Misplaced Pages

Talk:Monarchy of Canada

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miesianiacal (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 2 April 2024 (→Residences). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:50, 2 April 2024 by Miesianiacal (talk | contribs) (→Residences)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
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, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-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.
Former featured article candidateMonarchy of Canada is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 17, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 24, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCanada: Governments Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
WikiProject iconCommonwealth
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Misplaced Pages. 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
WikiProject iconRoyalty and Nobility
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Misplaced Pages. 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
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Meaning of reside

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus is to describe the monarch as residing in the United Kingdom. Although the question at hand was not particularly well described, it is clear from the responses that the discussion centers around the description of the monarch as residing primarily (or some other qualifier) in the UK or residing in the UK, and the description of their residency in the article as a whole, including the infobox. It stands to reason that noting a residence is "official," in that it belongs to the office and is not where the monarch actually resides, is in line with this consensus. The argument that the amount of time the monarch spends in a location has no bearing on how we should describe their residence gained little traction in the discussion with views such as I would say the King is resident in London, but resides in, or is resident in, various government houses when he tours Canada... We should not try to pretend the monarch of Canada lives in Canada when he simply doesn't... He very occasionally visits other realms, as with his predecessor. Brief stays are not what you would ordinarily indicate with the word reside... Indeed, since his accession, Charles III has yet to visit Canada... All these citations are written before the king's accession and common sense and natural idiom dictate that the king resides only in the United Kingdom. being the significant majority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


Where does the King of Canada "reside"? DrKay (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  • In the United Kingdom. The article currently claims that he resides at Rideau Hall, Ottawa and La Citadelle, Quebec City, in addition to residing "predominantly" in the United Kingdom. So extraordinary is this claim that it has only survived in the article by being bolstered by a run of about a dozen claimed citations, which is clearly a case of Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill. All these citations are written before the king's accession and common sense and natural idiom dictate that the king resides only in the United Kingdom. DrKay (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 10#Queen's Residence (and governor general's) DrKay (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Edits removing such disputed content were reverted, even when they only concerned a single word . It is disruptive to continue edits, such as removing the disputed content from the infobox, when editors know that such edits are highly likely to be disputed and when an active discussion is open. The reverting editor has not edited wikipedia since the RfC was opened, and so there is a high likelihood that they have not yet had a chance to comment here. I would prefer the RfC to be kept open until the reverting editor either confirms the objection is removed or sufficient time for comment has been allowed. DrKay (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, but the point is that there hasn't been a discussion on the talk page here first, as is required by RFCBEFORE, which might have resulted in a compromise or editors changing their minds. Even if closed, nothing would preclude having a talk page discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The lack of notice of this RfC is something to consider. We can see from the opener's edit history that he alerted no one. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
So the monarch spends the same amount of time (for examples) in Canada or Grenada or Belize, as in the United Kingdom? GoodDay (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Living primarily in the United Kingdom doesn't stop Charles from having residences overseas. For instance, Charles frequently visits Romania and maintains his own estate there. Peter Ormond 💬 16:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
We're interested in where he physically resides, which happens to be the United Kingdom. Not where he stays overnight or a few nights, when visiting other countries. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
There are laws governing residency in Romania. The article in House and Garden calls the property a "hotel" and a "guesthouse", which readers can book for a price. That appears to show that it is a business not a residence. DrKay (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • King Charles lives/resides – not primarily, solely – in the UK. He very occasionally visits other realms, as with his predecessor. Brief stays are not what you would ordinarily indicate with the word reside. I think using this language is based more off of wanting to "prove" the equality of the realms rather than in what reliable sources say or what common sense would indicate. ITBF (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • In the United Kingdom. The King of Thailand reportedly lives in Germany although he has official residences in Thailand. Queen Margarethe II of Denmark lives in Denmark although she owns a residence in France. King Juan Carlos I reportedly lives in the United Arab Emirates. We should not try to pretend the monarch of Canada lives in Canada when he simply doesn't. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • In the United Kingdom The Citadel etc. are what could be termed secondary residences, the equivalent of cottages or holiday villas owned by common folk. One could say for example that one resided in Toronto but resided in Muskoka during the summer. But one would only say one resided in Muskoka when one happened to be there and Toronto would remain one's permanent place of residence. So I would say the King is resident in London, but resides in, or is resident in, various government houses when he tours Canada. But if he stays in Toronto, he stays in a hotel or private residence and therefore is not resident there. TFD (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Depends The King has numerous residences, private and official, all over the world. How long he spends in each is irrelevant to the fact that, when he spends time in one of them, he is residing in that residence and, therefore, in the country in which that residence is located. The fact that Rideau Hall is the King's Ottawa residence is supported by no less than six reliable sources and the Citadelle of Quebec by two. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Closure

I've put in a request at Misplaced Pages:Closure requests, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this actually need formal closure? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Just so objectors don't come back & complain there was no formal closure. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
It's five supporting the UK, a procedural close request, and a depends. That's about as clear as you need. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Closing the discussion says If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable (bolding in original). Is the consensus here not obvious? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Does this cover the attempt to replace "resides...", with "lives..."? GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Yes, we do need a formal close. As everyone here expected, the argument will be constantly litigated without one: . DrKay (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits made before closure

The status of Rideau Hall and la Citadelle as residences was not part of the RfC, nor were the words "oldest and most populous" (apologies for the typo in the edit summary). The question the RfC asked was, "where does the King of Canada 'reside'?" "Predominanlty in the United Kingdom" acknowledges the King resides in the United Kingdom. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, just because no one made an official close does not mean there isn't a clear consensus that goes against your position. Editing against consensus is disruptive, especially when the consensus is as clear as this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The only apparent consensus is that Charles III resides in the UK, which was actually never in dispute. There's been no discussion on actual wording of the article (including the removal of "oldest and most populous") and which buildings in Canada are the King's residences is a completely separate matter settled at Talk:Rideau Hall years ago, with numerous RSs to support the info currently in WP. Let's be very clear on this clear consensus. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@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)

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)
I've already pinged the RFC closer for clarification. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The RFC closer is not on Misplaced Pages at the moment. Let's wait until he chimes in & clarifies his RFC decision, please. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
There is no basis to your accusation; the RfC concluded the popular opinion among a handful of Misplaced Pages 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)
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)

""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)

@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)

RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes or
No

Survey

  • Yes - Simply because the Canadian monarch does reside in (and only in) the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • It depends Obviously. The article should mention that the monarch resides in the UK only if that information has some pertinence to the content of the article. The editor who opened this RfC seems to think the information's relevant because the viceroys exist and posses their powers due to the monarch residing in the UK. That assertion, however, has never been supported by a reliable source (or any source, for that matter; as much as the claim "the Canadian monarch resides only in the UK" has no source and is, indeed, countered by reliable sources). Sources I've found, so far, say the governors are there because the monarch cannot always be in Canada or they act in the monarch's absence (which isn't quite true because they can act regardless of where the monarch is, including in Canada). If there's no reason to state here "the monarch resides in the UK", then, the answer to the question is "no". If there is some valid reason to incorporate it, then the answer is, "yes". It's up to the asking editor to explain why it should be included. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes - it is a factual statement, and it helps non-Canadians to understand how the monarchy works in Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"The Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom." How does that help any reader understand how the Canadian monarchy works? Particularly given this article has a lengthy section on the monarch's Canadian residences and household. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
All the projecting aside, the only link pertinent to your side of the debate is this one. Thank you for finally providing one. However, your side having one supporting source while the other side has these--"he Queen cannot be in Canada at all times. Her principal residence is in London and she is also Queen of 14 other Commonwealth countries in addition to the United Kingdom and Canada. As Queen of Canada, Her Majesty is represented here in federal jurisdiction by the governor general and in each of our ten provinces by a lieutenant governor." "The King can't be physically present in every country of which he is sovereign, so he relies on his viceregal representative to act on his behalf".--hardly makes the other side a "fringe view'.
There are now two takes on this: "the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he lives in the UK" and "the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he is monarch of 14 other countries and his principal residence is in the UK", the former is supported by one RS and the latter by two RSs. (And each partly by one other RS--"The King resides in the United Kingdom most of the time" (you can't in any way call Carolyn Harris "fringe") and (from a less scholarly author) the Queen lives in the United Kingdom"). So, what now? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
You've said your piece, time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and let others comment. Nemov (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
You've misrepresented my question. Everyone is free to comment. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
No, I understand WP:BLUDGEONING, but feel free to keep hitting the horse. Nemov (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
No, you misrepresented my question and are getting in the way of an answer to it, which stymies discussion, which prevents mutually agreeable resolution to the conflict. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Maybe - If the sentence is clear that by monarch or sovereign we mean the 'current' monarch (ie Charles III) then I think it is accurate to say he resides in the UK. Otherwise I would lean towards the language proposed by Miesianiacal that the monarch 'predominantly' resides in the UK. If we are talking about all former monarchs and perhaps future ones, we shouldn't be quite so definitive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Darryl Kerrigan: the word "predominantly" was removed a few weeks ago, as it appeared to suggest that the monarch resided in multiple sovereign states. The monarch (Charles III) resides in only one sovereign state. The United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure. The problem with stating that the monarch or sovereign resides in the UK (as opposed to the "current" sovereign) is that it suggests that there is a rule that the monarch "must" live in the UK. Some might say that monarchs reside at Buckingham Palace which might be true of most monarchs to date, but there is no policy or rule that they "must" reside at Buckingham. In fact there was early reporting following the death of Elizabeth II that Charles III would not reside at Buckingham (and instead at Clarence House), though he seems to have subsequently changed his mind. Elizabeth II also spent a lot of time residing Balmoral Castle in Scotland during her life. Of course, while all of these locations are in the UK, the point is that we can say where a specific monarch lives/resides, but we cannot say that there is an official residence were all monarchs are to live, or a law or rule requiring them to live in a particular place, estate or country. The lede currently reads The sovereign resides in the United Kingdom., which is ambiguous (perhaps intentionally) about whether we are taking about the "current" monarch or the office generally (and thus suggesting the officeholder is required to reside in a particular place).-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't fully comprehend, what the point is you're trying to make. So, I won't trouble you any further. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
That's akin to what I've been saying about statements like "Canada has a governor general and lieutenant governors because the monarch resides in the UK". It's an unverified claim that implies there's a clause in the constitution that a) legally sets the UK as the monarch's country of residence and b) states the governors exist only so long as the monarch is residing in the UK. There isn't. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this should be modified to read that he "primarily resides" in the UK. According to the federal government's manual on the monarchy, the monarch's "principal residence is in the United Kingdom" (pp 10). It would be appropriate for this article to also state that the monarch's "principal residence" is in the UK or that he pimarily resides there. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • No It is not clear whether one is referring to the office(s) or the individual. We could say for example that 24 Sussex Drive is the residence of the Canadian prime minister, although the incumbent PM doesn't happen to live there. To use another example, I would not say the Duke of Sussex resides in Montecito, because although the incumbent resides there, there is nothing about his office that compels him to. This sounds more like a republican talking point: the King of Canada doesn't even live in Canada! TFD (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The King of Canada doesn't live in Canada. The article will still say that Rideau Hall is the residence of the Canadian monarch. It will simply balance that statement with a fact that some people, you included it seems, wish to exclude. Trying to tar the includers with a republican brush merely highlights that the excluders are wielding a monarchist brush to sweep unpleasant facts under the carpet. DrKay (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
    I am not trying to comment on editors but how the text comes across. Saying that the KIng has multiple residences but resides in the UK sounds clumsy and ambiguous: he has residences he does not reside in and is currently not residing in his residences. Amd its not even clear whether we are talking about Charles the individual or the various offices he holds. TFD (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
DrKay remains under the false impression that the article used to claim the Canadian monarch spends all her, and then his, time in Canada and that the article should say so again, as if the article hadn't, for numerous years before the last month or so, said the Canadian monarch primarily resides in the UK. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Farcical and untrue claims about my views merely prove how nasty and desperate you are. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) That is untrue. I am not under that impression. DrKay (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    • That a fact is inconvenient is not sufficient reason to suppress it. A Crown of Maples, the government's official publication on the monarchy, says the monarch's "principal residence is in the United Kingdom" so there's no reason this article should pretend otherwise or not say it because of appearances. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
      The text being discussed is not about where Charles' principle residence lies, but that "the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom." TFD (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Precisely. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes? I guess? Why did this need an RfC? Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • No'and Maybe. As per TFD above, this article is not about Charles the natural person but about the office of the King of Canada. The natural and legal persons are different concepts. This, in the same way as for the official residence of the Prime Minister. Justin Trudeau doesn't reside at the official residence, however, that doesn't change the fact that the official residence of the prime minister is still the official residence (the natural person, Justin, and the legal person, the Prime Minister, do not reside in the same place). The King of Canada and the King of the UK are two completely different offices (the King of the UK from Canada's point of view is a foreign head of state). The King of Canada does not have any official residences in the UK, but certainly does have official residences in Canada. So, the King of Canada (the office of Canada's head of state) does not officially reside in the UK, however, Charles III (as a natural person) resides primarily in the UK, and there is a subtle but important distinction between the two.
Finally, given the clear churn and friction on this issue, I fail to see why it is that important to the article to mention where Charles III sleeps at night, this isn't an article about Charles III but about the Monarchy of Canada. As such, I would offer it is likely best to simply stick to talking about the Monarch of Canada and not the personal matters of Charles III as there's already an article for Charles III. trackratte (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

There's no reason to not mention that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom. Appears to me, their residing outside of Canada, necessitates the continuing existence of the positions of governor general & the lieutenant governors. Saves the Canadian monarch the necessity of leaving the UK, to appear in person in Canada, to sign Canadian bills into law, open the Canadian parliament, sign provincial bills into law, open provincial legislatures, etc. Duties that are carried out by their federal representative & provincial representatives. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Seems to me" is not a standard of inclusion in Misplaced Pages. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You make your arguments your way & I'll make my arguments my way. What's important is that we both accept the results of this RFC. PS - Always be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON, in content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I will make my arguments my way, which is to engage with your arguments. "The monarch residing outside of Canada necessitates the continuing existence of the governor general and lieutenant governors" is not the claim being disputed. What is disputed is the claim that "the governor general and lieutenant governors exist because the monarch resides in the UK". That claim is being disputed because it has no reliable source to back it up; "seems to me" doesn't meet any Misplaced Pages standard. Do you have a supporting source for that disputed claim? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The argument is that we should mention that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom, in this article. I've given a reason why we should mention this fact. That you chose not to accept that reasoning, is not my concern. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
So, that's a no, you don't have any reliable sources to support your reason. Understood. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
You have no source that proves the Canadian monarch doesn't physically reside only in the United Kingdom. Understood. GoodDay (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
" principal residence is in London". "Queen Elizabeth II concluded her opening speech at Halifax, at the start of her 2010 tour and residence in Canada." "This, my home in Ottawa".
But, you're deflecting again. The issue is not "the Canadian monarch doesn't live only in the United Kingdom". The issue is the total lack of sources supporting the assertion "the Canadian monarch residing in the UK necessitates the continuing existence of the positions of governor general & the lieutenant governors." Add "the Canadian monarch resides in the UK" if you wish. You'll still have to contest with the relevancy issue, as well as all the well-sourced information about Canadian residences. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I will not get into personal disputes with you. Sources have been provided, by @DrKay:. If the RFC concludes that we add that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom, to the article? You'll have to accept it. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
No one began a personal dispute.
That does not explain the relevance of the sentence to anything in the article. Perhaps you'd like to outline here how you propose to stitch the sentence into the article text? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I will not get into circular arguments with you. Recommend you stop bludgeoning the process. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps there needs to be more of a distinction made between the office, and the office holder. The Crown of Canada (the office), which is an institution central to Canadian politics; and separately distinguished from the person who currently wears said crown, Charles III. Figuratively speaking, of course; as there is no actual Canadian crown hat for him to wear when his is performing his crown duties. (Sorry if this sounds a little muddled. It's late, and I'm tired.) Mediatech492 (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
What about using the less formal verb to live? Charles lives in the UK. TFD (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces:, we're referring to the fact that the Canadian monarch (currently Charles III) resides/lives in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Which is it? Suppose the article said the Canadian monarch speaks English and French. The assumption would be that all Canadian monarchs spoke both languages, which is false. Similarly, not all British monarchs lived in Britain. TFD (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Who do you think was the first Canadian monarch? George V in 1931? Before that, it was French & then British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
It depends when you think Canada came into existence. I would date it to the founding of Quebec, since there is state continuity to the present. So the first king of Canada would be Louis XIII who did not live in the UK. TFD (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
We're speaking of Canadian monarchs. Not French monarchs or British monarchs. Louis XIII wasn't a Canadian monarch, but rather a French monarch who reigned over Canada. Anyways, I don't know what the point is, you're trying to make. So, I won't trouble you any further. PS - I'm glad you acknowledge that the Canadian monarch doesn't live in Canada. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Charles is a British monarch but is also king of Canada as well as various other sovereign states, sub-national states and provinces, overseas territories and crown dependencies. A separate crown is created whenever an administration is established for a territory. TFD (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Charles III is also a Canadian monarch, a New Zealand monarch, a Saint Lucian monarch, etc. But he still resides only in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
According to the Canadian government, ""Residence", unlike "domicile" is not an exclusive concept so that a person may be resident in more than one jurisdiction at the same time. At its simplest level, residence implies that a person is living in a jurisdiction: eating, sleeping, and working in that place. A person may "reside" in a place even if he or she is not physically present there from time to time."
So it is possible for Charles to reside in Canada even if he never comes here or to reside in the UK and his other realms and territories at the same time. But why do you want to say that Charles resides in the UK instead of saying he lives there? To reside is a legal term and without a lot of (original) research, I cannot say where he resides.
TFD (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
We're talking about where he physically resides. If you want to believe that he concurrently resides in multiple sovereign states? That's your choice. Again (and for the last time) I won't trouble you any further. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
"A person may "reside" in a place even if he or she is not physically present there from time to time." Not being physically present "from time to time" is markedly different from only being present for a week or so every few years. You are citing divorce law - I suspect if a spouse tried to argue that visiting for a week every two or three years makes them resident, that argument wouldn't go very far with a judge. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The term residence literally means where one resides. If we say the Canadian monarch has a residence in Ottawa but he resides in the UK, we are contradicting ourselves. The text would therefore read as a passive aggressive assertion that although a claim has been made that the king has a residence in Ottawa, that is a lie. If you want to put in this argument, find a reliable source where it is made. TFD (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The Rideau Hall website says the building is "the residence and workplace of the governor general" with no mention of the king, BTW.Wellington Bay (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not the website of Rideau Hall, it's the website of the Governor General (www.gg.ca). TFD (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's the National Capital Commission's page on Rideau Hall - the NCC administers official residences in the capital region - which says "Rideau Hall has been the official residence and workplace of every governor general of Canada since 1867" and makes no mention of the King or even of Rideau Hall being a royal residence. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
A Crown of Maples says "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." (Italics added) - "when in Ottawa" is a crucial phrase here. It's not a royal residence ordinarily, only when the monarch is in Ottawa. So it's not accurate to say the King is a resident of Canada. At best you can say he's a resident of Canada when he's in Canada. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the King is a resident of Canada but whether the text should say, "the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom." My objection is that reside can have several meanings and it is not clear whether one is referring to the king as corporation sole or as mortal human.
I do not disagree that the concept of royal residences could be better explained. I think however that the proposed text just adds more confusion. TFD (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say he primarily resides in the UK. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Why not just say that Charles lives in the UK and as king has the use of residences in Canada, including Rideau Hall, the Citadelle and various government houses? It's factual, unambiguous.and avoids getting into a monarchist vs. republican debate. TFD (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
It wouldn't be more accurate @Wellington Bay:, as he doesn't reside/live in Canada, or any other Commonwealth realm, accept the United Kingdom. Charles III's been king for 18 months & hasn't even been in Canada, yet. That's why "predominantly" was removed, weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
"Primarily resides in the UK" sufficed in this article for years. It's backed up by a RS that states the monarch's "principal residence" is in the UK. So, there's no justifciation for keeping "principal" or "primary" out of the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, I would say that the King of the UK resides in the UK certainly. The King of Canada resides in Canada, which is different than saying something like 'the current Canadian monarch, Charles III, primarily resides in the UK'. Along similar lines of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada resides at 24 Sussex Drive, which is different than saying, 'the current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, primarily resides at Rideau Cottage'. There is a distinction between the Office and an official residence, and the current office-holder.
In other words, the King of Canada has zero connection official or otherwise with Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle, those belong to the King in Right of the UK as the official residences for that country's monarch, which is from Canada's perspective a foreign country and a foreign head of state. The King of Canada does not have any residences in the UK. trackratte (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand the argument; though, wouldn't "the King of the UK's seat is in the UK" (double-entendre notwithstanding) be more to the point? In other words, "the seat of the British monarch is in the UK". Along the same lines, "the seat of the Canadian monarch is Rideau Hall".
Anyhow, I see nothing wrong with "the current Canadian monarch, Charles III, primarily resides in the UK". Most importantly, it's supported by RSs. It also avoids confusion about where the institution of the Canadian monarchy "resides". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, so long as the official residences are mentioned in the same breath as it were.
'The official residences of the King of Canada are established as Rideau Hall and the Citadelle of Quebece, however, the current Canadian monarch, Charles III, primarily resides in the UK' or somesuch. trackratte (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me a distinction needs to be made between 'a guy named Charles' as a natural person, who primarily resides in the United Kingdom, and the office of the King of Canada. For example, Justin Trudeau (a natural person) does not reside at the official residence of the prime minister. That does not discount the fact that the office of Prime Minister officially resides at the Prime Minister's official residence. It would be a logical absurdity to say that the office of the King of Canada (which legally speaking the King, as the human embodiment of the state, is Canada, thus all contracts with the state, for example, or with "His Majesty the King in Right of Canada", etc) resides outside of the country, regardless of where the natural person happens to be hanging their hat, which is to say the legal person (the office) and the natural person (the human being) are not synonymous. trackratte (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Canadian monarchy doesn't reside at Rideau Hall, just in the same way that the British monarchy does not reside at Buckingham Palace. The buildings are official residences but they are not where the office resides. I believe there is confusion between two meanings of the word "reside":
1: To have one's permanent home in a specific place, as in "Mr Smith resides in British Columbia".
2: To have a power or right, as in "legislative power resides in the Parliament of Canada".
The second meaning of the word reside is inappropriate here. The powers and rights of the monarchy do not reside at, with or in Rideau Hall. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the core point you are trying to make. The discussion is not where the British or Canadian monarchies (i.e. The Crown) resides, as that would be akin to saying where does Canada or the UK (as a state or corporate person) reside, which is clearly a nonsensical construction.
Instead, we are speaking to the official residence (i.e. the designated residence of an office and therefore it's holder in that official capacity) of the King of Canada. The designated residence of the Prime Minister of Canada is 24 Sussex, however, that is not the residence of Justin Trudeau the person. Justin Trudeau could hypothetically primarily live in Maine, if he were to do so would have zero bearing on the status of 24 Sussex.
So, in the same way, the King of Canada owns a number of residences (including 24 Sussex), and some of them are designated for the official use of the Sovereign and/or their representatives (Governor and/or Lieutenants General). The point being that the King of Canada is not homeless, nor does the King of Canada reside in the UK, the King of the UK resides in the UK. trackratte (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The official residences are not in dispute. The dispute is over where the monarch resides. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I would say it would seem fairly straightforward that the King of Canada officially resides in the Canadian King's official residence in Canada (you may note a tautology here, which is why it should be fairly logically straightforward). And in the Canadian construct, the words Crown, Sovereign, His Majesty, Her Majesty, the Governor General, etc are all essentially coterminous. So, the fact that the King's official stand-in resides in the King's official residence doesn't change the status of that residence, which is to say Rideau Hall is the Governor General's official residence because it's the King's official residence as the GG and the King, in terms of holding the specific office at the apex of our constitutional system, are effectively the same by design. trackratte (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Where does the Canadian monarch live? Celia Homeford (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I just said the answer to that question. Unless you are suggesting that the "King of Canada" and the "Canadian monarch" are two separate things? trackratte (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you think the Canadian monarch and/or the King of Canada lives in Canada? Celia Homeford (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I said the King of Canada's official Canadian residence is in Canada.
Charles III predominantly lives in the UK. That does not mean the King of Canada resides in the UK.
The King of Canada does not have any official residencies in the UK. The King of the UK does. However, the King of the UK is, from Canada's perspective, a foreign head of state. trackratte (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

To date there were 16 votes cast above. In order, 9 Yes, 4 No, and 3 Maybe votes. In other words a 9 to 7 split (56% unequivocally in favour) on the question "Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?". As such, while there seems to be a bare majority, there is no consensus.

That being said, there does seem to be a consensus to include the fact that Charles III primarily lives in the UK (which as several editors is different than saying that the office of the Canadian King lives in the UK). Second, I've noted that the current placement of that fact within the article is held within a sentence about the sovereign being the only one with a constitutional role (with those two clauses within the same sentence have no rational connection which is odd if not confusing). I have instead moved the fact of Charles' residence to the next sentence (the duties of the GG) as in that sentence there is a logical reason to include the fact that the Monarch generally primarily resides in the UK (as this is the reason for the existence of the Office of the GG in the first place).

As such, my proposal which is current in the mainspace reads as follows:

"However, the monarch is the only member of the royal family with any constitutional role. While several powers are theirs alone, most of the sovereign's duties in Canada are carried out by the monarch's representative, the governor general of Canada, given that the monarch has traditionally primarily lived in the United Kingdom."

I believe this is a reflection of the consensus above in terms of ensuring where Charles III lives has a rational reason for being in the article, that this fact is included in the article, and making sure there is clarity regarding the distinction between Canadian official residence and the UK Monarch (which is a foreign head of state from Canada's perspective). trackratte (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The monarch has always lived in the UK. It's not a tradition or primarily. There is no reason to use such silly contortions. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
by the plain meaning of where someone "lives", the monarch has always lived in the UK. @Trackratte: earlier brought up the example of Justin Trudeau and 24 Sussex. Well, while one might say 24 Sussex is his official residence you would not say he "lives" there as no one has lived there since Harper moved out. Rideau Hall may be the King's official residence when he's in Ottawa but he still "lives" in the UK.Wellington Bay (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree on "lives" and all that, which is why I think it is prudent to say that rather than "resides" as to side-step a not very productive issue. As for "traditionally lives", I was trying to convey that it is not just the current monarch that lives in the UK, but that Canadian monarchs (since the French) have traditionally lived in the UK thus the reason why we have a GG. If it is just the current monarch that lives in the UK, it doesn't provide that same level of rational connection to the existence of the GG, that's all. As for use of the word "predominantly", there have been cases I believe where a monarch has privately purchased homes outside of the UK (such as, if memory serves, a Canadian ranch), and so, I would well imagine that there have been times when the person of the monarch has lived, however temporarily, outside of the country. In any event, not at all fussed with the current amendments and hope we can effectively put this issue to bed. trackratte (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I just added "predominantly", which in additional to what I explain in the change log, also side-steps any (unproductive) lines of discussion as to well, Canadian monarchs when in Canada take up residence (i.e. live, however temporarily) in their official residence. Also, if one owned their own cottage for example, and you went to the cottage for the weekend or the week, normally one wouldn't say they were "visiting" as it's their own place. Anyways, basically that one word opens it up just a little bit to provide some added flexibility which hopefully provides greater accuracy as well as increased consensus. trackratte (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Farcical garbage. We don't claim that the President predominantly lives in the continental United States because he occasionally lives in Hawaii (or elsewhere). We don't claim the monarch of Denmark predominantly lives in Denmark because he (and his predecessor) occasionally live in their house in France. When these people live elsewhere they are obviously visiting somewhere other to where they reside, i.e. somewhere other than the United States or Denmark. Similarly, the monarch of Canada resides in the UK. They visit Canada, occasionally. DrKay (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I mean if you read our President of the United States article (which is about the office as opposed to the man Joe Biden) it doesn't say where the president "lives", nor anything about the "continental United States" or "Hawaii". All it notes is Official residence (ie Whitehouse) and the office's Seat (legal entity). The issue we have here is that some editors are blurring the difference the King as the office and as the man. It is fine to say Charles III lives in the UK. It is not okay to say that the Office of the King of Canada resides there, that its "official residence" is there, that its "offical seat" is there, or that the King of Canada is legally required to live there. The wording being proposed, suggests these things and creates unnecessary confusion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
It suggests no such thing. No-one is suggesting anything like that. This is a classic example of a straw man. DrKay (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Please try to WP:AGF. I am not saying that the precise wording proposed literally includes the wording the the King of Canada "must by law live in the UK", I am saying that removing the word "predominantly", or "primarily" and leaving the wording otherwise as is may leave that impression in some readers. As such, I am saying we should put readers first and use more clear language that does not leave that incorrect impression.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no ABF in my comment. Ad hominem is another type of logical fallacy. DrKay (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Please try to engage with the substance of my comment, instead of hurling labels like "strawman" or suggest I am making "Ad hominem" attacks? I think we need to make a distinction between where Charles III lives and where the office of the King of Canada is located. I think the current wording is ambiguous on that. You are welcome to disagree on substance. Let's try to keep the discussion there though. If we can't, it won't be at all productive.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
See below. But great attempt at trying to deflect again. DrKay (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
And I would say that saying that the king "primarily lives" in the UK, or any variant of that, is not accurate and therefore confusing to the readers. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I don't completely disagree with that. Notwithstanding that that various Canadian buildings are referred to as "official residences" I agree it is a significant stretch to state that Charles III either lives or resides in them. I think it is fine to say Charles III resides in the UK. I think it is fine also fine to say that historically and at present all monarchs have resided in the UK while in office. My concern is that saying "the monarch resides in the UK" may suggest that this is a permanent arrangement, or one that is in some way required by law. That concern can be addressed by referring to the "current monarch" only and/or referring to past monarchs who lived there without suggesting that the King of Canada or monarch of Canada resides there (or will).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Charles III resides/lives only in the United Kingdom. His mother, grandfather, granduncle, great-grandfather, etc, resided/lived in the United Kingdom. That's why Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, etc, have governors-general. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
That is why those countries have historically had GGs. The world is a much smaller place than before. I don't dispute that Charles III lives in the UK, nor that his mother, grandfather, granduncle, great-grandfather did while in office. My point is that there is nothing but custom and perhaps personal preference that requires the King of Canada to reside in the UK, and we should be careful not to leave an impression it is anything more than that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
There's nothing to be careful about. The Canadian monarch doesn't reside/live in Canada. The Canadian monarch reside/lives only in the United Kingdom. That's simply the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Has only resided in the UK... to date. I read the statement "the monarch resides in the UK" as ambiguous. I will say again... are you referring to the current monarch? Past monarchs? The office generally? Future monarchs? Or all of the above in that sentence? In so far as the sentence suggests that this means that future monarchs will reside there or that there is a requirement that past, present or future do so, it is false. When I raised this above, you said that you did not understand. Hopefully, I have been more clear this time around.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Forgive me, but your position just doesn't stand up. Unless you've got personal knowledge, that Charles III or his successors will be leaving the United Kingdom for Canada? I will not continue in this circular debate with you. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't need personal knowledge about the future to suggest that we shouldn't speculate about it, nor to say we should be careful not to suggest a "rule" exists when it doesn't. Anyway, happy friday.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The expression "given that" injects synthesis. The original British governors in North America were not appointed by the sovereign. We wouldn't say that John Winthrop carried out the chief executive's functions in the Massachusetts Bay Colony because Charles I was in England. Similarly, had George VI evacuated to Canada in WWII, it is doubtful the GG would have become redundant. TFD (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning to include the fact somewhere in the article, since I believe it is a common (if sometimes erroneous) assumption that a monarch lives in the country they reign over. To that end, I don’t know if it’s necessary to specify where the monarch of Canada does live, but rather where he does not. That is, that he does not live in Canada – so far. To clarify that last part, I think a definitive past-tense statement would make it clear enough to the reader that it’s never been the norm for him to be living in Canada but it’s not impossible. I propose something like: Aside from during Canadian royal tours, the King of Canada has never lived in Canada, and their duties are carried out by a governor general who remains in Canada. Wow Mollu (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
That proposed wording is unacceptable. We shouldn't be hiding the fact, that the Canadian monarch resides/lives in 'only' the United Kingdom. Attempts to try & put similiar wording in (for two examples) Monarchy of Australia or Monarchy of New Zealand, would never be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps, but unless I am missing something our Monarchy of Australia and Monarchy of New Zealand articles do not say where the monarch lives. In fact, the New Zealand article seems to use wording similar to what Wow Mollu proposes, specifically "As the monarch lives outside of New Zealand, the governor-general personally represents the monarch and performs most of his or her domestic duties in their absence...".-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You and I are still in disagreement with each other. I accept that neither of us is going to convince the other. My position on this topic, hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright folks, User:Darryl Kerrigan is being perfectly polite and respectful and raises perfectly valid and logical points. Calling anyone or anything "Farcical garbage", accusing editors of "trying to deflect" in response to their entreaty to "engage with the substance of my comment" as opposed to them personally is disrespectful and counterproductive.

At this point, it seems to me that the current state of affairs is that 1) Charles the person spends almost all of his time in the UK. 2) The Canadian Monarch (an office) has no residence in the UK, but does in Canada. It is non-nonsensical to say that a country's head of state "visits" that same country. -- Subsequently, the confusion is centred on the fact that Charles wears many hats as it were, and so where the person of the sovereign (Charles III) lives, and where the King of Canada can be said to "reside" are two things and two different places. To date, all of the debate has been centred around that distinction, and people talking past each other as saying something like the "Canadian monarch" can mean two different things, a person, or the distinctly and uniquely Canadian office.

As a result, and as Darryl points out, other head of state articles don't seem to feel the need to explicitly point out where the occupant sleeps at night, and is it really essential to an article about the Monarchy of Canada? This article isn't actually even about the King of Canada but about the entire system of Monarchy in Canada, and it is certainly not about Charles III. So, given how acrimonious this (frankly silly) debate has been, how it adds little to nothing to the knowledge of the actual article itself, and how it seems to be really be a bunch of folks with an axe to grind including having an editor banned for behaviour which I am seeing occurring here right now particular against Darryl, I would suggest we simply remove where Charles III as a person spends most of his time sleeping and be done with it. trackratte (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not in other articles because the heads of state of those other countries live in those countries. It is because the monarch, regardless of who that person is, lives abroad that we must mention it here. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, and I'm not opposed to that, as there's a valid and logical reason for its inclusion (although my question was along the lines of 'is the juice worth the squeeze). But there still is no consensus on how that is best done as evidenced by the ongoing debate by and between several editors from two or three different groupings I'd say. Saying the King of Canada lives in the UK, as others have mentioned, is misleading or at least incomplete (given how King of Canada means two different things concurrently there). As is saying the King of Canada resides in Canada, for the same reasons. So, the trick would be to illustrate both sides of the coin in a neutral and succinct sentence, that is rationally connected to the material around it. As I proposed before, saying something along the lines of: 'the King of Canada has traditionally spent most of their time in the UK which is why they are generally represented by the Governor General of Canada' would accomplish that. In terms of avoiding contentious wording that is rooted in a semantic black hole (what do we mean by "reside" or "live", the difference between the King of Canada and that of the UK and that of Charles as a natural person, do they always live there, do they always have to live there, will they in the future, etc, etc), so instead we have a simple and concise statement of neutral fact that hopefully everyone can live with (not exactly what any one editor would write themselves or think is perfect, but is reasonable and can be lived with). trackratte (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"Traditionally" is an unnecessary equivocation. It suggests that something is usually the case but there have been exceptions or a recent change or that there is a reasonable chance that there will be a change- when in fact every monarch we have had since Confederation has lived in the UK (and before unless you want to include the French monarchs, who also never set foot this side of the Atlantic). For the same reason we would not say "Canada has traditionally been a monarchy" -instead of "Canada is a monarchy". We'd only say it has "traditionally been a monarchy" if there has recently been a change or if there was some sort of Cromwellian-style interegnum. Indeed, despite the fact that Rideau Hall and other government houses are technically residences of the monarch no monarch even visited Canada for the first 72 years of the country's existence and if you add all up all the time they've been resident in Rideau Hall and La Citadelle in the 85 years since George VI's visit I doubt it would even add up to a year. The closest we've had to a monarch who lived in Canada was Edward VIII who personally owned a ranch in Alberta - but he never visited it while he was king and spent very little time there as either Prince of Wales or the Duke of Windsor. There is no need for us to equivocate because of a hypothetical situation where a future monarch may either permanently live in Canada (perhaps if the UK becomes a republic and Canada didn't) or decides to live here for part of each year for some reason. (I believe there was once a suggestion in the 40s or 50s that the monarch should move around the commonwealth in permanent rotation living in each country for a certain number of months before moving on - this was obviously dismissed as impractical and likely the royal family would have vetoed it if it was seriously proposed). These possiblities are highly remote and there's no reason for us to write the article in anticipation that they might happen. The monarch's residence is in the UK, has always been in the UK, and will likely remain there. If for that reason that ever changes, we can rewrite the article then. Otherwise we will be stuck with an article that meanders, equivocates, and needlessly qualifies when it should be straightforward. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, to quibble over the exact word, I agree that "traditional" isn't necessarily the best, so I'm not advocating for it to be clear, but instead for something to intimate the broad meaning that there is no rule to say that the King of Canada must live in the UK, nor that Charles III must spend 100% of his time living in the UK, as that subject is far beyond just Canada (he has, what, 16 realms, and conceivably could also spend time elsewhere). Also, I am not a Charles III follower, nor a Royalist, however, I cannot imagine that saying that all Canadian monarchs spend all of their time and always have in the UK as precisely true. In any event, I support your assertion that "traditional" is not the best term, but I also do think we need to convey two things if we were to achieve consensus: 1) why we are bothering to mention it in the article at all (thus my suggestion that linking it to the existence of the GG is a logical link), and 2) that the King of Canada does not have any residences in the UK (i.e. cannot be said to "reside" there as the Canadian head of state). Or in other words that Charles III lives in the UK, but that that fact has nothing to do with the Monarchy of Canada (so is more of a tangential factoid), save for the fact that Canadian monarchs have "generally" not lived in Canada requiring then a representative ("generally" used in quotations here once again to intimate that this is generally the case, but is not required to be, or even guaranteed to be). trackratte (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
" the King of Canada does not have any residences in the UK (i.e. cannot be said to "reside" there as the Canadian head of state)." So when Prime Minister Trudeau recently had an audience with King Charles (as King of Canada) via video link, where was the King of Canada residing while in the UK? At the Canadian High Commission at Canada House? No, he was either at Buckingham Palace or his one of his other residences in the UK. Indeed, the King and the Queen before him did much of their business, as King or Queen of Canada, in the UK whether it was appointing governors general or receiving briefings on the Canadian situation, or having telephone or video audiences with the prime minister (or governor general) - ask the Sovereign of Canada - resident in the UK. I know monarchists like to get into quasi-religious Trinitarian notions of the entity of the monarch occupying different forms simultaneously but in practical and even constitutional terms it's actually nonsensical and we should stay away from that sort of mystification. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Ha. They were meeting in cyber space obviously. As for constitutional status, these things are significant when it comes to the spheres of Public (constitutional law) and of Public Administration. The King of Canada does not have any status or residences in the UK. All of the physical manifestations of that fact are merely symbolic (for example, when the Queen travelled to Canada there was an RCAF jet in London with RCMP providing personal security, an RCAF CF-18 escort upon entering Canadian airspace, etc which symbolize the fact that Elizebeth II at that moment was the Queen of Canada and not of the UK, as well as how official visits as the Queen of Canada occurred to the USA as another). In any event, the King of the UK has no constitutional status in Canada in the same way as any other foreign state, and vice versa is the core point of fact. From where one dials in for a Zoom call has no import on effect on that point of constitutional law and politics. Again, I'm not arguing in any way shape or form that Charles III doesn't spend almost all of his time in the UK, nor even that that fact shouldn't be included here, only that other editors (three or four anyways I believe) are sticking on the clarity of language and logic of 1) Making it logically clear and salient on why the factoid is included in the article and 2) Make it the separation of offices and official legal status clear.
Or, in effect, both sides of "the debate" are right, and I don't think there is actual any fundamental disagreement on points of fact by anyone. Only how best to express the nuances.
I also note that Wow Mullu notes that perhaps it isn't important to say where Charles III lives but where they do not live, with their proposal being something along the lines of: "Aside from during Canadian royal tours, the King of Canada has never lived in Canada, and as a result their duties are carried out by a governor general who remains in Canada". trackratte (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"They were meeting in cyber space obviously" - no, they were meeting via or over cyberspace because neither Trudeau nor King Charles are a collection of electrons or pixels - Trudeau was at his home in Ottawa and King Charles was at one of his residences in the UK while they met over the phone or over Zoom or FaceTime or some other programme. When you meet over Zoom or Facetime you do not coroporeally dematerialize from your location and rematerialize somewhere in the ether. At least, not yet. Perhaps we should say that traditionally when you have a meeting over the phone or online you physical body remains intact in its physical location? Wellington Bay (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"Aside from during Canadian royal tours, the King of Canada has never lived in Canada, and as a result their duties are carried out by a governor general who remains in Canada". I think this would be okay. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It was a tongue in cheek comment, and I'm not really interested in debating whether or not one is to "coroporeally dematerialize from your location and rematerialize somewhere in the ether".
However, I'm happy within something along the lines of Wow Mullu's suggestion as you are, so could use that to make an edit where a few people could sculpt in turn. If that breaks down we can bring it back here if that makes sense. trackratte (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
As it seemed odd to repeat two similar sentences one right after the other I attempted to fold in Wow Mullu's suggestion into the sentence already in place resulting in (at the moment), "While several powers are theirs alone, 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."
Everything in parenthesis may be removed to be more concise, but didn't want to simply discard that point of Mullu's proposal. trackratte (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Trackratte. Will you please stop deleting/replacing/modifying where the monarch resides/lives (i.e. the United Kingdom). It only frustrates matters, when you do that. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason that "predominantly..." is no longer used (and shouldn't be), is because it suggested that the monarch resided/lived in other realms, besides the United Kingdom. I'm quite certain, if we tried to push that description into the Monarchy of New Zealand and/or Monarchy of Australia pages (for two other examples), it just wouldn't be accepted. Why? Because the monarch doesn't reside/live in New Zealand or Australia. It's more accurate to point out that the monarch resides/lives in (and only in) the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Trackratte: Just a note, *I* am not the determiner of consensus. I think twice now I've said something along the lines of "I think that might be okay" and you've taken that to mean there's now consensus and rushed to change the article accordingly. I'm flattered you seem to think I have some authority but I don't, I just seem to be a bit softer on some issues so if I say I think something is okay please wait to see what other people say before trying to determine if there is now a consensus. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't. As per WP:BRD "finding a reasonable (if temporary) compromise", make an edit, see if the article is edited again as well as explicitly "Two factions are engaged in an edit war and a bold edit is made as a compromise or middle ground" or when "Active discussion is not producing results", in addition to NOBREAK. Ideating, putting something in the main space once there is a reasonable compromise by three or more editors, and having that edit build upon or reverted is a normal process.
Also, if this is going to be a ridiculously long and intractable problem, then the previous stable version should remain in place in the main space until fully hashed out here anyways. And I hadn't bothered to look at when this started until now, but it appears this debate started in January ... over three months ago. So, if we are concerned with stability of that particular sentence on the main space, then whatever the last stable version was, sometime around October to December I imagine, should be the version of that sentence placed back into the main space and left alone until consensus is achieved as per WP:NOCON. trackratte (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Alas after a edit dispute gets bogged down, BRD turns into WP:WHATWEHAVEWEHOLD, and editors start to simply undo anything that's not has its own RFC (as @Wellington Bay just did with my own such compromise edit -- no edit summary, no discussion here).
As it stands the article is unsatisfactory as it coordinates the infobox and the lead very poorly. We learn from the one that the monarch "resides" in two places in Canada. From the other, we learn that he does not! The information should be given in a way that's consistent, and makes clear in what way it's consistent. Not by giving two parallel nuggets in separate locations, and leaving the connection to puzzle the reader until deep into the body. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Trackratte, your apparent refusal to accept the last RFC decision is becoming problematic & thus concerning. I'll ask you again, to stop deleting/replacing or modifying "...live in the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The WP:NOCON last stable version I had restored says "The monarch lives predominantly in the United Kingdom". The RFC stated that there is consensus to mention that fact in the article, which it is, and which I support. The debate various editors are having is how to do that, and given there isn't actually consensus at this time, NOCON should apply which is my only point in the matter, which is to say, follow established principles and policy. trackratte (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
That RFC would most reasonably be read as also favouring "lives in" over "lives predominantly in". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

We've got two reliable souces: One says, "given that the Canadian monarch lives in the United Kingdom, they are represented in Canada by a governor-general." The other says, "it is understood that the Queen cannot be in Canada at all times. Her principal residence is in London and she is also Queen of 14 other Commonwealth countries in addition to the United Kingdom and Canada. As Queen of Canada, Her Majesty is represented here in federal jurisdiction by the governor general". The part about being monarch of muliple countries is already explained at the top of the paragraph. So, I might propose something like this:

However, the monarch is the only member of the royal family with any constitutional role. While several powers are the sovereign's alone, most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties in Canada are carried out by the monarch's representative, the governor general of Canada, given the monarch lives in the United Kingdom and cannot be in Canada at all times."

I think that's getting at least closer to accomodating the want for "lives in the UK" to be verbatim in the article while implying the reality that the monarch doesn't have to stay in the UK, does spend time in Canada, and the existence of the governors doesn't depend on the King living anywhere in particular or even never being in Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we just paraphrase an actual sourced quote from a neutral source? Seems to be a far quicker way to avoid editorial POV.
For example, using the quite succinct sourced quote you just mentioned: 'given that the person of the Canadian monarch lives in the United Kingdom, they are represented in Canada by a governor-general'.
I would say "person" to make clear we are talking about a person and not an office, as a lot of churn above was centred over that point. trackratte (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I thought it's better to paraphrase both neutral sources, since they're equally valid as RS, but, give slightly different twists on the residency/living issue and its relevance to why there are governors. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
From where I sit, adding in “the person of” then swings it back in the other direction, suggesting that it is this particular (or any particular) Canadian monarch who doesn't spend all their time in Canada, when it's actually a pretty permanent status of the Canadian monarchy that the sovereign isn’t around, due to the existence of the British one and of the Commonwealth. I prefer @Miesianiacal‬‘s version that paraphrases both sources more directly, I think it gets the job done. If we really think it’s necessary to specify, I would advocate for “current monarch,” even though that type of language is usually frowned upon, since it’s at least less wordy and effectively no more constricting. Personally, I do wish there was something a little more honest than “cannot be in Canada at all times,” a choice of phrase which I think flatteringly suggests that the monarch has ever intended to rule from Canada (“at almost no times” is closer to reality). I’d love to see "cannot be in Canada at all times" replaced with “is not in Canada often”, but I don't want to open another can of worms here, "at all times" will do for me. Wow Mollu (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The monarch resides/lives only in the United Kingdom. We shouldn't be attempting to distort that fact, in anyway. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Continuous succession"

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

Use of quotation marks

@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.

- 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)

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)
"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)
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)
"Thank you". Wellington Bay (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
You're most welcome mate. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Residences

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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".

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

I am not privy to when the Canadian royal residence thing came to be in Misplaced Pages 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages to make that claim. Similarly, Canadian Heritage webpage on King Charles III makes no such claim. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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. 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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages. trackratte (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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))
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)
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)
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)
This is a rather silly and unhelpful discussion. As are these edits: , . 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. Can we please stop this silliness?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

References

  1. Department of Canadian Heritage (2015), A Crown of Maples: Constitutional Monarchy in Canada (PDF), Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, p. 34, ISBN 978-1-100-20079-8, retrieved 14 February 2023

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)

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)
@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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

Categories: