Talk:Canadian Royal Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-21. The result of the discussion was keep and redirect.

Contents 1 Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII 2 Uh, what? 3 Reinstatement 4 Allegiance

[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uh, what?

What is the purpose of this page? The "Canadian" Royal Family is the same as the British Royal Family. Do we need 16 different identical pages for the Jamaican Royal Family and the Paupa New Geuinan Royal Family and all the rest? Any relevant details relating to the monarchy in Canada belong on that page. user:J.J.

The purpose of this page is to illustrate that even though the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have the same monarch, she has sovereignty over the two kingdoms separately and with two separate crowns and that despite their personal union there is no connection between the two kingdoms, therefore Queen Elizabeth's family is the British royal family in the United Kingdom, but it is the Canadian royal family in Canada. FDR May 22, 2006 10:55 PM (UTC)

Exactly. --gbambino 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Have to go with J.J. on this one. The Canadian monarchy is simply the British monarchy with a slightly different constitutional relationship. Creating a separate page for it would be the same as creating 10 different pages for one person, just because he or she has 10 relatives who have different personal relationships. Besides, it's a huge stretch to call them the Canadian royal family. They're completely non-resident in Canada and generally accepted worldwide as being 100% indiginous to the United Kingdom. Case in point: When the Queen travels internationally, she is *never* introduced as the Queen of Canada. It may not be correct but "General acceptance" is a significant factor for considering articles in Wikipedia. The page should be deleted or, if any relevent differences exist, they should be incorporated into the existing page for the monarchy in Canada. user:MC Rufus

It is not true that Queen Elizabeth is never introduced as the Queen of Canda. According to Wikipedia profile of Elizabeth she toured Canada in 1959 and then visited the USA in her capacity as Queen of Canada. FDR | MyTalk 10:02 AM May 24, 2006 (UTC)

She's also acted as Queen of Canada in the UK and France. But anyway, I've cleared enough space at Monarchy in Canada to move this information to a dedicated section there. It therefore seems that this article is no longer necessary, unless there are any other objections. --gbambino 16:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstatement

This article has been reinstated due to cleanup at Monarchy in Canada, where the information was previously located. There is now an abbreviated section there with a link to this main article. --G2bambino 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This article is, or ought to be, entirely redundant with the content of Monarchy in Canada and British Royal Family. john k 17:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Monarchy in Canada and British Royal Family are too long. The former is being pared down, with much more info than just what's here being shifted to dedicated articles. The latter is a subject completely separate to this one. What's here can't be redundant as it isn't repeated anywhere. But, I'm all open for other suggestions. --G2bambino 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see what specific information this article can possibly impart. The Monarchy in Canada covers everything about the specific role of the monarchy in Canada and its relationship to the British monarchy. The British royal family comprises the same people as the "Canadian royal family," and thus any information on the individuals themselves ought to be there. But I don't have the energy to fight with you about this again. Do as you will. john k 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear from the information gathered in this article that the Canadian Royal Family actually isn't the same thing as the British Royal Family, despite their both being comprised of the same people. Thus, why would this info be moved to British Royal Family, as though the institution it describes was a subordinate part of a greater royal family, when it patently is not?

It isn't my intent to fight with anyone. As I said, I'm open to suggestions; but, whatever's done has to work within the facts at hand. --G2bambino 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the Canadian Royal Family- this article is all original research. Astrotrain 20:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The cited sources prove that statement wrong. --G2bambino 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To the extent to which the Canadian Royal Family is different from the British Royal family, that should be discussed in Monarchy in Canada, or whatever. Any discusssion of the indivudal members should go in British royal family. john k 06:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, there isn't room at Monarchy in Canada; even after extensive edits it's still over 51KB. That's why this article was reinstated. --G2bambino 14:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think the material in this argument really needs to be anywhere. It's all just a logical extension of the basic nature of the commonwealth realms. This article could be copied and barely modified and serve just as well as Australian Royal Family, New Zealand Royal Family, Jamaican Royal Family, Barbadian Royal Family, Bahamian Royal Family, Tuvaluan Royal Family, or whatever. It has no informational content, it's just here to make the argument (over and over again) that Canada has its own monarchy, and thus it has its own royal family (repeat ad infinitum). john k 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's related to the nature of the Commonwealth Realms, but then, so too is the British Royal Family - that doesn't necessarily mean, however, that either article is worthless. Certainly the British Royal family has a much longer history, but, again, I don't see how the fact that the Canadian Royal Family has had a shorter existence undermines the content that is in this article. That said, I also can't fathom at all what you mean by "[this article] has no informational content." The section Monarchy in Canada#Canadian Royal Family existed precisely because there was information to be put in it. Argument or not, the material is existant, is verifiable, and therefore merits inclusion somewhere; it can even be expanded on. If not at Monarchy in Canada, and not at British Royal Family, then one's left to ask: where else? --G2bambino 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article should be nowhere. It is a hodgepodge of outrageously obvious statements, of disguised polemical arguments in favor of the concept of a Canadian royal family (in which various uninteresting statements are made about this or that website talking about a Canadian royal family, or dull quotes from the Queen) and of uninteresting miscellanea. john k 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's outrageously obvious to state that Prince Charles is heir to the throne, but it's said anyway. Why? Because it's verifiable. So is everything here. So it stays somewhere. It won't be deleted because you find it uninteresting - as though that bloody mattered. --G2bambino 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean factual statements that everybody knows. I mean statements that are outrageously obvious in that they are merely the logical conclusion to premises that everyone already knows, and that are already discussed elsewhere. And by uninteresting miscellanea I didn't just anything I don't find interesting. I mean that the article largely consists of various random junk collected from the internet which is tenuously related to the idea of a Canadian royal family. It doesn't cohere together at all. It is trivia. What does Camilla's Canadian ancestry have to do with anything? The only useful piece of information in the article is the bit from the National Defense Ministry, which could easily be accommodated by Monarchy in Canada. john k 19:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right on the Camilla part, but beyond that, you're merely being flippant when you refer to the sources as "random junk." What article at Wikipedia isn't full of random trivia packaged together to give information on a particular topic? The simple fact of the matter is you were somehow happy when it was contained, verbatim, within Monarchy in Canada, but now somehow find it completely offensive because the content has been given its own article in the process of downsizing the original main one, as per WP policy. Well, what's verifiable stays, and this article can even be expanded to include financing, polls on popularity in Canada, and the role of members specifically for Canada; doing so may even further reduce the length of Monarchy in Canada - that's still a work in progress. Regardless, I have to hurry out to get groceries before the store closes. I'll have to come back to this matter later. --G2bambino 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't happy, I was ignorant, in that I wasn't paying attention to Monarchy in Canada. If anyone other than the queen does do specific stuff for Canada, that would be appropriate to discuss here. Little evidence of this has yet been found, however. But, anyway, I don't really want to argue about the existence of the article. I'd much rather try to imporve the article. The problem with a lot of the material here is that it is derived from sources that are themselves completely uninterested in the question of a "Canadian royal family." They say something in passing referring to a Canadian royal family, and that quote is then included in the article, because there are basically no sources that are directly about the idea of a Canadian royal family (or, if there are, they don't show up in this article). This is what makes this article qualitatively different from other articles. There's no content that is really about a Canadian royal family. It is all indirect. john k 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For more on this, see User:John Kenney/Tuvaluan Royal Family. The vast majority of the content of this article could be used as the content for an article on the 'royal family' of any of the other commonwealth realms. The material removed consists of a) the irrelevant discussion of Camilla's family background; b) the discussion of Canadian orders, which I'm not sure would be replicated in Tuvalu; and c) various cited sources which seem to deal almost entirely with citations to different sources using the term "Canadian royal family." john k 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegiance

What is the source for the claim that "Members of the Royal Family in the direct line of succession owe allegiance to the Sovereign in right of Canada" ?? Astrotrain 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Noonan, Peter C., The Crown and Constitutional Law in Canada, Sripnoon Publications, Calgary, 1998 --G2bambino 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you paraphrase or quote? john k 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)