Talk:Monarchy of Canada

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 Wikipedia: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)

• In the United Kingdom - Indeed, since his accession, Charles III has yet to visit Canada. As for the pages Rideau Hall & Citadelle of Quebec's intros? Compare them to the governors-general residences intros of the other non-UK commonwealth realms & tell me if ya'll see anything different. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close: There is no active dispute that needs resolution. A discussion from 2015 does not satisfy RFCBEFORE, and it's not clear that you've notified the participants from that previous discussion. If you want to change the infobox just be bold and do it. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Edits removing such disputed content[1] were reverted, even when they only concerned a single word [2]. 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)

• Depends: When the Sovereign is in Canada he may reside at one of the many Government Houses across the country. If he is in the United Kingdom, he may reside at any British royal residence. Peter Ormond 💬 09:48, 14 January 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[3][4]. 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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: [5]. 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 [or mainly or principally] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors is that the King of Canada resides in the UK. I did not insert anything that claims the King of Canada resides anywhere other than the UK. Please adhere to the facts. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Residences in the infobox

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 18 months now & still hasn't had even a sleep over. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

• No. While it is true, I do not believe it has any bearing on the article (from a brief skim). The article itself has the section #Federal residences and royal household. I know that during WWII there was discussion about the Royal Family moving to Canada, so there is not anything special about the UK. There is also the page List of British royal residences. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Because the article contains a lengthy section on the monarch's Canadian residences and household, it is necessary to explain that he doesn't actually reside in any of them. Otherwise, the article is giving a distorted view that is not based on reality. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The fact that a monarch resides mainly abroad is an unusual and interesting detail in the 21st century and is clearly relevant to any description of that nation's monarchy. Editors should consider providing greater clarity on the point by noting (and providing references in respect of the fact) that the monarch has an official residence in Canada (Rideau House in Ottowa) but the actual person of the monarch does not reside there (an evening or two every few years does not constitute residency). All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes There doesn't appear to be a compelling reason to oppose this and the monarchy certainly resides in England. Nemov (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. "Given that the Canadian monarch lives in the United Kingdom, they are represented in Canada by a governor-general", says Michael Chalupovitsch, an expert on foreign law who works at the Library of Congress. "The King ... can't be physically present in every country of which he is Sovereign, so he relies on his vice-regal representative to act on his behalf", says the Saskatchewan Monarchist League. "The Canadian monarchy is virtual; it neither rules nor resides. Our royals don't live here", says The Globe and Mail. As with so many articles touching on the Canadian monarchy, this article has become poisoned by an unrepresentative fringe view while the majoritarian view is excluded. Any attempt to redress the imbalance is fiercely opposed through bludgeoning debate, disruptive cite tagging, and WP:POINTy tendentious editing, mostly by a single dedicated editor. It shouldn't be necessary to start an RfC for each single minor correction of the article's content, but unfortunately we will be forced to do so until that editor either retires or is retired. DrKay (talk) 17:48, 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--"[T]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."[6] "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".[7]--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),[8] 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 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)

• Yes. Important fact that is true. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 04:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Not as such the official position is that the person of the monarch is shared between all the realms. They do reside primarily in the UK but that qualifier is so important in my opinion that I can’t say I support such a broad statement. I haven’t thoroughly examined the sources recently but all the ones I’ve seen in the past align with the assertion I’m making. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:51, 22 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 Wikipedia. --₪ 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 Wikipedia 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)

"[His] principal residence is in London".[9] "Queen Elizabeth II concluded her opening speech at Halifax, at the start of her 2010 tour and residence in Canada."[10] "This, my home in Ottawa".[11]

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."[12]

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.[13]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.[14] 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,[24] 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)

"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)