Talk:Monarchy in Quebec

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Facts[edit]

"This Act undermined the American revolutionaries' plans to gain the support of Quebecers, who saw their rights being more protected under the Crown than in an independent American republic [citation needed]".

This should be rephrased or properly sourced I believe. Typically, the popular interpretation of this period is that the Quebec Act contributed to the Canadian elite's siding with those who called them to defend their country against an invasion. The reason for this support by parts of the Quebec population is unclear and has been the constant object of speculation by historians. Was it a desire to prove their loyalty to their new Sovereign? Did the majority remain neutral as is often asserted by some historians? We could also ask ourselves, if, had Quebec become and independent republic, it would not have been up to an elected Legislative Assembly of Quebec to decide what to do with French civil law? How many Francophones actually understood the nature of the political conflict between Britain and its American colonies? There are many hypotheses but nothing solid as far as I know.

"Their demands were disregarded by the Lieutenant-Governor, Lord John Russell, an act which eventually led to the Lower Canada Rebellion."

This seems like an oversimplification of a complex situation. First of all, Lord John Russel was not the Lieutenant-Governor. The L-G was Archibald Acheson, 2nd Earl of Gosford. Russel is a member of the British Cabinet at the time. The "rebellion" as it was called is the result of more than just the rejection of the 92 resolutions by the British Parliament. There was an escalation of violence during the whole of the year of 1837. After replacing Lord John Russel by Archibald Acheson, 2nd Earl of Gosford in the article, maybe we can write "an act which contributed to the radicalization of the Patriotes actions." At least that can be backed by evidence. The Patriotes, frustrated by the failure of the reform movement, began to boycott British imports.

""Part then in peace. I urge you to unanimity and accord. Let me hear no more of the odious distinctions of English and French. You are all His Britannic Majesty's beloved Canadian subjects." It was reportedly the first time the word "Canadian", which had previously been reserved only for Francophones, was used in a manner that included all colonialists."

Prince Edward was not the first person to speak of the "Canadians" that way. Pierre du Calvet called for the end of distinctions of origin and nationality in Appel à la justice de l'État in 1784. I do not know if he was the first one, but that is long before Prince Edward. -- Mathieugp 07:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken ref, sorta[edit]

FYI, reference one (^ a b CBC Archives: 1964 Quebec Visit, speech) points to an Ontario site, and doesn't have anything to do with the facts cited. Cmprince 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's quote[edit]

What's with the quote of Queen Liz being happy to speak in French at the beginning of the article? This clearly shows some bias in favour of the monarchy. The quote can be kept, but it should be placed somewhere else in the article.

Question concerning sovereignty and the Crown[edit]

"However, University of Toronto Professor Richard Toporoski held the theory that a sovereign, not independent, Quebec would still be under the sovereignty of the Queen"

If a constitutional amendment made the provincial Crown sovereign, would this automatically result in equality with the federal Crown and thus sovereignty within confederation? Laval (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this theory really stays in the article? I think it is a clear example of WP:FRINGE. Given that it occupies 3/4 of the section, it introduces a new problem : WP:UNDUE. This theory, which is based on a special interpretation of the word "sovereign" by a monarchist, is not discussed much in the mainstream media, outside monarchist leagues, and is not only not supported by Quebec federalists, but also not even seen as a possibility. --zorxd (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it stays in the article, the author should at least be identified as an "ardent monarchist", as in the source. --zorxd (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only source about this describe the author as an ardent monarchist. It is much more important in this case than the fact that he happens to be a U of Toronto professor. --zorxd (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only in your mind. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding that Richard Toporoski makes an unsubstantiated claim? --zorxd (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his claims, that Quebec citizens would stay subjects of the Queen are based on nothing. Using money with the queen on it doesn't makes you a subject of the queen, much like all countries using the USD are not subordinated to the president of the United States. And what possibility is that that Quebeckers keep Canadian citizenship? He is probably talking about a personal choice. Quebeckers would be able to have both Quebec and Canada's nationality, but Canada's would be optional, much like someone who moves from overseas to Canada and choose to keep his first citizenship while gaining Canada's. Just because some people in the US also have an other citizenship from the UK or Canada doesn't make the US a territory of the crown. This guy needs to wake up. All serious proposals of a sovereign Quebec have been republics. --zorxd (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The province's sovereigntist political party, the Parti Québécois (PQ), has generally been hostile to the Crown in Quebec, regarding it not as a distinct and essential part of the province's national structure – "the last bulwark of democracy," as former Liberal Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson, Jr. put it[16] – but as a federal institution involved in Quebec affairs"

This part should be rewritten. It sounds as if the Liberals were seeing the monarchy "as a distinct and essential part of the province's national structure". That a single premier said something positive about the monarchy is far from enough to let the reader think such a thing. In fact, the claim is not sourced. Also, the PQ isn't only "generally hostile to the Crown in Quebec", it is against the monarchy, period. That it is a federal institution is far from the only problem they see with the monarchy. The main reason is probably that it is seen as a symbol of the British colonialism. --zorxd (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rocket richard record-breaking goal puck[edit]

sorry, i know it's not a big deal, but said goal broke the "NHL record", not the "world record". The Queen's Royal Collection is not an authority on sports terminology. Nobody speaks of North American professional hockey records as "world records", nor of the Stanley Cup Champions as "world champions". It's just not done, chap.Markeilz (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only source we have right now says "world". I'm not personally going to say you're wrong, but I think that, in the absence of other sources, we should perhaps simply avoid a scope, all together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to the monarchy in Quebec[edit]

This article should talk more about the opposition to the monarchy in the province. When reading this article, it seems that there is only a marginal opposition from some sovereignists. Just because Daniel Johnson said something positive about the monarchy doesn't mean that his view is shared among all federalists. Many federalists agree that the opposition to the monarchy is "almost unanimous" in the province [1] and they describe it as "divisive and irrelevant". 80% of the population think that it is useless [2] and 86% favor its elemination [3] --zorxd (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What more can be said than simply a repetition of the poll questions and numbers? You certainly can't here start to interpret the meaning of the poll results. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wanted to know if there was a reason why a so important information was not already included, and also discuss where it should be added. Maybe at the end of "A modern Elizabethan era"? --zorxd (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

modern Elizabethan era[edit]

Sources are misunderstood in this part :

In 2006, plans were underway for the quatercentenary of the founding of Quebec City and both the city and provincial governments mused about inviting the Queen or another member of the Royal Family to attend the festivities,[43][44] as had been done a century prior.

  • The provincial government did not want to invite another member of the Royal Family, only the Mayor did, and specifically one of the two sons. I don't think the exact same thing has been done a century prior either.

However, this prompted PQ members of the National Assembly to complain about federal intervention in a provincial affair

  • They did complain about the federal, but not explicitly about this issue, so this is original research.

but with support from 64% of polled individuals in the province

  • Technically right... But wouldn't "according to polls, 64% of the individuals..." be more neutral? --zorxd (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A biased paragraph. Each sentence is biased :

  • Through the 1960s and 1970s, Quebec nationalism grew and created an atmosphere in which the Canadian monarchy was a target of anti-federal, anti-English sentiment.

So Quebec nationalists are anti-federal and anti-English? Not very neutral. This sentence try to show that the Canadian monarchy is a poor victim of the racist Quebec nationalists.

You are joking, right? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Anti-English is pejorative here, it sounds as racist. So not neutral at all. --zorxd (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it sounds racist to you because you don't know the proper definition of race. Hint: it has nothing to do with language. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there are multiple definitions of English. One of which is "The English (from Old English: Englisc) are a nation and ethnic group native to England". As stated in the article about racism, it also applies to ethnic groups and not only to skin colour. --zorxd (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And nationalists are now a race? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but as I said, racism, or racial discrimination if you prefer, also applies to nationalities (not nationalists) and ethnic groups. An anti-English sentiment is therefore a racist sentiment. Anyway, even if you don't agree with this definition of racism, it is still xenophobic and therefore pejorative, which means that it isn't NPOV. --zorxd (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should also read what the queen said : Whenever you sing [the French words of] "O Canada" you are reminded that you come of a proud race. The Queen seems to think that canadians form a "race". --zorxd (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the source do not support the claims in the article. First, it says "student AND separatist manifestation". The text talk about anti-Royal. Much better than anti-English. --zorxd (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • During a visit to Quebec in 1964, at the height of the Quiet Revolution, the Quebec press published reports of a separatist plot to assassinate the Queen, and when Elizabeth arrived at Quebec City she was greeted by demonstrators who lined the route of her procession showing their backs to her.

Now, put the emphasis on trying to depict separatists as criminal terrorists. It will be easier to convince the reader that the opposition to the monarchy is wrong.

You seem to have a problem with facts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, only with bias. Don't forget that a collection of facts (event if they are true) from a single side is still a bias. By the way, this part is not sourced either. --zorxd (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Sorry, I should have said: you seem to have a problem with facts you don't like. If you truly, really, honestly want to rectify some perceived imbalace, do some actual work and provide the facts that will allow you to do such a thing. Who knows what those are in this case (Separatist gushings of love for the Queen? An opinion that the assasination threats were messages of loyalty misread by ignorant English Canadians?), but, please, do something or stop whinging about it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an example : in the video source from the CBC, it is said that Pierre Bourgault called "to oppose violence at all costs". But of course, the article only report the pejorative parts about marginal terrorists. Also, how can I know if it is true that "Quebec press published reports of a separatist plot to assassinate the Queen", since it isn't sourced? And even if it was true, saying that it is a "separatist plot" is a POV that try to show that it is endorsed by the mainstream separatist view. Same thing for "greeted by demonstrators who lined the route of her procession showing their backs to her." : not sourced. The article only reports facts from a certain POV, and even those facts are reported with a strong bias. --zorxd (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again. You don't know whether or not anything was a mainstream or exceptional separatist view. You can't even elaborate on how the article text communicates a POV either way; it certainly doesn't say majority or minority. You even personally exalt yourself to the position of source sorter, permitting only that which you deem appropriate, all others having what you say is too much POV themselves. POV, POV, POV, you see it everywhere except in yourself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this article, every single sentence about the separatists is pejorative. Every single sentence about any opposition to the monarchy also is. I hardly see how you can think it is neutral. --zorxd (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, the Queen ignored the controversy in favour of praising, in a speech delivered in both French and English to the Legislative Assembly,[32] Canada's two "complimentary cultures" and the strength of Canada's two founding peoples; she stated: "I am pleased to think that there exists in our Commonwealth a country where I can express myself officially in French... Whenever you sing [the French words of] "O Canada" you are reminded that you come of a proud race."[21][37][38]

Now show how good the Queen is, especially to Quebeckers. How can you be against such a good sovereign? The only opposition must come from dangerous terrorists.

  • Following the sovereign's departure from the parliament, separatists who had been gathered outside took to marching through the streets;[38] they were violently dispersed by police, with 36 persons arrested,

Again, insist on how violent the opposition is. Minimize them to separatists (which we know are all terrorists and racists anyways). Don't say a word about the peaceful majority which are probably opposed to the monarchy.

  • including some who had been there to cheer the monarch, leading to the day being dubbed Samedi de la matraque (Truncheon Saturday).[39]

Of course, don't forget to say that some people really wanted to cheer the monarch, to show that the opposition is even more marginal.

  • Otherwise, it was reported by the Montreal Gazette that, while the overall reception the royal couple was "cool", the majority of the thousands who came to see the Queen showed a positive reaction;

What better than a Montreal based English newspaper to report the opinion of the French-speaking majority of Quebec city? Because the majority of those who came to see the Queen allegedly showed a positive reaction, we must conclude that it reflects the view of the majority of the population.

  • those who opposed the visit were students numbering in the hundreds.[40]

Yeah right, nobody else opposed the visit, of course. Students are known to be idealist revolutionaries anyway, so we could say that all those whose opinion count supported the Queen.

  • Four years later, though, at the first meeting of the constitutional conferences in Ottawa, delegates from Quebec indicated that a provincial president might suit the province better than a viceroy.[41]

Though??? As if it was surprising that some people oppose a so good monarchy? Of course it is the conclusion that we make after reading the first part of this paragraph. Hard to be more biased. --zorxd (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec city's 400th and the queen[edit]

The even is covered in at least the following articles :

There is a common bias in the reporting of the even, which gives undue weight to a pro-monarchist POV. Each time, it minimizes the opposition to separatists (and by emphasizing on the threats of violence from some of the most vocals), and many statements are even false. It is written so that we think that the queen should have been invited (such as by telling that the monarch was present 100 years before). In most cases, it fails to explains that the majority of the population of the province was against the visit, just like against the British monarchy in general. It is not always said that the federal government blocked the invitation, the emphasize is instead on the "desire" from some politicians to invite the queen (as it if was a sign of support to the monarchy). In fact, the queen was on a long list of guests, mostly for marketing reasons, of the organising committee, and the politicians only defended their organisers. They didn't seem very upset that the queen wasn't invited, as they know she wouldn't have come. I think the issue should be described in details at one place, probably in this article, on a more neutral manner, and others could refer to it. --zorxd (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say there's bias and false statements is one thing. To say the bias and false statements are bad because they don't align with your bias and false statements is all together something different. For instance:
  • That the Canadian monarchy is British is your POV.
  • There was no monarch at the tercentenary celebrations.
  • That the organisers invited the Queen for "marketing reasons" is your POV.
  • That the organisers "didn't seem" upset by her failure to attend is your POV.
  • That the article implies the Queen should have been invited is your POV.
However the sentence ends up being written, it is clearly relevant to this article. However, what happens to its mention on other pages depends entirely on what happens on or to those pages, uniquely. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started this discution, because when I tried to improve the section relating this event on the page Monarchism in Canada, you told me that only monarchist POV should stay in this article. I hope that in other articles there is room for a more neutral POV. --zorxd (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sources refer to the monarch in Canada as "British". Denning this , is a minority POV, mostly in monarchist circles. [4]
  • George V, who presided over the tercentenary celebrations of the same event in 1908 George V was't a monarch??
  • This, I agree, and I don't want to include it in the article. I only want to explain.
  • Same as above.
  • I know, but the discussion page is the place to discuss such views. All those articles seems written from a monarchist POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorxd (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Canadian government denies it. I do believe that trumps all lazy media sources.
  • He was Prince of Wales in 1907.
  • Fair enough on all the rest. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there really other sources that are as monarchist as you and the current Wikipedia articles? For example, I looked at [5] and it seems much more neutral. It presents the two sides and is short and clean. Much better than the current debate page in my opinion. You might also like the section "Canadianizing" the Monarchy. At least it explains the issue. It is much more neutral than you because of that. It does not say religiously that the canadian monarchy isn't British, at least it admits that the monarch is British and that the monarchy as a whole is still British-linked. --zorxd (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A student run website doesn't override sources from the federal government. But, regardless, have you any ability to control yourself? You've about a dozen different discussions going on in no less than four separate locations, all now cross referencing one another. Get some focus, please. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it the good place to talk about the whole series of articles about monarchy in Canada being too pro-monarchist? I thought it was better to discuss each problem individually instead. Don't you agree? --zorxd (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss each individually, yes. But who's capable of discussing 29 individual issues simultaneously? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

An editor removed a sentence that spoke of support for the monarchy in Quebec. It was subsequently reinserted. I was going to move it elsewhere in the article, but realised that it may have nothing to do with the subject of this page. The sentence's source states "In Quebec, an overwhelming majority (86 per cent) favoured the monarchy's elimination," but this does not clarify whether the poll asked about abolition of the monarchy in Quebec alone or from Canada as a whole. If it is the former, it relates to this page; if it is the latter, it belongs at Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Polls. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It likely means 'abolishment from Canada', since Quebec isn't independant. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But there have been proposals from within Quebec for the province, while still in Confederation, to have a president. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care what the proposals are. The fact is that a huge majority of the population are opposed to the current monarchy. Removing the sentence is hiding an important fact to the article, no matter if it means ending monarchy in Quebec only or in Canada as a whole. And yes, this is specific to Quebec as no other province have a so strong anti-monarchy sentiment. Canada-wide polls belongs to the other article, but I don't see why Quebec specific polls couldn't be included here. --zorxd (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any logic in your argument. This isn't a matter or removing the sentence, but moving it. Given that the Canada-wide poll asks about the monarchy over all of Canada, not just Quebec, the factoid isn't relevant to this page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can also add it to the page about the debate on monarchy if you think it belongs there, but here we should discuss if it should stay in this page, and I answer of course. Everytime we talk about the monarchy in Quebec, we also talk about the strong opposition. This wikipedia article can't hide this reality. I think we should even add more, not less, content about this issue. --zorxd (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing the Canadian monarchy with the monarchy in Quebec. They are not the same thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I forgot, that "monarchy in Quebec", this obscure concept, virtually unknown outside monarchist leagues, which is uninterrupted since 1534, right? What you are talking about is a legal concept that seems, I must admit, to exist (the Crown in right of Quebec), although not in its current form since 1534. This article, however, is not only about this legal concept (which is nothing more than a legal synonym of the government of Quebec itself) and goes much further by talking about the French monarchy in the New France period up to the current monarchy. Why is it OK for this article to talk about the opposition to the monarchy (the Canadian monarchy, as said in the article, by the way) by Quebec nationalists if it can't talk about the general opposition to the exact same monarchy? This article is about anything related to the monarchy which is specific to the province of Quebec. The opposition to the monarchy, being important in the province, must have its fair share of the article and be described neutrally. What do you think? That Quebeckers are opposed to the "Canadian monarchy" but not the "monarchy in Quebec"? No poll will ever make the distinction because everybody knows that there is none worth of speaking about. In a Canadian context, being opposed to the monarchy in Canada, the Canadian monarchy, the British monarchy, the English monarchy, the monarchy in [insert province name] and simply "the monarchy" are all virtually synonyms as they represent the same ideas and movement, unless otherwise said. --zorxd (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All you're doing is demonstrating a serious failure to grasp the subject matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you contesting the fact that there is no serious support for the monarchy in Quebec? --zorxd (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter or removing the sentence, but moving it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it where? I think it is important enough for the introduction. --zorxd (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this article. Move it to Debate on the monarchy in Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I already gave my opinion on this : we could add the information in the other article, but it should definitely stay here. A lot of information in this article is also present in 3-4 other articles and as strange as it sounds you don't want it removed. By the way, I think that the huge poll section in Debate on the monarchy in Canada is very ugly. It is a good place to put an information if you don't want anybody to read it. --zorxd (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply not relevant here; that you support something akin to discussing the federal prime minister's popularity in Quebec in Government of Quebec shows you aren't comprehending the subject matter here. The other problems aren't pertinent to this particular discussion and can be dealt with at another time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very poor comparison. A good comparison would be if an article called "The federal government in Quebec" existed. If it did, and if a big majority of Quebecers were opposed to it (supposing that such a thing would be possible), it would be relevant to include. But anyways, Quebeckers are opposed to both "the monarchy in Quebec" and the "Canadian monarchy". Pick the one that you like the most, the sentence is still true. But if you still want to discuss this issue, please include all other parts of the article about the Canadian monarchy, which are all, according to you, off topic. Also move every part about the Queen, unless specifically sourced that the Queen is acting as the Queen-in-right-of-Quebec (which currently is the case for a total of 0 sources). Who knows, maybe those who made a plot against the Queen were targeting the Queen-in-right-of-Ontario/Canada/UK/Jamaïca instead of the Queen-in-right-of-Quebec? See how ridiculous the distinction is. --zorxd (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's very clear now that you don't understand the subject matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the subject matter is the legal concept of the "monarchy in Quebec", which, as stated by the infobox, was formed in 1867, should we remove the history section before 1867? --zorxd (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The provincial crown didn't just magically pop up out of nowhere. That said, I've wondered for a while whether or not the history section could do with a good trim. But that is another matter all together, of course. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the different concepts about the monarchy evolved over the time, and when Quebeckers answer in a poll that they want the end of the monarchy, it means all of them, including the "Canadian monarchy" *and* "the Crown in right of Quebec". Because of the last part, we can leave the sentence in the article. --zorxd (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The evolution of the Crown in Quebec and Quebecers' opinions on the Canadian Crown are not the same thing. The former is related to this page, the latter is not. Hence, the sentence discussing polls on the Canadian Crown is out of place here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, what the poll says is that Quebecers want the end of both concepts : the Crown in Quebec as well as the Canadian Crown, which are collectively referred to as "the monarchy". No poll will ever make the distinction between the two concepts. Think about it : how can Quebec end the "Crown in Quebec" concept without ending the Canadian monarchy? Even if it was possible, it is not conceived in the public opinion or in polling companies. I am not talking about the independence, which is an other issue, here. --zorxd (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be unusual for any poll on the monarchy to focus on the provincial crown specifically. But, can you please point to where anything says the poll asked about the monarchy in both jurisdictions? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say both jurisdiction, but it doesn't say that it apply to only at the federal level either, and for a simple reason : there is no serious opposition against one but not the other. It is safe to assume that it refers to both, which correspond to what is referred to as "the monarchy". I am sure that you understand this perfectly but that you are only looking for a reason to remove any content that doesn't hide the opposition to the monarchy. --zorxd (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not safe to assume it refers to both. And I am sure that the two times I told you I don't want the sentence removed, I want it moved, are being willfully ignored by you so that I might appear to be acting in bad faith.
PS- Have you ever heard of outdenting? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered you about that : add the poll to the other article if you want, nobody here is stopping you. Whether is stays in this article or not is an other debate and is what we are discussing here. That when people say that they want to end the monarchy, they are only referring to the federal level of the institution is an interesting theory but not sourced. All sources about the opposition to the monarchy clearly show the opposition to both levels combined, no serious opposition even make the distinction that you do. --zorxd (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh... "All sources about the opposition to the monarchy clearly show the opposition to both levels combined" is actually the "interesting theory" here. The poll was a national one, and the question asked was "should Canada [emphasis mine] cut its connection to the monarchy?"p.25 --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that if Canada cut its connection to the monarchy, Quebec wouldn't do the same automatically? Those who answered perfectly knew that it meant the end of the monarchy at both federal and provincial level. There is no movement for the end of the federal monarchy but not the provincial one in Quebec (as it is probably the case in all provinces). And no one polls this. The distinction that you make is not an excuse for hiding the strong opposition in the public opinion to all levels of the monarchy in Quebec, be it provincial, federal, or British/Commonwealth realm. But your help is welcome if you know a source that better reflect this reality. By the way, even the monarchists also consider the monarchy concept as a whole, as there is a single monarchist league of Canada which defend the monarchical institutions of both the federal and the provinces. If there was a debate in Canada about ending only either the provincial level or the federal level of the monarchy, you could be right, but this is far from the case. The only debate is about the whole system. --zorxd (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All irrelevant to the point that the poll is irrelevant to this article. If you want to talk about strong feelings against the monarchy in Quebec in particular, find some other sources. They are out there; there are some that complain about the lieutenant governor, and I wasn't joking when I said there have been proposals for a provincial president in Quebec while Canada and the other provinces remained monarchical. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those proposals are what we call Fringe theories. They have no support. A specific poll about the popularity of the lieutenant governor is much less relevant to this article than a poll about the whole system, which includes the provincial institutions. You don't have to make a distinction when the polls don't do it, or that would be original research. --zorxd (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was merely suggesting how you might go about putting together a base for some words outlining opinions on the Quebec Crown, because this poll you insist on putting in here just doesn't do the job. The poll asks about Canada, not Quebec; the effects on Quebec of Canada becoming a republic are speculative, and thus are no argument in favour of keeping mention of the poll here.
I'm repeating myself with you again, so, if you want to continue this, I think you're going to have to go to the next step of dispute resolution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this time, it seems that it is you which will have to go to the next step of dispute resolution since the sentence stayed there for a while. Also, the subject is the "Monarchy in Quebec". Since this is about the monarchy and happens in Quebec, you will have to find something else. Or try to get the article renamed. --zorxd (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The sentence has never had consensus; it has been contested by more than one editor ever since you put it in. You're still arguing for why it should be added. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that I understand what it needs to be considered a consensus. Since you seem to have written many sentences of many articles about the monarchy alone, some of which are often contested by more than one user, does it mean that they could be removed as well? I think that many users, you included, had the time to revert my edit when I added the sentence and that there is now a consensus. I started a discussion about the issue before adding the sentence by the way. There haven't been any opposition. So you are telling me that when I added the sentence, you didn't reverted my edit, and now you are telling me that you never accepted it? --zorxd (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right; I oppose it now just as I opposed it before. (Why the hell would I still be arguing with you about it if I had accepted the sentence?) I haven't reverted the edit again because you'd just revert it back once more, as you did each time it was removed; that's called an edit war, and is a no-no. Also see WP:BRD, and WP:CONS. Note that "silence can imply consent"; so, anything I've written that hasn't been contested becomes defacto consented to by not being contested. You can contest now whatever I have long ago written, but the status quo (which has consent by silence) remains until a new consensus is reached. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my other edits but not this particular one. You could have been the first one to revert my edit so I don't see how you could have known if it would be an edit war or not. The sentence was only removed lately. I reverted the remove because I tought that it stayed there for long enough and other users, you included, made other edits to the article but leaved this particular sentence. --zorxd (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say things like that, I really start to wonder if you're here just to be annoying to someone else. I did revert your insertion of the poll. You reverted it back not once, not twice, but three times. If that, plus this debate, doesn't demonstrate to you that the sentence is contested, I don't know what world you live in. If you're serious about this, go to dispute resolution. Otherwise, you can't be serious, and are just being disruptive. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are joking? This revert was done about 1 month after I first added the sentence. During this month, you made many other edits to the article, which mean that you first accepted it. After someone first tried to remove the sentence, you removed it too based on dubious claims about your interpretation of the poll so that you can say that one more user contested the sentence. The first user to remove it however, didn't contest its place in the article. He contested the conclusion drawn from the article. He is welcome to explain his point here, but I think it is pretty clear that 86% oppose the monarchy. I am open to a better wording if needed. The other user removed it because he thought it didn't fit well at this place in the article. He is also welcome to discuss on how to integrate it better (or maybe move it somewhere else in the article?). From what I understand, you are the only one who do not want the information to be in the article at all. --zorxd (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely serious. A month passed while countless other disruptions of your creation were going on here and at half a dozen other pages. You know full well the onus is on you to seek consensus for the addition; you just don't want to go to the next step of dispute resolution. You never do (except once); preferring instead to keep these debates going on ad infinitum, starting new ones, ad infinitum. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you had the time during this month to revert (or modify, but most of the time revert) all my other edits, including very minor ones, but not this one which is a lot more important since it adds information which wasn't in the article before? You will need to find something better. In fact, you are maybe the only one on wikipedia who can't say that you didn't have the time to revert since you contributed many times to the article. --zorxd (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'te still sticking to this inane defence? Because something slipped under the radar for a whole month full of disputes started by you across multiple articles it's now cemented until conensus is found to remove it? Not cool. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]



By the way, I will re-insert it since a badly formatted reference isn't a good reason for removing. Your help is welcome if you know how to write it better. --zorxd (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You evidently missed where I explained above why I removed the sentence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I tried to add content, but it was reverted. Sources I was based on are these :

  • almost unanimous opposition in Quebec[6][7]
  • Quebec, however, is currently the only province where the population might be seen as strongly supporting a republic[8]
  • In Quebec, an overwhelming majority (86 per cent) favoured the monarchy's elimination.[9]

Polls contently show that the population of Quebec is against the monarchy. I would like to modify the article to reflect this, and say more than a single poll, as it is clearly not a temporary sentiment. --zorxd (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tried again to insert material not relevant to this article. This belongs in an article discussing the Canadian monarchy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opinion. Read below, I am not alone to think that the support to the monarchy have its place here. --zorxd (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are alone in thinking information on support of the Canadian monarchy belongs here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't read MathieuGP's comment. This article is about the monarchy in Quebec. Which monarchy is currently in Quebec? That's right, the Canadian one. Which was here in 1700? The French one, that's why it can be included in the history section. --zorxd (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A poll is not a "social/political movement". The Canadian monarchy is not the Crown in Right of Quebec. Please read the constitution. Bringing up what's in the history section is a red herring; the history section needs work itself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I would like to add more info about the opposition and not leave only a poll (which is dull) but you are not open to it. We should start a discussion similar to the one that I started in Monarchy of Canada about if the subject is the legal concept of "the Crown in Right of" Canada/Quebec or the monarchy as a whole as it is in its different aspects (not only legal) and how it affects people in the country/province. I perfectly understand what you think should be the subject of this article, only, I don't agree with it and it is the centre of all our disagreements. --zorxd (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This just goes round and round in circles. My own words from earlier: "If you want to talk about strong feelings against the monarchy in Quebec in particular, find some other sources. They are out there; there are some that complain about the lieutenant governor, and I wasn't joking when I said there have been proposals for a provincial president in Quebec while Canada and the other provinces remained monarchical." In case that wasn't clear: I'm not against mentioning opposition, so long as it is opposition to the subject of this article, which is not the Canadian monarchy. Opposition in Quebec to the Canadian monarchy is already covered elsewhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't understand what I said. To me, the subject is the (Canadian) monarchy in Quebec. Not the legal concept of the Crown in Right of Quebec. I don't ask you to agree, but I will start a discussion about the issue right now. --zorxd (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is done by the King[edit]

This article attribute every single event of the history to the monarchy. I am sorry, but namming a road "le chemin du Roy" (king's way), or calling New France a "Royal province" (as was every province of France during this period I guess), is not important enough to be included in the history section of this article as it doesn't mean much about the monarchy. I also changed the part about the treaty of Paris, but a user reverted it [10]. As was shown with my edit, most sources talk about the transfer of the territory of New France from France to Great Britain. It was a transfer from one country to an other. But the user, who is obviously trying to connect everything to the monarchs, prefer to say that it is a transfer from Louis XV to George III. He also doesn't want "of France" and "of the United Kingdom" to appear in the article because in his view, they are two kings of Canada which passed the territory through uninterrupted inheritance, just like between to kings of the same country. The distinction is subtle, but there, so no, they are not synonyms in this case and the user knows it very well. Let's not forget that the monarch or "the crown" is often use to mean "the country" or "the government". --zorxd (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the content of this article[edit]

I see that there is an ongoing discussion concerning the content of this article. I won't say anything about the discussion, but I hope to foster better collaboration on improving this article by stating my opinion on what I think the average reader is likely to expect from an article entitled Monarchy in Quebec:

  • Information about the monarchy as an institution today.
    • What laws are involved?
    • What role does monarchy play in the legislatures/executives/judicial systems of Quebec?
    • Oath of allegiance? sanction of laws? budget of the lieutenant-governor's office? etc.
    • Symbols in use? (there is the royal mass in the National Assembly)
  • Information about the history of the monarchy as an institution (both French and British monarchies).
    • Same as above, but going over the history of it (laws, roles).
  • Information about the individuals who have represented the two crowns that exerted authority over Quebec.
  • Information about visits from royal family members.
  • Information about social/political movements in favor of/in opposition to the monarchy in Quebec/Canada today. (the rest could be part of the section on history I think.)
  • Representation of monarchy in the culture of Quebec.

At the moment, I find the article lacking in substance on things related to the French monarchy. Also, I see some issues with the current content:

  • It is not clear what role the monarchy plays in Quebec. I see the expressions The Crown in Right of Quebec, Her Majesty in Right of Quebec, The Queen in Right of Quebec. These are correct. These terms are still in use. But it ought to be mentioned somewhere that in 1968, Quebec deprecated the use of most of the monarchical vocabulary and ceremonies it once used. The monarchy was put to sleep, to the extend that the legislature of Quebec was able to. For example, the website of the National Assembly of Quebec says this:
"The occasional presence in the House of the Lieutenant-Governor of Québec, the representative of the King or Queen, recalls a time when the monarch shared his or her authority with elected officials.
The abolition of the Legislative Council in 1968 greatly reduced the pomp and circumstance surrounding the Lieutenant-Governor’s presence during parliamentary sessions. For a long time, the Lieutenant-Governor’s arrival was announced by canon fire and followed by a lavish ceremony in the Legislative Council Chamber. These very British traditions were done away with in 1968 for the sake of modernity and efficiency.
Today, almost all of the executive power is held by the Premier and the Cabinet, who share it with the Lieutenant-Governor. The Lieutenant-Governor opens each Session with a speech, assents to bills that have been passed and prorogues the Session at a time determined by the Premier." [11]
  • The history section seems poor. It wanders off topic and jumps from one anecdote to the next.

-- Mathieugp (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --zorxd (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to me, overall. However, it's still a wide ranging observation that may eventually reveal possibly contentious issues in the details (I think I can already see a few, most easily dealt with, one maybe not). It will also require a lot of fact gathering. Doesn't mean, though, that it's impossible to address all the above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The devil is in the details. :-) So we can begin discussing on points of details, I will propose this new structure:
== Constitutional role ==
=== Executive ===
=== Legislative ===
=== Judicial ===
== History ==
=== French monarchy ===
=== British monarchy ===
== Symbols ==
== Representatives ==
== Royal visits ==
== Public opinion ==
== Notes ==
== References ==
What do you think? -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the constitutional role really need to be divided into subsections? What more can be said about the judicial more than the term Queen-on-bench and that attorneys are called Crown attorneys? I am not sure that there is enough content for a section. Other than that, I think it is good. --zorxd (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Maybe subsections are overkill. It is possible we can cover everything with a subdivision of four paragraphs: intro, legislative, executive, judicial. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article[edit]

I think we should have a discussion similar to this one : Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada#The_monarchy_of_Canada.2C_The_Crown_in_Right_of_Canada.2C_etc about the subject of the article. Possibles views are :

  • 1. The (mostly legal) concept of "the Crown" in Quebec, also called the "Crown in right of Quebec", which was created in 1867. It includes the lieutenant governor, it status, etc but not anything which is related to the federal institution of the Canadian monarchy even in a case were it relates specifically to Quebec.
  • 2. All aspects of the (now Canadian, but was first French and then British) monarchy in the province of Quebec, including, but not limited to, the legal concept described in the first point. This would also include, among others, the particular way that Quebecers view the Canadian monarchy, and could talk about the official residence at the Citadelle in Quebec city. --zorxd (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should take example on the other Monarchy of ... articles and treat all aspects. -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Monarchy in Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Monarchy in Quebec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has the CAQ government's changes to the requirements of taking the 'oath of allegiance' to the king, been challenged in courts?[edit]

Has there been legal challenges made, to the CAQ government's making the oath of allegiance to the king, optional? GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_in_Quebec&oldid=1204048077"