Talk:Monarchy of Canada

Why so many nested citations?

This article has many citations within citations. Why? The more clicks needed to get to a source, the less accessible the source is. My preference would be to unpack all of those nested cites, but wanted to raise it here first for any comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Reworking lead

I think that the lead needs to be reworked. In my opinion, it overstates the role of the monarchy in our system, particularly by implying that the monarch is the source of constitutional authority for the branches of government, when the reverse is true: the monarch’s powers are derived from the constitution. Thought I would mention it here before making any changes to see if anyone else has comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

And there are 64 cites in the lead alone, and several of them are nested cites. My personal preference is to keep cites in the lead to a minimum, and put the cites in the body of the article.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Right, I went through the lead and unnested all the nested cites. There are now only 54 cites in the lead. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I've now unnested all of the cites. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

How about this as a more concise lead? with no cites, because this information will be found in the body of the article, and cited there.

"The monarchy of Canada is a component of Canada's system of parliamentary government. As the formal head of state, the monarch operates as a constitutional monarch within the Canadian federal democracy.

"The Constitution of Canada provides that the monarch is the formal head of the executive government of Canada, and part of the federal Parliament. However, the monarch's powers are exercised by the Governor General of Canada, who is the monarch's representative in the federal government. The Governor General only acts on the advice of the elected Government of Canada, headed by the Prime Minister of Canada and the federal Cabinet. The governor general only acts independently of the government on extremely rare occasions. The constitutional conventions which require the monarch and the governor general to follow the advice of the prime minister and cabinet have evolved to ensure democratic control of the government, not personal rule by the monarch or the governor general.

"The monarch is similarly the formal head of the provincial governments, and a component of the provincial legislatures, but again acts through a representative, the lieutenant governors of each province. The lieutenant governors act on the advice of the provincial government, namely the provincial premiers and provincial cabinets, except on very rare occasions. The constitutional conventions which require the monarch and their representatives to follow the advice of the elected governments have evolved to ensure democratic control of the governments, not personal rule by the monarch.

"The current monarch is King Charles III, who has reigned since 8 September 2022, upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II. His formal royal style and title is: "Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth." Since his accession to the throne, he has made one royal vist to Canada. As part of that visit, he gave the speech from the throne in the Parliament of Canada. The heir apparent is William, Prince of Wales.

"Although the monarch is also the monarch of fourteen other sovereign countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, the institution of the monarch in each country is constitutionally and legally distinct. The monarch acts in each of those countries on the advice of the government of that country. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This looks great, Sarge. Big improvement. Indefatigable (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The monarch’s powers are not derived from the constitution. It is actually a limitation on the power of the sovereign. Under common law, the king had absolute power following the cession of Quebec to Great Britain which was limited by various order and acts he proclaimed, such as establishing a Canadian parliament. It's not as if the people of Quebec wrote a constitution inm 1759 and invited George III to be their king. In any case, we should use reliable sources before changing the text.

The main significance is that Canada cannot claim that Quebec agreed to the constitution. TFD (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, King George had the power to issue the Royal Proclamation of 1763 because Quebec was a conquered territory and the King could use his prerogative to legislate for that territory. However, the King also directed that the governor should summon a general assembly for the new Province of Quebec. Based on Campbell v Hall, from that point on the King no longer had a prerogative power to legislate for Quebec. Any laws that applied directly to Quebec had to be passed by the British Parliament. That's why the Quebec Act was enacted by Parliament and not by a prerogative instrument; only Parliament could legislate for Quebec. That's why all constitutional provisions since 1763 have been by statutes: Constitutional Act, 1791, Special Act for Quebec, 1838, Act of Union, 1841, and Constitution Act, 1867. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to do three things here: (1) shorten and tighten up the lead; (2) make it clear that the monarch's powers come from the Constitution of Canada, not the other way around; and (3) make it clear from the start that the monarch exercises those powers according to democratic principles. I think (2) and (3) are missing from the lead as currently drafted. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Whilst I'm sympathetic to shortening the lead, I fundamentally disagree with your re-work I'm afraid. Not just the odd word or phrase - I'm afraid I think it is much worse and it really muddles the role of the Crown. The monarch is not simply the 'head of state' like the American president; they are the sovereign, and everything does indeed flow from him, not the constitution. The constitution did not create the sovereign. The British North America Act 'declared' that executive authority 'continued' to be vested in the Queen. With the exception of the creation of the viceroys, it didn't alter or create anything much as far as the Crown was concerned. The lead of that article explains the situation very well, I feel, and is worth a read.

The text about the monarchy evolving long pre-dates confederation and isn't particularly relevant. Even in Britain, the monarch hasn't exercised 'personal rule' for many centuries, and never over Canada. Neither is the monarch the 'formal head of the provincial governments'. The Crown is the provincial government, not a token head.

The stuff about the present king having visited once, whilst accurate as monarch, is nonetheless misleading by omission as he has visited many times as heir, and it also ignores the visits of his predecessors as monarch. I'm also not sure that any royal visits are important enough to warrant inclusion in the lead and may be WP:RECENTISM. Dgp4004 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I"m afraid i disagree with your take that "everything does indeed flow from him, not the constitution"; the monarch only has authority in Canada today because of the Constitution. Their executive role is set out in s. 9; their legislative role is set out in 17 and s. 91. But for those sections, the monarch would not have any authority. If those sections of the Constitution were amended, the monarch would have no authority. It is the Constitution, the supreme law, which is the source of the monarch's authority. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, the constitution does not create the king's authority. The king's authority pre-dates the constitution which he enacted for the better government of the country. The constitution's authority stems from the king's authority. TFD (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

No, the king did not enact it. The British Parliament enacted it. Queen Victoria had no power to legislate for the British North American provinces. That was established by the court decision in Campbell v Hall in 1774. The Constitution's authority stems originally from the British Parliament, and now from s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The King only has the authority today in Canada which is granted to him by the Constitution. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course the Queen enacted it. To be precise, the Queen in Parliament enacted it. The very same term you wish to take out of the lead. The clue is in the preamble 'Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, as follows'. What do you think royal assent is? Dgp4004 (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The Queen had no independent power to enact the BNA Act. It could only be enacted by the British Parliament, and the Queen was only one part of it. The Queen and the Queen-in-parliament are not the same thing. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

That's because the Queen had agreed to exercise her authority only with Westminster. The power of Westminster derives from the authority of the Queen.

However, George III obtained authority over Quebec and chose to exercise his authority with the cabinet. Later, he agreed that rules governing the colony would only be enacted with the consent of Westminster. Later, the King-in-Parliament agreed that laws in Canada required the consent of the Canadian parliaments. TFD (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Where in this article does it claim that the monarch has the power to enact legislation independent of parliament? You're fighting straw men. Dgp4004 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm replying to TFD, who is saying that the King could choose to use his prerogative, or to ask Parliament to legislate. After Campbell v Hall, the King didn't have that choice. In an early example of judicial review, the English Court struck down a prerogative instrument passed by King George, and said that if he wanted to impose a tax on the colony of Grenada, he had to get Parliament to do so. It's not like he chose to go to Parliament to get all the constitutional statutes passed; only Parliament could do so. And Parliament could always say no. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not say the King could use his prorogative or ask parliament to legislate. I am saying that before the creation of the privy council and parliament, the king had that right, but the power was devolved to cabinet and parliament. That is why all their actions are carried out in the name of the king (King-in-Council, King-in-Parliament).

The King however retains any powers not delegated, although these fairly limited to such things as bestowing the title of prince.

This is the opposite your claim: that the King's office was created by parliament. The King became the sovereign of the conquered territories in New France upon its cession. The 1867 Act merely confirmed his sovereignty, it did not create it.

Campbell v. Hall btw limited the King using his reserve powers to legislate for colonies. However, the legislature in Grenada had been created on the authority of the king, not the other way around. Henceforth, all legislation had to be agreed by the King-in-Parliament for Grenada, although the King-in-Parliament in the UK had not ceded its powers to Grenada and could and still legislate for it until Grenada's independence in 1974, which was facilitated by an act of Westminster ceding its authority over the island. TFD (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, every law in Canada is enacted by the King or his representative with the advice and consent of both houses of Parliament. If the consent is not given, the law is void. If the representative does not proclaim the law, it is void. (In a case where George III refused to agree to a regency, privy councillors took his stamp and get assent in his name. So rest assured, I am not claiming that the person who is King or Governor-General has the power to set aside legislation without the advice of cabinet and perhaps not even then.) TFD (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how we can square this circle. You clearly have a radically different interpretation of the Canadian constitution that you want to see reflected in this article, which I imagine is why you took out the term 'sovereign'. Your rewrite of the lead does not reflect the content of the article.

So I think the best thing is to rely on sources. If you can find some reliable sources that say that sovereignty rests in the constitution and not the sovereign, you can rewrite this article to demote the monarch to a token head of state and nothing more, as set out in your lead.

I think it's worth quoting section 9 in full as even that document does not claim to be the source of sovereignty: 'The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.'

To paraphrase a little, the authority of Canada (not just over - the very authority itself) continues (not 'is hereby vested' but carries on just as it did) to be vested in the sovereign. Dgp4004 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and it's a provision of the Constitution that continues the monarch's authority over Canada. That's where the monarch's authority comes from: provisions of the Constitution. And I don't think it's a radically different approach to say that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada; that's what s. 52 says itself. All authority in Canada has to be grounded in the Constitution, as defined by the Constitution Act, 1982. If the monarch has authority in Canada that is not based on the Constitution of Canada, where does that authority come from? Are you saying it could not be modified by the Constitution? Are you saying that if s. 9, s. 17 and s. 91 were amended to remove all references to the monarch, the monarch would still have authority in Canada? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you got sources to back any of this up? There are dozens in the article which you can consult. Nothing that you or I write here is of any use to base your new lead. You need sources that agree with you.

Your question is an interesting one and you can study the Irish head of state from 1922 to 1949 article for a fascinating case study on whether the monarchy ceases to exist if all references to it are removed from legislation. But this isn't a forum and it's got nothing to do with your new lead. Please provide references that back up what you want to implement. Dgp4004 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's why I started here, rather than begin editing the article. I think the article is fundamentally wrong, but I agree, cites are needed. Given the tortured history of this article over the past several years, I wanted discussion about these fundamental points, before touching the article's content. I hope you don't think my questions to you are straw men. I am genuinely interested in the implications of your argument, which seems to suggest that the monarch has a constitutional role in Canada that is not grounded in the Constitution of Canada. If I've misunderstood, I apologise. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, the king's authority comes from common law. He can do whatever he wants only restricted by the laws he has proclaimed. If you were right, he could only do what the constitution allowed. In practice of course, the effects are similar with subtle differences. TFD (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The wording is awful convoluted in the first paragraph..... As in term after term the average reader may have no clue about it. Is there a way to say this simpler and let the article go into detail about Kings Council etc.Moxy🍁 01:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll leave the re-wording to you & others. FWIW, the monarch's presence in day-to-day Canada, is much like a picture on the wall. It's most likely that Victoria had more influence in the country, than Charles III now does. Afterall, the governor general executes most of the monarch's powers & duties, seeing as the monarch resides in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a distinction between the man and the office. The office is controlled by cabinet, the house of commons, and other institutions, and has a real presence in Canada. The powers of the human who wears the crown have been gradually reduced over time. TFD (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Uk has no rights to change the constitution of Canada since 1982

The Uk Monarchy has no constitution rights since 1982 so it is false to say king Charles has constitutional rights in Canada because he doesn't. ~2026-15964-58 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Charles is also the King of Canada, therefore he does have a constitional role here. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox: official residence

Earlier today, an editor (@RedBlueGreen93:) attempted to include "Rideau Hall, etc" as residences, in the infobox. I believe a consensus was reached to not include. @DrKay: & @Wellington Bay:, perhaps you both remember, better than I. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

There was a straw poll at Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 22#Straw poll 2 on whether to include it, with a majority against. DrKay (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)