASPECT). I don't think the body of available sources as a whole treats this as a key fact about the monarchy, and as noted above the infobox isn't suited to nuance that would be relevant here. (As an aside, identifying the Crown's vice-regal representatives is a key fact not currently covered in the infobox.)-- Trystan ( talk) 18:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Okay, so, the majority holds that Rideau Hall and la Citadelle shouldn't be in the infobox. What, then, of the suggestion above of just having "see list" and linking to Government Houses of Canada? That reduces the information in the infobox here, is proportional to the treatment the subject receives in this article, and avoids complexity in the infobox. Also, let's remember this article is about the institution of the Canadian monarchy, not the person who is monarch, and the institution of the Canadian monarchy includes the governors, general and lieutenant. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Seems reasonable to me. More proportional use of infobox space, and the destination article can provide appropriate context. I would suggest "See Government Houses in Canada" over "See list" to give the reader a better indication of what is being linked to.-- Trystan ( talk) 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Pipe it as "Government Houses" (for the sake of space, and for not saying "Canada" for the ten-millionth time in the article), and stick a fork in it. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 17:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We don't need any 'see also' or 'see links' in the infobox, concerning Rideau Hall & the Citadelle, directly or indirectly. GoodDay ( talk) 17:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Unnecessary. "Monarch of..." pages for the other Commonwealth realms, aside from the UK, do not list residences or use a see list link in the infobox. Wellington Bay ( talk) 19:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Because those don't have a profusion of sources stating that they have official residences? We seem to be circling around the drain on this. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 20:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  The various monarchies are synchronous so there should be consistency across the various "Monarchy of" articles. Wellington Bay ( talk) 13:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I assume that contra its indent, this is a reply to my comment, rather than to your own. The articles should be "consistent", even if the facts are not? That's a novel theory. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  There's no logical reason for the facts to be different since the monarch constitutionally plays the same role in each non-UK realm. The nominal status of residences, which are officially termed " vice-regal" residences or estates as also being official residences of the monarch is noted in the text, there is no reason to include it in the infobox for the reasons asserted by various people in the poll. A see list entry is included in the Monarchy of the United Kingdom infobox but that is also the state the monarch actually lives in. Wellington Bay ( talk) 19:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  The Monarchy of the UK and of Canada are distinct. This proposal that we should use British designated buildings is ridiculous and contrary to the citations above.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Indeed it would be if anyone suggested it, but no one did as far as I can see. Are you sure you aren't raising a straw man argument here? Wellington Bay ( talk) 01:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  My mistake, I misunderstood. But if you are going to accuse me of a strawman, lets go down that road. It seems we are removing the mention of residences because you and GoodDay continue to insist an official residence is something it is not. If you insist Charles III's offical residence is where he actually lives (as opposed to what Canada designates his official residence) then we should be using British residences. That's wrong, but it is the logical extention of much of your arguments above. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 01:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  No, I've actually said several times that the fact that these residences are also nominally official residences of the monarch is mentioned in the text of the article and I have also said elsewhere this should not be removed. However, my point is that this is a secondary function, that the primary function of these residences is as vice-regal residences (hence they are referred to as such by the Canadian government) and that their function as official residences of the monarch is nominal and marginal at best and doesn't merit being mentioned in the infobox. Also, even though all the other Government Houses of Commonwealth Realms around the world are technically owned by the King and are technically official residences of the King - none of them are listed as such in either articles about them or articles about the Monarchy in those countries so for us to do so here in the infobox of this article would be inconsistent. Wellington Bay ( talk) 01:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  The distinction is that it seems those other Monarchies don't seem to designate Government Houses as official residences of the Monarch but Canada does. For whatever reason it seems Australia, NZ, etc deem their government houses only residences of their Governors etc. For one reason or the other, Canada has said they are also official residences of the Monarch themselves.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 02:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  King Charles III resides only in the United Kingdom. He doesn't reside in Canada. Until that changes? no residences should be shown in this article's infobox. GoodDay ( talk) 01:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I don't believe anyone is suggesting listing British residences in this article's infobox. GoodDay ( talk) 00:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  But not all residences C3 'actually lives in', so again this is wildly besides the point. And you're on the one hand arguing what the facts "shouldn't be", and on the other, that they're already covered in the article. Are we debating V, or DUE? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 15:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Footnote 1 states: "The date of the first establishment of monarchy in Canada varies: some sources give the year as 1497, when John Cabot landed somewhere along the North American coast (most likely Nova Scotia or Newfoundland) claiming an undefined extent of land for King Henry VII, while others put it at 1534, when the colony of Canada was founded in the name of King Francis I. Historian Carolyn Harris places the beginning of Canada's monarchical government at the appointment of Samuel de Champlain as Governor of New France, representing King Louis XIII, in 1627. Although the exact date differs, the fact that a monarchical form of governance has existed since the 16th century is in common agreement."

Question: If Carolyn Harris dates monarchial government in Canada from 1627 (ie the 17th century), how can the next sentence say "the fact that a monarchial form of governance has existed since the 16th century is in common agreement"? Wellington Bay ( talk) 02:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Because the note says that the consensus of the sources say that it dates from (at least) the 16th century, some say before that, but all agree that it was in place from the 16th century.

Text of the note: "The date of the first establishment of monarchy in Canada varies: some sources give the year as 1497, when John Cabot landed somewhere along the North American coast (most likely Nova Scotia or Newfoundland) claiming an undefined extent of land for King Henry VII, while others put it at 1534, when the colony of Canada was founded in the name of King Francis I. Historian Carolyn Harris places the beginning of Canada's monarchical government at the appointment of Samuel de Champlain as Governor of New France, representing King Louis XIII, in 1627. Although the exact date differs, the fact that a monarchical form of governance has existed since the 16th century is in common agreement."

Also, the Government of Canada says "The Crown in Canada was first established by the kings of France and England in the 15th] century, so again, a lot of sources say the 15th century (perhaps the majority), however, the "common agreement" is as of the 16th. trackratte ( talk) 03:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"Because the note says that the consensus of the sources say that it dates from (at least) the 16th century, some say before that, but all agree that it was in place from the 16th century." Except for Harris and Monet, one of the sources cited for the footnote [31], who say it dates from the 17th century. Citing sources that claim various dates from the 15th to 17th centuries and using that to say there is "common agreement" for the 16th because that falls in the middle appears to be WP:SYNTH. Wellington Bay ( talk) 04:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to. The archived Canadian Encyclopedia article linked is for the governor general and discusses the creation date of that office. Perhaps it would be easier to drill down to exactly what you think the issue is by including a quote and a link to whichever of the references you think gives rise to a potential editorial problem that we need to resolve. trackratte ( talk) 05:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The archived Canadian Encyclopedia article is one of the sources used for the 16th century claim despite not making any such claim. Point is the note is badly written. It gives dates ranging from the 15th to 17th century then asserts "the fact that a monarchical form of governance has existed since the 16th century is in common agreement". None of the cited sources say there is common agreement; that statement is WP:SYNTH. Better to say "from the 15th to 17th centuries", "as early as the 15th century" or "as late as the 17th century" or just take out that sentence entirely as it adds nothing to the note. Wellington Bay ( talk) 10:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I note your edit in the main space changing it to "since as early as the 15th century", and I agree. trackratte ( talk) 00:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Would you be okay with my removing the last part of note 1? It is SYNTHy and really is unnecessary and an overexplanation given the rest of the note. Wellington Bay ( talk) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The last sentence of note 1 has a reference which itself actually contains five or six references which I think would be inappropriate to remove entirely. Also, it would seem that of the 10 citations, only one seems to say the 1600s, one or two say 1400s, and the rest say 1500s including the Government of Canada itself in two separate officially published sources. So, the official stance of Canada is the 1500s, academics have a bit of range 1497 to early 1600s, but the centre of mass as it were is clearly in the 1500s. Now, if you would like to propose how to more clearly convey that message in the last sentence of Note 1 certainly, as I do agree that the way that it is phrased currently is sub-optimal. trackratte ( talk) 17:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That's another thing - this habit of nesting references actually makes the sourced harder to access- and I thought there was a policy against overreferencing. Three sources is more than enough - having 8 or 9 references for one detail is completely unnecessary. Wellington Bay ( talk) 23:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nesting should be done as per WP:NFN, and I assume there are that many references as it was previously a point of contention or disputed. In this case with a bit of a spread of dates, we also have to remain cognisant of WP:Cherrypick and WP:VER in terms of providing the info, the nuance, and ensure that "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" for each data point (i.e. 1497, 1532, etc). So, I would be wary of removing a bunch of citations, however, if someone thinks that a specific source should be removed for whatever reason feel free to make that case, I just don't feel it particularly necessary to spend the time to go through each and every source for a footnote at the moment.

As for the phrasing, did you have a suggestion? trackratte ( talk) 15:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"Common agreement" is certainly very awkward phrasing, above and beyond anything else. We should really be either stating something in editorial voice (with references), or attributing them to their sources. This seems like a confused mixture of the two, where we attribute them, then "sum up" in a loaded (and on the face of it, contradictory) manner. Ideally, unless we want to go into this in great detail -- and I assume we don't, otherwise why's it only a footnote? -- we'd cite a small number of secondary or tertiary sources that sum up what the "centre of mass" and the range is. Rather than trying to do our own meta-analysis from a large number of sources, which teeters towards OR/SYNTH. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 00:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Looking at the history of this article I see that at one time it referred to the Queen as the de jure head of state and the governor general as the de facto head of state. At some point this was removed. I have found two solid references - the Commonwealth of Nations website, which refers to the GG of Canada as the de facto head of state [32] a BBC News article referring to the late Queen as the de jure head of state [33] Wellington Bay ( talk) 02:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Please, no. "De jure" and "de facto" are Latin terms (strike one); which have no defined meaning in Canadian constitutional law in relation to the Gov Gen (strike two); and in some cases mean an illegitimate arrangement, not sanctioned by law (strike three). See, for example, the entry in the De facto article under "Governance and sovereignty":

"A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead."

Is that what you are referring to if you suggest that the Gov Gen is a "de facto" head of state?

I do not think that either of those sites counts as a "solid" summary for the purposes of Canadian constitutional law. Unless you have something from a Canadian constitutional law or poli sci text, I strongly suggest we not use such confusing terminology. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 03:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you can make your objection to the Commonwealth of Nations since that's the language used on their website? [34] Or do you believe the Commonwealth of Nations is not a reliable source when it comes to Commonwealth realms? Wellington Bay ( talk) 03:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Not for Canadian constitutional law, no.

I should add that there is a use of "de facto" in Canadian constitutional law, meaning someone who is holding an office in good faith but with some flaw in their appointment that no-one is aware of. When the flaw comes to light, the past actions of the de facto officer are nonetheless valid, but from that point on the de facto officer must cease to exercise the authority of the office. Best case on point is Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights. But that is not the case with the Gov Gen, an office created by law under the Constitution Act, 1867, whose powers are defined by law, and who are validly appointed. We should not be using a term which indicates an invalid appointment and lack of authority.

Since that is the meaning of "de facto", as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, that governs, not a website from out of the country. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 03:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Let me flip the question around. If you add "de facto", what do you mean by it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 03:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

See also The Efficient and Dignified Roles of the Crown in Canadian Foreign Policy by Richard Berthelsen and Philippe Lagassé (who is a recognized constitutional scholar and expert on the monarchy), which says in regards to the GG making foreign visits: "Visits which are undertaken benefit from the rank of the governor general as the de facto head of state in the international context." [35]. To answer your question what I mean by it is irrelevant, the point is these are terms used by reliable sources, including in this case by a constitutional scholar who is a recognized authority on the monarchy and is already quoted in our article. Wellington Bay ( talk) 03:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"I should add that there is a use of "de facto" in Canadian constitutional law, meaning someone who is holding an office in good faith but with some flaw in their appointment that no-one is aware of." You're thinking of the "de facto officer doctrine" [36]. The term de facto itself means "Existing as a matter of fact rather than of right." [37] or simply "in fact"." [38] Wellington Bay ( talk) 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The first sources states "... functions as the de facto...", which is two degrees of separation in one. And somewhat similarly, the second one scarequotes de facto. I don't think we should state that in wikivoice in any strengthened form, and I think it's better to state the facts as they are in terms, rather than using rather vague but fancy-sounding terms to characterise them. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 07:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This article doesn't say the King "is the de jure head of state" or the GG "is the de facto head of state", it says the offices "have been described as" de facto or de jure, which is factual and sourced and more sources can be provided if necessary. Wellington Bay ( talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no consensus for this radical change. There are numerous WP:RS which describe the monarch as the head of state without the qualifier of "de jure". I further disagree that it is proper to simply apply the term "de facto" without explaining what it means in this context. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's question should be answered. Also it seems to be a stretch to say it is "often" described this way, and saying that "it is described as" is WP:WEASEL. You might as well say "some people say...". Let's just not do this.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 18:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If anything, this seems like more of a fit for the GG page, where there's space -- and aptness -- to go into the '[named commentators] have said the GG's role has elements of that as head of state' minutiae. WB, as I've said two of those quotes don't support that text, and if the third isn't just an outlier, I'd have to see these others and judge if there's any case this is to him them due weight. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 19:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The monarch is the head of state, period. The governor general is merely a representative of the monarch. GoodDay ( talk) 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Forgive me, but I shall have to oppose your proposed changes on this matter, both here & at the Governor General of Canada page. As long as Canada is a constitutional monarchy? the monarch is its head of state. GoodDay ( talk) 20:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Darryl, it's not a radical change, its a reversion to the status quo ante before WP:OWN issues developed in the article. It is also well sourced so whether you agree with the terms or not, there is ample evidence that these terms have been used. For instance, there's the fact that previous governors general referred to themselves as the "de facto head of state": "The present Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, has adopted a somewhat different position, preferring instead to refer to the Governor General as Canada’s “de facto head of state” in a September 2006 media release" [39]

as well as the public broadcaster: "The Governor General acts as the Queen's representative in Canada and Canada's de facto head of state. (The Queen is the official head of state.)" [40] "The governor general is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister and acts as the Queen's representative in Canada and Canada's de facto head of state." [41]

Constitutional scholar C.E.S. (Ned) Franks: "Should the Governor General explain that she fulfills the same role as head of state in Canada as the Queen does in England, and although her position is described as being the Queen’s representative in Canada she is in practice the de facto head of state in Canada, and that Canada is really a country unto itself completely independent of Britain? " [42]

"Constitutional Monarchs in Parliamentary Democracies": "Constitutional monarchy is often associated with a history of British rule and still exists in the 16 Commonwealth realms where the British monarch continues to be head of state. Outside the UK, the Queen is represented by a viceregal official, called the governor-general, who acts in place of the monarch and serves as the de facto head of state." [43]

Richard Myers in the Dalhouse Review, ""The Crown in a Democracy" Revisited": "There is no reason to suggest that these particular individuals were not qualified for the position of Governor General. In fact, all three served with distinction. The problem, however, is that a precedent has now been established: the office of Governor Gener1l, which in MacKinnon's theory is supposed to have enough prestige to outshine the office of Prime Minister, can henceforth be handed out as a patronage plum to the party faithful. 1bis means that our de facto head of state now has about as much prestige as our appointed senators" [44]

Tim Sheaff, Ministry of Attorney General in the Government of British Columbia writing in Constitutional Forum "A Minimalistic Approach to Severing the British Royal Family from Canada’s Constitution": "As a result of the creation of a fictitious monarch, there would be no individual to exercise the Sovereign’s power to appoint or remove a GG. To address this gap, this article makes sug-gestions to mimic the current practical exercise of appointing the GG and maintaining the chain of hierarchy within the constitutional order. It suggests that the combination of these elements would retain the GG’s status and role as de facto head of state, guarantor of respon-sible government, and representative of the Crown in Canada, and to this extent, the legal theory of the office would not be undermined." [45]

To name a few. As for the monarch as de jure head of state, there's:

Studler & Christensen in the journal Political Science & Politics, "Is Canada a Westminster or consensus democracy? A brief analysis": "Having a monarch as de jure head of state can constitutionally reinforce executive dominance." [46]

Now yes, monarchists disagree with these terms, but even Toffoli, while railing against it, concedes that "The Queen is often described as the de jure 'head of state' of a Commonwealth country while the Governor General is described as the de-facto head of state"... but then he also argues that "In British and Canadian constitutional law there is no such thing as a 'head of state'" and that the Queen is "the legal embodiment of the state" which I think most people aside from ardent monarchists would think is romantic and esoteric nonsense. Wellington Bay ( talk) 20:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Clearly it's not the de jure position that's in any way controversial or remarkable. There's literally a law saying who the monarch is. Unless that's being used as an express or clearly implied contrast, let's not divert ourselves down that avenue. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 21:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

" Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's question should be answered." - I answered his question earlier. He was confusing the "de facto officer doctrine" with all uses of the term de facto in law. As you can see from my above citations, many of which are by constitutional scholars, the term "de facto head of state" is in wide usage. Also, if you search canlii there are plenty of instances of de facto being used without the impugned meaning of the "de facto officer doctrine" which is one specific usage. Quite simply, the Serjeant's argument is a red herring. Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You stated: To answer your question what I mean by it is irrelevant, the point is these are terms used by reliable sources, including... a... scholar. This is not an answer to Buzfuz's question, it is a claim that his question does not need to be answered. I understand your statement that you don't mean de facto officer doctrine but that doesn't tell us what you do mean, nor what it adds to simply say some have "described" it that way.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 21:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, it's not a "radical change", in fact it's not a change at all. The article already said: "Some governors general, their staff, government publications,[222] and constitutional scholars like Ted McWhinney and C.E.S. Franks have,[253][254] however, referred to the position of governor general as that of Canada's head of state;[255][256] though, sometimes qualifying the assertion with de facto or effective;" [47] and has said so for years. Indeed, there has been a reference to "de facto head of state" since the article was created. The only thing I did was bring back the reference to the monarch as "de jure" which was removed at some point. So please, Good Day and Darryl, explain how it's a "radical change" when a reference to the GG being called the "de facto head of state has always been in the article? Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If you're going to continue to push these changes into this page & the GG's page? Then, I recommend you have a straw poll or an RFC, on the matter. GoodDay ( talk) 21:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

See the Head of State section of the article. The sources there clearly establish that official government sources, judges, constitutional scholars, and pollsters view the monarch as the head of state, and the GG as only a representative. There may be a minority that apply the term "de facto" to the GG, or say that we "should", but they are a small minority which hold a view contrary to the much stronger majority view. Representing the minority view as the correct one, or as a widely accepted view is unwise, and WP:UNDUE.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 21:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Darryl Kerrigan: "that doesn't tell us what you do mean" - Please see the post I made earlier where I say "The term de facto itself means "Existing as a matter of fact rather than of right." [48] or simply "in fact" [49] [50] Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ GoodDay: Read the article. It has had a reference to de facto all along. As I asked earlier, what, exactly, is the "radical change" you're referring to? It can't be the use of de facto as the article has used the term for the past 22 years. Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would support removing the reference you're pointing out. It's best we not promote confusion over who's head of state. GoodDay ( talk) 21:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You're confusing your personal opinion with reliable and verifiable sources. There is no reason to remove information that is supported by high quality sources such as academic articles written by experts in the Canadian Constitution. Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ GoodDay: can you concede that using the term "de facto" is not a "radical change" as you previously claimed given that the term has been in the article for the past 22 years? Check for yourself, click on any version of the article from 2002 until now and search for the term "de facto". Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Per WP:WEIGHT, your changes are in error & shouldn't be accepted. I recommend the 'defacto' bit be removed. PS - I don't think you're going to get a consensus for the changes you want to make, concerning this matter. GoodDay ( talk) 21:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

They're not "in error". They say that the GG "has been described as the de facto head of state" and use several sources (and I can add several more that I've stated above). These are reliable and verifiable, high quality sources. Do you deny that the GG has been described as the de facto head of state and the monarch as the de jure head of state? If you deny that how do you explain the various sources ranging from the CBC to academic journals which use the term de facto head of state? Are these forgeries? You are confusing things you don't like or disagree with with things that are are not reliably sourced. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is pretty a non-existent debate within Canada. I have seen something similar with Australia. Within the context of Canada the debate is generally about a ceremonial position over who's actually de facto head of state. We've dealt with this a few times. Moxy🍁 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ GoodDay: And you haven't answered my question. How is it a "radical change" when the term has been in the article all along? Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You made changes to this & the GG article's intros, on a matter that (as you can see) is already settled. The monarch is the head of state. I'm asking you to drop this topic. GoodDay ( talk) 21:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Do you see the difference between "the governor general is the de facto head of state" and "the governor general has been described as the de facto head of state"? Do you acknowledge that multiple sources describe the GG as such? If so, how is it an error to state "the governor general has been described" in a way that the governor general has been described (and in the case of Jean, has described herself)? Wellington Bay ( talk) 21:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We're going in circles on this. Therefore, I've requested more input from members of WP:CANADA. -- GoodDay ( talk) 22:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It may clarify things if you answered my question. Do you agree or disagree that "the governor general has been described as the de facto head of state" by various scholars and by at least one governor general? Wellington Bay ( talk) 22:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Per WP:WEIGHT, the monarch is Canada's head of state. I can't support the changes you wish to make. The governor general is merely the monarch's representative. Canada doesn't have two heads of state, no matter what a few people believe. GoodDay ( talk) 22:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You haven't answered my question. Has the governor general been described as the de facto head of state by various scholars, prominent media, and at least one GG herself? Wellington Bay ( talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Irrelevant, as it doesn't change the fact as to who the head of state is. The monarch. GoodDay ( talk) 22:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No one has said it does. Wellington Bay ( talk) 23:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's at all radical to call the GG the de facto head of state... and certainly even less radical to note they have been described as the de facto head of state. de facto basically means "in practice" and, c'mon, in practice the GG does not ring up the monarch every time there's something that requires royal assent or for the GG to do something official and say "your majesty, is it okay that I do this in your name for your unimportant little colony called Canada?" So, in terms of practicalities, the GG performs as the head of state even though by law (i.e. de jure), it's the monarch who holds that title. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 23:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it would be radical to do it in our (Wikipedia's) voice, or as WB proposed in the lede. The article already contains discussion of this in the Head of State section. The issue is whether these edits or these ones were appropriate. I think the entries in the Head of state section are appropriate, they appear to be balanced showing that nearly all identify the monarch as the head of state, but then also discuss this "de facto" claim with proper attribution to those making it. The problem of including the "de facto" claim in the lede is one of WP:WEIGHT (it give too much prominence to a minority view) and of avoiding weasel words like "some people say" or "it has been described by some". Furthermore, we are trying to shorten this article at present, so adding more content to the lede (that is already dealt with elsewhere) is unnecessary. Anyway, hopefully that focuses us on what the issues really are.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

To be honest, the article is so long that I did not see there was an existing reference to the "de facto" head of state issue in the body of the article. I had noticed looking at earlier versions of the article that there had been a reference to the Queen being the de jure head of state and the GG being de facto head of state in the lede. I might not have re-added these references in the lede had I seen them in the body. I'm wondering though if the reference in the head of state section needs to be updated or clarified? Wellington Bay ( talk) 22:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

To me it seems resonant with comments about the UK -- never mind the viceregal- and vice-viceregal-rich realms -- being a 'crowned republic'. Slightly fatuous if taken entirely literally, but one can follow the point being made by the turn of phrase. Certainly zaniness like the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis has much the same quality as do wheel-wars between appointed presidents and elected governments elsewhere. But again I'd say getting into the weeds of that are better dealt with at the GG and GGoC articles. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 22:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Who's the head of state of Canada? The monarch or the governor general?

An RFC might be the next step. But for the moment, perhaps a straw poll on this topic, should take place. GoodDay ( talk) 22:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Monarch - Per WP:WEIGHT. -- GoodDay ( talk) 22:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• wrong question You are misframing or perhaps misunderstanding the issue. The question should be should the article state that the governor general has been described as the de facto head of state and the monarch described as the de jure (or official) head of state. No one disagrees that the monarch is the official head of state. Wellington Bay ( talk) 22:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Monarch G. Timothy Walton ( talk) 00:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Monarch...... But I agree the question is phrase wrongly. "The Governor General acts as the Queen's representative in Canada and Canada's de facto head of state. (The Queen is the official head of state.)" ^[1]..... This is easily sourced.... Just simply need to say how this is related to the debate about the monarchy itself in Canada... Those four and against the monarchy itself... that is that Canada's is a de facto "Republic" already. ^{[2] [3]}.... This is simply so rarely talked about in Canada that it's a shock when it comes up. ^[4] Moxy🍁 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close and strong give these antics a rest to the poll-starter. This is a complete misrepresentation of the point at issue, whether one engendered of a good-faith lack of comprehension of it, or otherwise. Given the pattern of behaviour though... 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 10:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close per Moxy and 109.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 17:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Head of state was a term coined in the 1960s to encompass both monarchs and presidents. It's always going to be a problem to fit Canada's square peg into this round hole. Of course the discussion should be covered but the article should not come down on one side or the other. TFD ( talk) 18:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Frankly, Toffoli's ultra-monarchist view that the monarch is the "embodiment of the state" is too reminiscent of Louis XIV's apocryphal L'État, c'est moi for modern tastes. Wellington Bay ( talk) 23:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I could see this argument having developed (as it has before sorta, years ago), concerning Australia. But, didn't think I'd see it develop in any form concerning Canada. Maybe I'm fatigued, with the whole "head of state" topic-in-general. Anyways, if anybody wants to close down this straw poll? Go for it. GoodDay ( talk) 22:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yeah we've seen this in Australia article ... with a few shockpuppets along the way.... simply not a big debate in Canada. The debate Canadians have is for or against the monarchy as an institution. We generally don't discuss the constitutional runaround as they have in Australia to minor extent. As by the sources provided for this it's just obscure not really covered by scholars in Canadian academia. Moxy🍁 02:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Probably because Canadians haven't had their government fired by one. Yet! As I've suggested elsewhere, ideally we'd factor out elements that aren't particular to Canada, or aren't particular to the monarchy per se to other articles. The role of a GG isn't really either of those things. In theory uniquely Canadian commentary on the role is in-scope, but given size and weight considerations, seems a hard case to make for inclusion. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

--

There is a passage of the article that reads: "Monet and Frank MacKinnon discerned in that decade that the Crown, as a legal and constitutional entity, had, instead, become the cynosure." No page number is given for the sources but conducting a quick search of both it doesn't appear that the term "cynosure" appears in either. Given that the term is obscure, to put it mildly, can we find a more accessible term to use? Frankly, there is a lot of arcane or obscure language used in this article. Wellington Bay ( talk) 01:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I've removed it. It's unnecessary. Celia Homeford ( talk) 09:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply