Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

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

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.
This borderline-farcical discussion relitigated an RfC closed a week previously. The relitigation was deemed necessary because the close was unclear, something attributed in the close to the "not particularly well described" question at hand. It is tragic that the remedy apparently had to be an equally unclear follow-up: as well explained by Darryl Kerrigan's 20:58, 22 March comment in #Consensus, what "the Canadian monarch" refers to is uncertain.
Of course, problems like this could have been overcome by editors who were willing to work together; however, in this discussion, "listening to others" seem to have been taken as a synonym for "blasphemy".
I find that this ill-formed discussion achieved no consensus and as the previous RfC received much lower participation and was also affected by the lack of clarity, its result is superseded by this. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Survey

  • Yes - Simply because the Canadian monarch does reside in (and only in) the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • It depends Obviously. The article should mention that the monarch resides in the UK only if that information has some pertinence to the content of the article. The editor who opened this RfC seems to think the information's relevant because the viceroys exist and posses their powers due to the monarch residing in the UK. That assertion, however, has never been supported by a reliable source (or any source, for that matter; as much as the claim "the Canadian monarch resides only in the UK" has no source and is, indeed, countered by reliable sources). Sources I've found, so far, say the governors are there because the monarch cannot always be in Canada or they act in the monarch's absence (which isn't quite true because they can act regardless of where the monarch is, including in Canada). If there's no reason to state here "the monarch resides in the UK", then, the answer to the question is "no". If there is some valid reason to incorporate it, then the answer is, "yes". It's up to the asking editor to explain why it should be included. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes - it is a factual statement, and it helps non-Canadians to understand how the monarchy works in Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"The Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom." How does that help any reader understand how the Canadian monarchy works? Particularly given this article has a lengthy section on the monarch's Canadian residences and household. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
All the projecting aside, the only link pertinent to your side of the debate is this one. Thank you for finally providing one. However, your side having one supporting source while the other side has these--"[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."[1] "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".[2]--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),[3] though he seems to have subsequently changed his mind. Elizabeth II also spent a lot of time residing Balmoral Castle in Scotland during her life. Of course, while all of these locations are in the UK, the point is that we can say where a specific monarch lives/resides, but we cannot say that there is an official residence were all monarchs are to live, or a law or rule requiring them to live in a particular place, estate or country. The lede currently reads The sovereign resides in the United Kingdom., which is ambiguous (perhaps intentionally) about whether we are taking about the "current" monarch or the office generally (and thus suggesting the officeholder is required to reside in a particular place).-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't fully comprehend, what the point is you're trying to make. So, I won't trouble you any further. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
That's akin to what I've been saying about statements like "Canada has a governor general and lieutenant governors because the monarch resides in the UK". It's an unverified claim that implies there's a clause in the constitution that a) legally sets the UK as the monarch's country of residence and b) states the governors exist only so long as the monarch is residing in the UK. There isn't. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this should be modified to read that he "primarily resides" in the UK. According to the federal government's manual on the monarchy, the monarch's "principal residence is in the United Kingdom" (pp 10). It would be appropriate for this article to also state that the monarch's "principal residence" is in the UK or that he pimarily resides there. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • No It is not clear whether one is referring to the office(s) or the individual. We could say for example that 24 Sussex Drive is the residence of the Canadian prime minister, although the incumbent PM doesn't happen to live there. To use another example, I would not say the Duke of Sussex resides in Montecito, because although the incumbent resides there, there is nothing about his office that compels him to. This sounds more like a republican talking point: the King of Canada doesn't even live in Canada! TFD (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The King of Canada doesn't live in Canada. The article will still say that Rideau Hall is the residence of the Canadian monarch. It will simply balance that statement with a fact that some people, you included it seems, wish to exclude. Trying to tar the includers with a republican brush merely highlights that the excluders are wielding a monarchist brush to sweep unpleasant facts under the carpet. DrKay (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
    I am not trying to comment on editors but how the text comes across. Saying that the KIng has multiple residences but resides in the UK sounds clumsy and ambiguous: he has residences he does not reside in and is currently not residing in his residences. Amd its not even clear whether we are talking about Charles the individual or the various offices he holds. TFD (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
DrKay remains under the false impression that the article used to claim the Canadian monarch spends all her, and then his, time in Canada and that the article should say so again, as if the article hadn't, for numerous years before the last month or so, said the Canadian monarch primarily resides in the UK. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Farcical and untrue claims about my views merely prove how nasty and desperate you are. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) That is untrue. I am not under that impression. DrKay (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
    • That a fact is inconvenient is not sufficient reason to suppress it. A Crown of Maples, the government's official publication on the monarchy, says the monarch's "principal residence is in the United Kingdom" so there's no reason this article should pretend otherwise or not say it because of appearances. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
      The text being discussed is not about where Charles' principle residence lies, but that "the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom." TFD (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Precisely. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes? I guess? Why did this need an RfC? Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • No'and Maybe. As per TFD above, this article is not about Charles the natural person but about the office of the King of Canada. The natural and legal persons are different concepts. This, in the same way as for the official residence of the Prime Minister. Justin Trudeau doesn't reside at the official residence, however, that doesn't change the fact that the official residence of the prime minister is still the official residence (the natural person, Justin, and the legal person, the Prime Minister, do not reside in the same place). The King of Canada and the King of the UK are two completely different offices (the King of the UK from Canada's point of view is a foreign head of state). The King of Canada does not have any official residences in the UK, but certainly does have official residences in Canada. So, the King of Canada (the office of Canada's head of state) does not officially reside in the UK, however, Charles III (as a natural person) resides primarily in the UK, and there is a subtle but important distinction between the two.
Finally, given the clear churn and friction on this issue, I fail to see why it is that important to the article to mention where Charles III sleeps at night, this isn't an article about Charles III but about the Monarchy of Canada. As such, I would offer it is likely best to simply stick to talking about the Monarch of Canada and not the personal matters of Charles III as there's already an article for Charles III. trackratte (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
    If they only reside primarily in the United Kingdom, what other countries do they reside in? AusLondonder (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes - It's a simple fact that the King of Canada doesn't live in Canada. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes Seems obvious to me. King Charles does reside in Britain.Coalcity58 (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  • No for now. There should be more than one reliable sources explicitly stating it for it to be given WP:DUE weight for inclusion. --StellarHalo (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. Sources listed above in this discussion say that the monarch's "principle residence" is in the UK, this should be clear in the article and infobox. The article Rideau Hall says (with sources) that it is "the residence of Canada's monarch when he is in Ottawa", so it's misleading to list it here as the monarch's residence without a caveat or clarification that it is not the monarch's primary residence. Calling a place the "residence" without caveat implies that it is primary, though I could be swayed if there are sources describing Rideau Hall as the "monarch's residence" without caveat (at which point we would have to compare the sources for both options. I note that the first source for Rideau Hall in this article's section "Federal residences and royal household" [4] states "the Queen’s principal residence is in the United Kingdom", "[Rideau Hall] is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen (when in Ottawa)" and "RIDEAU HALL, THE RESIDENCE OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL"). In my opinion, the prose and infobox should state that the Primary Residence is in London or the UK and Secondary Residences or Residences In Country are Rideau Hall and La Citadelle. Consigned (talk) 23:32, 3 April 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".[5] "Queen Elizabeth II concluded her opening speech at Halifax, at the start of her 2010 tour and residence in Canada."[6] "This, my home in Ottawa".[7]
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."[8]
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.[9]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.[10] 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)
Please try to engage with the substance of my comment, instead of hurling labels like "strawman" or suggest I am making "Ad hominem" attacks? I think we need to make a distinction between where Charles III lives and where the office of the King of Canada is located. I think the current wording is ambiguous on that. You are welcome to disagree on substance. Let's try to keep the discussion there though. If we can't, it won't be at all productive.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
See below. But great attempt at trying to deflect again. DrKay (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
And I would say that saying that the king "primarily lives" in the UK, or any variant of that, is not accurate and therefore confusing to the readers. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I don't completely disagree with that. Notwithstanding that that various Canadian buildings are referred to as "official residences" I agree it is a significant stretch to state that Charles III either lives or resides in them. I think it is fine to say Charles III resides in the UK. I think it is fine also fine to say that historically and at present all monarchs have resided in the UK while in office. My concern is that saying "the monarch resides in the UK" may suggest that this is a permanent arrangement, or one that is in some way required by law. That concern can be addressed by referring to the "current monarch" only and/or referring to past monarchs who lived there without suggesting that the King of Canada or monarch of Canada resides there (or will).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Charles III resides/lives only in the United Kingdom. His mother, grandfather, granduncle, great-grandfather, etc, resided/lived in the United Kingdom. That's why Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, etc, have governors-general. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
That is why those countries have historically had GGs. The world is a much smaller place than before. I don't dispute that Charles III lives in the UK, nor that his mother, grandfather, granduncle, great-grandfather did while in office. My point is that there is nothing but custom and perhaps personal preference that requires the King of Canada to reside in the UK, and we should be careful not to leave an impression it is anything more than that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
There's nothing to be careful about. The Canadian monarch doesn't reside/live in Canada. The Canadian monarch reside/lives only in the United Kingdom. That's simply the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Has only resided in the UK... to date. I read the statement "the [Canadian] monarch resides in the UK" as ambiguous. I will say again... are you referring to the current monarch? Past monarchs? The office generally? Future monarchs? Or all of the above in that sentence? In so far as the sentence suggests that this means that future monarchs will reside there or that there is a requirement that past, present or future do so, it is false. When I raised this above, you said that you did not understand. Hopefully, I have been more clear this time around.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Forgive me, but your position just doesn't stand up. Unless you've got personal knowledge, that Charles III or his successors will be leaving the United Kingdom for Canada? I will not continue in this circular debate with you. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't need personal knowledge about the future to suggest that we shouldn't speculate about it, nor to say we should be careful not to suggest a "rule" exists when it doesn't. Anyway, happy friday.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The expression "given that" injects synthesis. The original British governors in North America were not appointed by the sovereign. We wouldn't say that John Winthrop carried out the chief executive's functions in the Massachusetts Bay Colony because Charles I was in England. Similarly, had George VI evacuated to Canada in WWII, it is doubtful the GG would have become redundant. TFD (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning to include the fact somewhere in the article, since I believe it is a common (if sometimes erroneous) assumption that a monarch lives in the country they reign over. To that end, I don’t know if it’s necessary to specify where the monarch of Canada does live, but rather where he does not. That is, that he does not live in Canada – so far. To clarify that last part, I think a definitive past-tense statement would make it clear enough to the reader that it’s never been the norm for him to be living in Canada but it’s not impossible. I propose something like: Aside from during Canadian royal tours, the King of Canada has never lived in Canada, and their duties are carried out by a governor general who remains in Canada. Wow Mollu (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
That proposed wording is unacceptable. We shouldn't be hiding the fact, that the Canadian monarch resides/lives in 'only' the United Kingdom. Attempts to try & put similiar wording in (for two examples) Monarchy of Australia or Monarchy of New Zealand, would never be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps, but unless I am missing something our Monarchy of Australia and Monarchy of New Zealand articles do not say where the monarch lives. In fact, the New Zealand article seems to use wording similar to what Wow Mollu proposes, specifically "As the monarch lives outside of New Zealand, the governor-general personally represents the monarch and performs most of his or her domestic duties in their absence...".-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You and I are still in disagreement with each other. I accept that neither of us is going to convince the other. My position on this topic, hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's not in other articles because the heads of state of those other countries live in those countries. It is because the monarch, regardless of who that person is, lives abroad that we must mention it here. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, and I'm not opposed to that, as there's a valid and logical reason for its inclusion (although my question was along the lines of 'is the juice worth the squeeze). But there still is no consensus on how that is best done as evidenced by the ongoing debate by and between several editors from two or three different groupings I'd say. Saying the King of Canada lives in the UK, as others have mentioned, is misleading or at least incomplete (given how King of Canada means two different things concurrently there). As is saying the King of Canada resides in Canada, for the same reasons. So, the trick would be to illustrate both sides of the coin in a neutral and succinct sentence, that is rationally connected to the material around it. As I proposed before, saying something along the lines of: 'the King of Canada has traditionally spent most of their time in the UK which is why they are generally represented by the Governor General of Canada' would accomplish that. In terms of avoiding contentious wording that is rooted in a semantic black hole (what do we mean by "reside" or "live", the difference between the King of Canada and that of the UK and that of Charles as a natural person, do they always live there, do they always have to live there, will they in the future, etc, etc), so instead we have a simple and concise statement of neutral fact that hopefully everyone can live with (not exactly what any one editor would write themselves or think is perfect, but is reasonable and can be lived with). trackratte (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"Traditionally" is an unnecessary equivocation. It suggests that something is usually the case but there have been exceptions or a recent change or that there is a reasonable chance that there will be a change- when in fact every monarch we have had since Confederation has lived in the UK (and before unless you want to include the French monarchs, who also never set foot this side of the Atlantic). For the same reason we would not say "Canada has traditionally been a monarchy" -instead of "Canada is a monarchy". We'd only say it has "traditionally been a monarchy" if there has recently been a change or if there was some sort of Cromwellian-style interegnum. Indeed, despite the fact that Rideau Hall and other government houses are technically residences of the monarch no monarch even visited Canada for the first 72 years of the country's existence and if you add all up all the time they've been resident in Rideau Hall and La Citadelle in the 85 years since George VI's visit I doubt it would even add up to a year. The closest we've had to a monarch who lived in Canada was Edward VIII who personally owned a ranch in Alberta - but he never visited it while he was king and spent very little time there as either Prince of Wales or the Duke of Windsor. There is no need for us to equivocate because of a hypothetical situation where a future monarch may either permanently live in Canada (perhaps if the UK becomes a republic and Canada didn't) or decides to live here for part of each year for some reason. (I believe there was once a suggestion in the 40s or 50s that the monarch should move around the commonwealth in permanent rotation living in each country for a certain number of months before moving on - this was obviously dismissed as impractical and likely the royal family would have vetoed it if it was seriously proposed). These possiblities are highly remote and there's no reason for us to write the article in anticipation that they might happen. The monarch's residence is in the UK, has always been in the UK, and will likely remain there. If for that reason that ever changes, we can rewrite the article then. Otherwise we will be stuck with an article that meanders, equivocates, and needlessly qualifies when it should be straightforward. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, to quibble over the exact word, I agree that "traditional" isn't necessarily the best, so I'm not advocating for it to be clear, but instead for something to intimate the broad meaning that there is no rule to say that the King of Canada must live in the UK, nor that Charles III must spend 100% of his time living in the UK, as that subject is far beyond just Canada (he has, what, 16 realms, and conceivably could also spend time elsewhere). Also, I am not a Charles III follower, nor a Royalist, however, I cannot imagine that saying that all Canadian monarchs spend all of their time and always have in the UK as precisely true. In any event, I support your assertion that "traditional" is not the best term, but I also do think we need to convey two things if we were to achieve consensus: 1) why we are bothering to mention it in the article at all (thus my suggestion that linking it to the existence of the GG is a logical link), and 2) that the King of Canada does not have any residences in the UK (i.e. cannot be said to "reside" there as the Canadian head of state). Or in other words that Charles III lives in the UK, but that that fact has nothing to do with the Monarchy of Canada (so is more of a tangential factoid), save for the fact that Canadian monarchs have "generally" not lived in Canada requiring then a representative ("generally" used in quotations here once again to intimate that this is generally the case, but is not required to be, or even guaranteed to be). trackratte (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
" the King of Canada does not have any residences in the UK (i.e. cannot be said to "reside" there as the Canadian head of state)." So when Prime Minister Trudeau recently had an audience with King Charles (as King of Canada) via video link, where was the King of Canada residing while in the UK? At the Canadian High Commission at Canada House? No, he was either at Buckingham Palace or his one of his other residences in the UK. Indeed, the King and the Queen before him did much of their business, as King or Queen of Canada, in the UK whether it was appointing governors general or receiving briefings on the Canadian situation, or having telephone or video audiences with the prime minister (or governor general) - ask the Sovereign of Canada - resident in the UK. I know monarchists like to get into quasi-religious Trinitarian notions of the entity of the monarch occupying different forms simultaneously but in practical and even constitutional terms it's actually nonsensical and we should stay away from that sort of mystification. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Ha. They were meeting in cyber space obviously. As for constitutional status, these things are significant when it comes to the spheres of Public (constitutional law) and of Public Administration. The King of Canada does not have any status or residences in the UK. All of the physical manifestations of that fact are merely symbolic (for example, when the Queen travelled to Canada there was an RCAF jet in London with RCMP providing personal security, an RCAF CF-18 escort upon entering Canadian airspace, etc which symbolize the fact that Elizebeth II at that moment was the Queen of Canada and not of the UK, as well as how official visits as the Queen of Canada occurred to the USA as another). In any event, the King of the UK has no constitutional status in Canada in the same way as any other foreign state, and vice versa is the core point of fact. From where one dials in for a Zoom call has no import on effect on that point of constitutional law and politics. Again, I'm not arguing in any way shape or form that Charles III doesn't spend almost all of his time in the UK, nor even that that fact shouldn't be included here, only that other editors (three or four anyways I believe) are sticking on the clarity of language and logic of 1) Making it logically clear and salient on why the factoid is included in the article and 2) Make it the separation of offices and official legal status clear.
Or, in effect, both sides of "the debate" are right, and I don't think there is actual any fundamental disagreement on points of fact by anyone. Only how best to express the nuances.
I also note that Wow Mullu notes that perhaps it isn't important to say where Charles III lives but where they do not live, with their proposal being something along the lines of: "Aside from during Canadian royal tours, the King of Canada has never lived in Canada, and as a result their duties are carried out by a governor general who remains in Canada". trackratte (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"They were meeting in cyber space obviously" - no, they were meeting via or over cyberspace because neither Trudeau nor King Charles are a collection of electrons or pixels - Trudeau was at his home in Ottawa and King Charles was at one of his residences in the UK while they met over the phone or over Zoom or FaceTime or some other programme. When you meet over Zoom or Facetime you do not coroporeally dematerialize from your location and rematerialize somewhere in the ether. At least, not yet. Perhaps we should say that traditionally when you have a meeting over the phone or online you physical body remains intact in its physical location? Wellington Bay (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"Aside from during Canadian royal tours, the King of Canada has never lived in Canada, and as a result their duties are carried out by a governor general who remains in Canada". I think this would be okay. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It was a tongue in cheek comment, and I'm not really interested in debating whether or not one is to "coroporeally dematerialize from your location and rematerialize somewhere in the ether".
However, I'm happy within something along the lines of Wow Mullu's suggestion as you are, so could use that to make an edit where a few people could sculpt in turn. If that breaks down we can bring it back here if that makes sense. trackratte (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
As it seemed odd to repeat two similar sentences one right after the other I attempted to fold in Wow Mullu's suggestion into the sentence already in place resulting in (at the moment), "While several powers are theirs alone,[24] as the King does not live in Canada (aside from certain circumstances where they may "take up residence" in Canada such as during Royal Tours), the King of Canada is represented by the governor general who carries out most of the sovereign's duties in Canada."
Everything in parenthesis may be removed to be more concise, but didn't want to simply discard that point of Mullu's proposal. trackratte (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Trackratte. Will you please stop deleting/replacing/modifying where the monarch resides/lives (i.e. the United Kingdom). It only frustrates matters, when you do that. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, are we to take the lack of strong reaction to my proposal as a tacit acceptance? I'm referring to: However, the monarch is the only member of the royal family with any constitutional role. While several powers are the sovereign's alone, most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties in Canada are carried out by the monarch's representative, the governor general of Canada, given the monarch lives in the United Kingdom and cannot be in Canada at all times. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can finagle with minor points of style or whatnot, but I think what you have there covers the material in a succinct and accurate way, and also reflects what I understand all parties to this discussion have expressed as to what they want to see. trackratte (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
As I've said before "cannot be in Canada at all times" is a highly misleading use of an adverb of frequency as it suggests the monarch is in Canada much of the time rather than about 1% of the time. More accurate to say "given the monarch lives in the United Kingdom and is almost never in Canada." Wellington Bay (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I see your point. However, we can't, in this post-1939 reality, go the other way and insunuate the monarch's here none of the time, either. How about: However, the monarch is the only member of the royal family with any constitutional role. While several powers are the sovereign's alone, the monarch lives in the United Kingdom and cannot routinely be in Canada, leaving most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties to be carried out by his representative, the governor general of Canada, who regularly communicates with the King. The last addition does connect the lede more to the article body. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
That alternative almost sounds plaintive! But I agree that Miessy's turn of phrase isn't ideal for essentially the reason you've stated. What about "given the monarch lives in the United Kingdom and is only very occasionally present in Canada", or "given the monarch lives in the United Kingdom and is generally only in Canada for state visits"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, I can't take credit for it; it's actually the Department of Canadian Heritage's turn of phrase. Also, royal tours would be the right term, rather than state visits. However, "is generally only in Canada for royal tours" implies the monarch's activities in Canada are limited to waving and ribbon-cutting, whereas, while it's certainly rare, the sovereign has carried out constitutional (like giving royal assent, signing treaties) and state (like opening parliament) duties in the country. Do you see a problem with "cannot routinely be in Canada"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, confused myself with a muddled recollection of looking at a list of state visits carried out on behalf of the Canadian monarchy. Yes, as I've said, I agree with WB on that, and consider it more blameworthy than creditable, I'm afraid. I refer you to my first suggestion, then, or "... for state duties and royal tours". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I think that is too wordy honestly. Why not then just say "While several powers are the sovereign's alone, given that the monarch does not live in Canada, most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties are carried out by their representative, the governor general..." trackratte (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't seem crazy-unreasonable to me -- and yes it's already a long sentence, so keeping this clause concise would be a good thing -- but some editors seem very insistent on a "lives in the UK" formulation. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly more wordy than the previous proposals. Anyway, "cannot be in Canada at all times" is drawn directly from the Department of Canadian Heritage. Since WB had a point about ambiguity around just how many times the monarch can be in Canada, I changed it to "cannot routinely be in Canada", which I think pretty openly implies the monarch is in Canada much less than he's not. But, if there really is still objection to those words, there's, however, the monarch is the only member of the royal family with any constitutional role. While several powers are the sovereign's alone, he lives in the United Kingdom, being in Canada only occasionally, requiring the majority of his Canadian constitutional and ceremonial duties to be mostly carried out by his representative in Canada, the governor general.
Saying something about the monarch being in Canada eliminates questions like, "well, if he lives in the UK, what're the residences in Canada for?" --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It does, which arise from the ubiquitous bad practice of the IB and the lead wandering off in the different directions and leaving the connection between them entirely opaque. But this is already a too-long sentence, and making it longer isn't ideal. At the risk of reinventing one of my own earlier edits, better split in two. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
"Anyway, "cannot be in Canada at all times" is drawn directly from the Department of Canadian Heritage" which does not make it a neutral or accurate description. It's a phrase that could have been written by Sir Humphrey Appleby for its obfuscation. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Unless we were to cite it attributedly -- which structurally is the very last thing that sentence needs -- a more straightforward and neutral characterisation of their actual frequency of presence, or the rationales for it, would be better. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Not good enough. We have to mention that the monarch resides/lives in the United Kingdom. It's best to not hide that fact. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, no one is attempting to hide any facts and so a persistent tone of not assuming good faith and of having the right to dictate are not particularly appropriate in my view.
We have an official source that describes "cannot be in Canada at all times", we have an RFC that centred on where Charles III "lives" which by extention also means where they do not live, and a whole host of sources that show that he predominantly lives in the UK and that there are official residences for the King of Canada and of their representatives. All of which could simply be expressed as "given that the monarch does not live in Canada they are represented by the governor general" which is directly tied to the topic of the article.
Lastly, the article already mentions that Charles III lives in the UK in the International and domestic aspects section, so repeating it again here in the sentence that Mies is discussing might be a bit much. And as for the RFC, it was closed as "There is clear consensus is to describe the monarch as residing in the United Kingdom" which has already been accomplished in the Intl Aspects section.
So, again, your assertion that it isn't "good enough" as we have to mention the monarch lives in the UK is a non-sequitur, no one is arguing for removing that piece of information and has nothing to do with this sentence. This particular sentence under discussion is on the topic of the system of monarchy in Canada and so the only reason to mention a question of residency at this point of the article at all is only to show the logical reason for the existence of the office of governor general. trackratte (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Just to make my position clear, I can get fully behind the lede sentence in question using phrasing like "given that the monarch resides predominantly in the UK, he is represented by the governor general" or (less enthusiastically) "given that the monarch does not live in Canada, he is represented by the governor general", as the article does indeed already abide by the RfC by stating the monarch lives in the UK. I'm including "he lives in the United Kingdom" in my lede sentence proposals only to avoid what seems like an inevitable immedaite revert; I'm trying to formulate some compromise, which is why I'm hoping the other editors here will accept one of them, though, they might still view it as less than ideal.
How does this read: However, the monarch is the only member of the royal family with any constitutional role. As the sovereign lives in the United Kingdom, being in Canada only occasionally, he appoints the governor general to represent him in the country and carry out most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties on his behalf. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I still think that "given that the monarch does not live in Canada they are represented by the governor general" describes the exact same thing far more succinctly, and also has the benefit of using more neutral language better suited for an article on the system of monarchy in Canada and not on Charles III (so words like "he" and where he specifically as a person lives, are both irrelevant), as again, the focus of this topic is on the role of the Monarch within a wider system. If it weren't for the need to rationally connect the reason for having a governor general, the entire sentence would be irrelevant and subsequently simply deleted.trackratte (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
That's been objected to on the grounds that it asserts an implication between the first clause and the second. What about finessing that with something like, the monarch does not live in Canada, and they are represented by the governor general"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Well there is an implication, which I believe is the entire point or else why is that sentence there at all? If Canada had a permanently resident monarch then the office of governor general would not exist, so the second clause is the logical result of the first.
To engage more directly with your suggestion, literally the only suggestion I would make is to remove the "and" as otherwise it just reads as if we're putting in two completely unrelated fun facts into a single sentence. Which removing that single word would be: "As the monarch does not live in Canada they are represented by the governor general." trackratte (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Adding "as" is bringing us back to exactly the "given that" position, so my thoughts on that are exactly as above. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
But, the monarch is already being referred to as a person in "the monarch lives in the United Kingdom", as it's not the Canadian monarchy that lives in the UK, it's the person of the king. That may be why the DCH/McLeod chose "the Queen cannot be in Canada at all times"; because the physical location of the monarch is irrelevant; it's only the fact he's mostly not in Canada that matters to why there's a governor general. I would accept However, the monarch is the only member of the royal family with any constitutional role. As the sovereign does not live in Canada, being in the country only occasionally, they are represented by the governor general, who carries out most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties on the sovereign's behalf. (I still feel it's valuable to mention the monarch is sometimes in Canada; re the whole official residences issue, etc.) The question is, will certain others? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Why not just simply: The sovereign does not live in Canada, being in the country only occasionally. They are represented by the governor general, who carries out most of the royal governmental and ceremonial duties on the sovereign's behalf. Reads better for sentence-length and excess clausery, and avoids the "given" objection entirely. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what the problem with "as" is; the monarch's infrequent presence in Canada being the reason for the existence of a governor general has been established by two reliable sources. And, stylistically, the suggestion isn't my cup of tea; it reads a bit disjointed; as in: Here's a fact. Here's a different fact. The reader's left to assume there's a connection. But, personally, I won't quibble over one word and minor differences in style; indeed, I think we should probably be glad we've reached the point where that's all that's left to debate! Can't speak for others, obviously, but, I'd say give your idea a try in the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, in the spirit of WP:NOCON, whatever the status quo was before the recent churn and dispute (which I believe started in January?) is the version that should be restored and left as is until such time as a new consensus arises. Any discussion as to the RFC for saying that the monarch resides in the UK is already accomplished and has nothing to do with the sentence here under discussion so is a complete red herring. trackratte (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
"...being in Canada only occasional" isn't required & also appears to suggest the monarch is in Canada more frequently than is actually the case. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Given the longstanding problem of WP:OWN issues in Canadian monarchy artitles I don't think using the status quo ante as a default is applicable here. Rather if there is no consensus better to remove - especially as the article is too long as it is. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:10, 11 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada/Archive_21&oldid=1223999482"