A fact from Royal standards of Canada appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 July 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Royal standards of Canada is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Well, "defaced" is the technical term used in heraldry and vexillology, and in that jargon it doesn't have a negative connotation. However, it might be better to use another term here because it always throws the general reader off. How does "charged in the centre with" sound? It's technically precise and, I think, more understandable to non-specialists. Indefatigable19:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "The bottom of the standard contains a spring of three red maple leaves" That should read "sprig" not "spring." I'll leave it to the original author to make the change.
The image is indeed wrong. The human figured harp is not on the flag used by the Queen in 2005 in Saskatchewan. --Ibagli (Talk) 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-the arms of a monarch and the arms of the state they rule are one and the same. thus calling this falg 'personal' is entirely correct.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The flag in it's infobox currently has it marked with the FIAV symbol for a "State Flag and Ensign". This is incorrect, as the flag it not used as a state version for the Government, nor is it ever used as an Ensign. It's only use is that as the symbol of the Monarch as Head of State, and when on a vessel, it would be raised from a mizzen mast, but the Canadian national flag would still be used as the ship's ensign. There-fore I am removing the FIAV symbol. Fry1989 (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I returned the stacking of the flags to how they were, it not only looks better that way, it's the common way for articles. I also moved the article from "Royal standards of Canada" to "Royal Standards of Canada", as "standard" is a proper noun. I would have explained this in the "reasoning box" when I moved it, but for some reason the box wouldn't input, so explaining that here. Fry1989eh?21:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone those changes. "Looks better" isn't a foolproof justification for an edit. The infoboxes were unnecessary when the there is little information to summarise (short sections here on different flags vs. a lengthy article on a single flag). Further, the use of the infoboxes isn't common on articles about more than one flag; regard List of Canadian flags and Royal Standard of the United Kingdom (the flags of other Royal Family members in particular). Perhaps there's another way to arrange the images here, though.
"Royal Standard" alone is not the official title for anything in Canada. The word "standards" in the title of this article, therefore, is a common noun, and thus not capitalised, per the Manual of Style. --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miesianiacal, please see [1], and then explain why you feel "standard(s)" should not be capitalized. Infact, the article should actually be "Royal Standard of Canada" (no S), per th eother articles with multiple standards which are derivatives of the Monarch's standard, such as [2] and [3]. And actually, "standard" is an official name in Canada, see the Trade-marks Act; section 9(a): "No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for... the Royal Arms, Crest or Standard". The comma after arms makes "Royal" an inclusive for all three, the Royal Arms, Royal Crest, and Royal Standard. Also the change back to the flags being stacked on the side rather then in the centre and below their subsections is not a "i dont like it", it's how it should be done, per all the other articles. I don't care whether it's an infobox or not, but they should be on the side. Fry1989eh?22:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x2 I find that your latest arrangement of the images to the right hand side of the page is inferior to the previous version that had them centred. The latter had each flag clearly within the section containing the information specifically associated with it. If the latter is against some way "it should be done", please point to the relevant policy or guideline that specifies the all-right alignment.
There is more than one standard covered in this article. The word "standard" in the title should therefore be pluralised. Regarding capitalisation: I refer you back to my earlier comment. --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I refer you to the facts, of which there are several. The Trademarks Act shows that "Royal Standard" is actually an official term used towards the flag, and that "Standard" is capitalized as a proper noun, fact. The other articles show that the most common practice (I never said it was a rule, I said it's how it's done everywhere else and how it should be done here) is to place the images to the side stacked along their section, fact. The other articles are also named "Royal Standard of" with standard capitalized, showing that the MOS is to include the capitalization, and infact that for articles where there are multiple standards which are derivatives of the Sovereign's standard, that the article be named after that standard and the derivatives be included below with their relevant subsections, that too is a fact. Fry1989eh?22:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was in the midst of altering my last comment to address the Trademarks Act when you responded before I could finish. But, regardless of whether or not there is something called "the Royal Standard" in Canada (about which I may well have been wrong), this article is about more than just the sovereign's standard. That's why "standard" in the title should be both pluralised and without capitalisation.
There are a few other articles analogous to this one, but I think they're mistitled since, like this one, they cover more than one royal standard. They're precedent to look at, but we aren't bound to follow them, per WP:OTHERSTUFF.
If you can find or point to some consensus about how to title pages like this, I'll change the title to (edit much later to clarify that I don't intend to put my desires above any consensus to the contrary!) suit align with that consensus myself. --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have never said we are "bound" by anything. What I have always asserted, is that when the most common and widespread practice is to do something or name something or position something a certain way, that's usually a sign (atleast to me) that we should also do it that way. In part for conformality, in part because of the precedent set. Now, I didn't move the article to "Royal Standard" excluding the S, but rather capitalized "Standards" because of the very reason you mentioned, however, I disagree that that would be an inappropriate name for the reason being that most of the information is about the Sovereign's standard, and that all the other ones are defaced derivatives of it. In any case, to immediately undo an explained article move without a discussion was inappropriate. Fry1989eh?22:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting a move is quite within the parameters of the editing cycle; see WP:BRD. You were bold to make the move, it was quickly reverted, and, as such, it is up to you to seek a consensus for the move you tried.
"Royal Standards of Canada" indicates that there are muliple things with the proper name "Royal Standard" in Canada. There isn't. There is one thing called the "Royal Standard", also known as "The Queen's Personal Canadian Flag".[4] The Prince of Wales' and Prince William's flags are called "The Prince of Wales' Personal Canadian Flag" and "The Duke of Cambridge's Personal Canadian Flag", respectively.[5] They're called royal standards in this article because that's what they are; but note the deliberate decapitalisation of "royal standard" in the sections here that cover those two flags. There's nothing (as of yet) to indicate those flags are called the "Royal Standard of the Prince of Wales" and the "Royal Standard of the Duke of Cambridge". --ĦMIESIANIACAL04:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there's still no consensus to have them arranged below, it's peculiar and shouldn't be that way without consensus, Second, just because I didn't reply in what you view as a timely fashion, doesn't mean I'm not gonna reply at all. I do have a life. Now, about the name: First, take a second look at Royal Standard. Many of those articles have multiple standards, but the article is called "Royal Standard of" because it's mostly about the Sovereign's standard, and the other ones are derivatives of the main design. Second, Wikipedia encourages being bold, so I have absolutely no regrets in doing my rename, per all the reasons I have given. Now yes, they are called "Name's Personal Canadian Flag". And yes, they are also correctly a royal standard. The reason the article is named "Royal Standard(s) of Canada" is simply because there are more than one. The article used to be the Queen's Personal Canadian Flag, but that is no longer appropriate because of Charles and William's standards, and infact when Queen Lizzy does die, the Sovereign's standard will change. Fry1989eh?20:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think a week was a decent amount of time to wait for a response about the layout. I see you were on Wikipedia during that period.
There's no consensus to have the images arranged down the right hand side. Having them out of the sections they illustrate isn't the optimum way to have them fulfill their role as illustrations.
Let's see, my last post was in the 27th, and you didn't reply in any form until the 4th (which is today), at a time when I was either asleep or at the dentist, and I'm the one who didn't reply timely? As for the word "standard", I've been very clear above that I believe it should be single for the article name, however you disagree which is why I put the S in brackets in my most recent comment today. As for the lay out, you are the one who needs consensus for the way you want it. It's done with them down the side everywhere else, you are the one promoting doing it differently therefore you must defend and gain consensus for your different and odd layout if it is challenged. The fact is that when Queen Lizzy passes away, the Royal Standard of Canada, the one specifically for the sovereign, will change. Queen Lizzy's will be uploaded seperately on Commons as "Queen Elizabeth II's Standard of Canada" (or something like that), while File:Royal Standard of Canada.svg will be altered accordingly to King Charles' new cypher. There's also a version of the Canadian standard that was used at the Queen's coronation in 1953, which was a plain banner of the Canadian coat of arms without the Queen's cypher and in a shorter ratio (this was also the case for Australia and New Zealand), which I will be requesting on the Commons Graphic Lab in the near future, that will also be shown on this article. For these reasons, "Royal Standard of Canada" is probably the best name for the article. Fry1989eh?22:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your last response on 27 April didn't mention anything about layout.
Images are not set down the right hand side everywhere else.
Future events don't alter the fact that this article is about more than one royal standard, not all of which are (or seem to be, anyway) formally called "Royal Standard of [X]". --ĦMIESIANIACAL19:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but my posts before it did. And future events (and historic events by deafult) often are and do have to be taken into account. Whether you like it or not, the most common manner of style here (infact, the only style) for Royal Standards contradicts how you would prefer it to be. Fry1989eh?19:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In future there will still be more than one royal standard.
No matter how much you deny it, yes, there is. And I'm not even just talking about all the articles for royal standards, I'm talking about articles for national flags and coats of arms as well. They are all titled "Flag of X" and "Coat of arms of X", singular, and about the main subject, even if there are variants and derivatives also on the article. The standard practice is right in front of your face, if you choose to be blind to it, that is not my problem, or anybody else's. Fry1989eh?21:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some are titled "Flag of [X]" and are about a national flag; some are titled "Flag of [X]" and are about a national flag and a royal standard or royal standards; some are titled "Royal Standard of [X]" and are about a royal standard; some are titled "Royal Standard of [X]" and are multiple royal standards; some are titled "List of [X-ian] flags" and are about national flags and royal standards; some are titled "Queen's Personal [X-ian] Flag" and are about one royal standard. Ergo, it's demonstrably false to say there is a common way to title articles that contain information about royal standards.
Some have images on the right and left; some have an image on the right and images on the left in a table; at least one has images all on the right. Ergo, it is demonstrably false to say there is a common way to arrange images.
And I'll remind you that pointing out your choice to ignore something in very plain sight does not make me uncivil. Flag lists, such as List of British flags do not count, because they are by their vary nature a list of all the flags of the respective country. Whereas all flag articles (not lists) are titled "Flag of X country", even when including other flags of the country. This is the same for coats of arms, most noticeably Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, even though there are two versions of the UK coat of arms, as well as two derivatives for specific use by the Government, amounting to 4 versions of the UK arms. As for the many articles on royal standards, they are all called "Royal Standard of X" (again, singular, not plural), excluding only 6 articles on Queen Elizabeth's standards for her Realms of Australia, Barbados, Jamaica, Mauritius, New Zealand and Trinidad & Tobago. The reason for that is because at this time, only one flag exists, but when the time comes, 4 of these articles will have to be changed anyways to "Royal Standard of" as Charles becomes king because the flag will change. You have not made any valid argument for it to not only be pluralized but uncapitalized where Standard is a proper noun, and you continue to ignore what is fact; that the standard practice is singular and about the main subject, not pluralized and about every item in the article. Fry1989eh?21:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the examples I wrote of above contain information on royal standards. There is no commonality.
Amongst them, only five are analagous to this one; namely, they are articles specifically about royal standards (note: no national flags, and multiple royal standards). Those are: Royal Standard of Thailand, Royal Standard of the Netherlands, Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, Royal Standard of Norway, and Royal Standard of Spain. I don't know why those were titled as they are, and I remain unconvinced that an article about multiple royal standards should use the singular "standard" in the title; so long as the title uses the plural "standards", the word "standards" should not be capitalised, since it, in that context, is not a proper noun.
Whether you are convinced or not doesn't change the fact that that is how it is done. If you disagree about that being the way, then perhaps you should take that argument to a larger audience at one of the main discussion pages and gain a wide consensus for all of them to be pluralized, but until then, the practice is not challenged. And actually it is more than just five, because even those which do not have their own article, but are put on the national flag's article and have their subsection, titled "Royal Standard of", such as Denmark's. The only one that doesn't, but pluralizes it is this one. Fry1989eh?23:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the policy or guideline that states "how it is done" and I'll do it as it tells me "it is done". Otherwise, you're just arguing for what you prefer, which I don't think makes sense. If you want to pursue it, more people's opinions are going to be necessary, since you and I alone are in a deadlock right now. --ĦMIESIANIACAL23:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of guidelines on set manners of style and common practice to maintain simplicity and conformity, you know that as much as anybody else. You are the one trying to do it differently, you need to make an agurment as to why, and more specifically, if you truly doubt whether the way it's done everywhere else is wrong then you should take it up with a wider community. If you are unwilling to do that, you have no right to exert ownership on this article and force it to not conform with everything else. It's that simple, and my patience is running thin. If you can not give a proper argument for it being your way in spite of everything, I will be forced to take it to mediation. Fry1989eh?00:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my reasoning, multiple times.
Now, please show one Wikipedia policy or guideline or even Wikiproject standard that this article doesn't conform with. --ĦMIESIANIACAL04:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By asking for an actual guideline, you have completely missed the point of what I have been saying from the beginning. And whether or not there is an actual guideline applying to this specific case does not change the fact that there are plenty of guidelines for standardizing articles in not only their layout but their title to maintain conformity and simplicity, such as MOS. This article is not exempt from that basic principle simply because you want it to be different. Fry1989eh?20:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. You said: "There are plenty of guidelines on set manners of style and common practice to maintain simplicity and conformity, you know that as much as anybody else. You are the one trying to do it differently..." So, please, show one policy or guideline or even Wikiproject standard against which this article "does it differently". --ĦMIESIANIACAL20:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to show you things you already know about. Continuing to misinterpret what I say doesn't make you right. Fry1989eh?21:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's safe to say, then, that this article doesn't do anything differently to what's expected/recommended by any Wikipedia policy or guideline or even Wikiproject standard. Thus, this is merely a matter of one opinion vs. another, each having to stand on its own merits before the community. I've asked for some outside input on this. If you can think of anywhere else to seek assistance from, please leave a similar note there. --ĦMIESIANIACAL21:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Royal standards of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have added the standards of Prince Philip and the Queen Mum, as those have both been used extensively in Canada on their own by these two members of the Royal Family when fulfilling their roles with the Queen not present
However, I feel we should add a box like below listing all the British standards that were used in Canada after the Statute of Westminster in 1931. After this date the Canadian Throne became a legally separate institution. As a legally separate position, any royal standards used in Canada after that date when a member of the Royal Family was acting in their Canadian role would be a Canadian flag, de facto if not de jure. For example, both King George VI and Queen Elizabeth carried out duties as the Canadian Sovereign and used the British Royal Standard in Canada during that time, before the Queen's Canadian standard was created in 1962. That makes it their distinguishing flag as the Canadian monarch, and the flag a Canadian one.
An example of the box would be something like I propose below. This way they are less prominent, but still part of the article. The dates would start at the first time each flag was used in Canada (but after 1931), and ending with death, or the creation of an equivalent based on the Royal Arms of Canada. Any objections? Fry1989eh?17:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1939–1962
Royal Standard of Canada
1939–2011
Royal Standard of the Prince of Wales
1951-1952
Royal Standard of Princess Elizabeth
1954-2002
Royal Standard of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother (deceased)
I've removed them as they are not Canadian royal standards. Unless I'm unaware of theor registration with the Canadian Heraldic Authority.
To state any flag created by the College of Arms for members of the Royal Family and used in Canada are/were Canadian flags is a bit of a stretch and certainly OR. Which means the lede of this article could probably do with some clarification, since it does imply a flag used by someone in the Canadian Royal Family is a royal standard of Canada. --₪MIESIANIACAL02:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are very clearly de facto Canadian standards, because they have been used by those members in their legal Canadian capacities on multiple occasions. Especially considering the Sovereign, where both King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were acting as the Canadian Sovereign and used the British standard as their distinguishing flag in that role. That made it the Canadian royal standard at that time. De jure or not, that is what it was being used for. Also, at that time the CHA did not even exist, so demanding a registration with them is unfair. Not only is it unfair, it would be an inaccurate test, since many Canadian symbols were not even entered into the registry until the late 2000s, such as the RCN badge which didn't get put in until 2011 or even the national flag until 2005! The Royal Arms of Canada also was not put in until 2005 and they still even now don't have the previous 1923 and 1957 versions. I'm trying to be compromising, by starting after the Statute of Westminster. The fact is after that date, the Canadian throne was legally and philosophically separate, so anything used in that capacity was Canadian along with the King or Queen when fulfilling their duties. And let me remind you when King George VI visited Canada and the US, he made it clear he was visiting the US as the King of Canada. Now we can find a way to clarify this to your exacting satisfaction, call it a "royal standard", a "distinguishing flag", a "personal flag", "ceremonial flag", whatever suits your fancy and the description to go along with it, but I am firmly on the side that these flags belong on this article as well. I'll show you photos, if that will do anything to move your opinion. I'll post them below. Fry1989eh?16:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the King and Queen's royal tour in 1939. There are better photos but this one is actually government sourced so I'll start with it. [6], and another [7]. Here is when Queen Elizabeth and the Duke visited in 1959, and of course before that when she was Princess Elizabeth in 1951. Here is the Queen Mum in Quebec, and inspecting the Black Watch in 1987, of which she was the Colonel-in-Chief making that a Canadian duty. I'm sure I don't have to show more recent photos of the Prince of Wales in Canada of which there are many. OR is a policy and I understand that, but sometimes it doesn't accurately apply to the situation. This is real, this is documented by both government and esteemed private sources such as Getty, and it happened. To pretend otherwise is cruel, and IMO a disservice to this article. Fry1989eh?16:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at them, those were the Royal Standards of the United Kingdom. This article is not about listing all of the Royal standards ever used by the King's and Queen's of Canada, or else we'd be going back to the Royal standard of King Francis I of France. This article, judging by its title and lead, us not about the Royal standards of France or the UK, but about a specific series of now 7 Royal Standards of Canada, which all use the same common pattern. If we are truly listing all of the personal flags of every single monarch to have ever to have ruled over Canada since the 1500s I suggest the starting of a new list article. trackratte (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are the Royal Standards of the UK in their design, but they were being used as Canadian royal standards. This isn't a difficult concept, I would think. The British royal standard has been used when the Queen has visited the US or Germany for example, but that was a courtesy as a visiting foreign dignitary. That situation is not the same in Canada, where the Queen is our legal head of state and was acting as such. There's no rule a country's royal standard has to look a certain way or be based on the national coat of arms, it simply needs to be used in such a capacity. Both King George VI and Queen Elizabeth used that flag as their flag in their capacity as as the Canadian head of state. De jure or not, de facto that was the Canadian royal standard at that time because that is the capacity in which it was being used. From two users that have been especially active in the legal history and continuity of the Canadian monarchy, I had expected better reception. I don't want any flag that was ever used in the last 500 years of Canadian history, only the ones used after the 1931 Statute of Westminster, once the Canadian Throne became a legally separate concept. Fry1989eh?23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article already states "Prior to the adoption of the Canadian royal standards, members of the Royal Family who toured Canada used the royal standard they employed when in the United Kingdom." Why do we need to go into more detail than that? And, if we did, where would we stop? Every monarch back to Francis I, as trackratte says? Plus all their spouses and children? --₪MIESIANIACAL20:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't feel that accurately describes what happened. Again, they were acting in their Canadian role. The way the article is written it sounds like we ceremoniously allowed them to use their UK flags here. As I've pointed out the situation is different in that unlike the Queen visiting Germany and ceremoniously using her UK standard there (which has happened[8]), here she is actually legally our head of state, she isn't a visiting foreign dignitary, she has a actual legal role here. So when she visited and acted in her role as our Queen, symbols used to represent her are representing her in that role. She was Queen of Canada, so that flag was being used as her royal standard as the Queen of Canada. As I said, there is no rule that a royal standard has to look any certain way or incorporate any certain symbols, it simply has to be a flag that was used in that capacity, and the UK standard was being used in that capacity, which made it the royal standard of Canada, de facto. As for your last point, again please understand, I'm limiting this to after 1931 when the Canadian Throne became a separate body, position, role, whatever you want to call it, after that time the Canadian and British thrones were legally separate. Fry1989eh?23:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it says "the royal standard they employed in the United Kingdom" rather than "their British royal standard". But, there's nothing to say the sentence can't be amended; to make clearer they were standards used by Canadian royals, if you wish. However, you're going to need a cite to support any claim they were Canadian royal standards. --₪MIESIANIACAL15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I am saying de facto rather than de jure. I'm trying to explain this in a very simple manner and I don't understand why it isn't resonating. If Queen Elizabeth II is acting as our Queen, then out of practice, even if it wasn't in any statue or law or special order, the flag she was using was her royal standard as the Queen of Canada. So out of practice, that makes it the Canadian royal standard for that period of time. It is the same with the other members of the Royal Family when they were acting in their royal roles, such as the Queen Mother inspecting the Black Watch. All of these were Canadian duties. I'm trying to hard to make this a compromise. In my original addition, I went back to the 1800s, and I now realise that was wrong. But going back to the Statute of Westminster, we have an actual time period where the Canadian Throne became separate from the British Throne and that changes things. I have given examples of the Queen visiting other countries and using her royal standard there as a courtesy, and compared that to how here she is a Canadian for all intents and purposes and under the law. Why is it not appropriate to show that prior to the 1962 adoption of her Canadianised standard, both she and her father used the British standard as their Canadian standard during their visits? I've given every bit of evidence necessary to show that this is real and it happened and that there was a legal separation making that flag Canadian in it's use. King George VI was our King, Queen Elizabeth II is our Queen, that was their flag. That makes it a Canadian flag de facto. The way you have reworded it saying that the British royal standard "took on a dual role depending on context" basically is saying the same thing I'm saying in different way. Why should we not have smaller info box like I'm proposing just listing those flags? I've even made it a small box so those flags are less prominent. I just do not understand to opposition. Fry1989eh?16:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's difficult to decipher. What I wrote communicates what you want to say but is "less open". The difference between "less open" and "not less open", then, being the addition of images? What exactly do you mean? --₪MIESIANIACAL19:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between British Royal Standards used in Canada and Canadian Royal Standards. There is also a difference between the legal implications of the Statute of Westminster, and what was in practice at the time, for example Canadians during the Second World War were British subjects as the Canadian Citizenship Act wasn't passed until 1947, politicians still thought of the monarch as British until about 1953, a uniquely Canadian Royal Standard didn't exist until 1962, and the UK and Canada weren't legally "untangled" until 1982, so there was a period of about 50 years from the passing of the Statute of Westminster where Canada slowly transitioned from "British" to independently Canadian. It is very rare in Canadian political history to find any sharp changes or definite dates, as everything slowly evolves over time, and thus why so many constitutional experts use the "growing tree" analogy. Simply put, this article as currently constituted is about a very specific set of standards conceived and produced in Canada for specifically and uniquely for the Canadian Royal Family, and thus the use of uniquely Canadian symbols.
The sticking point in expanding the scope of this article is that either we interpret the article to mean the specific set of the Royal Standards of Canada designed in Canada for the Canadian Royal Family, or we expand it to all of the Royal Standards of Canada (ie any Royal Standard used to officially represent the sovereign of Canada, which would include the Colony of Canada in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, as well as the Province and the Dominion of Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries. Unless you want to restrict to only the Dominion of Canada since 1867. 1931 is a bit arbitrary in that it was a milestone on the way to independence, did not represent a change in political entity like 1840 or 1867, and is widely used as a hard date only as a matter of convenience, as like I said, its implications were not implemented at once, but over a 50 year period. trackratte (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have always interpreted this article's scope to be all royal standards of Canada, not arbitrarily royal standards designed by the CHA (which did not exist when the Queen's Canadianised standard was adopted) or based on the Royal Arms of Canada. And yes, if we're to get really messy, Canada and the UK were still constitutionally intertwined until the 1982 Act, but it is the 1931 Statute that separated the Canadian and British Thrones, and that is why I see that date as when it should start from. Once the sovereign, or a member of the Royal Family, was acting in their Canadian roles, which started in 1931, any flag they used in that capacity, in my unquestioning opinion, is de facto a Canadian flag. Prior to 1931, the British and Canadian Throne were one and the same, so technically there was no "Canadian monarch" and therefore going back the last 300-400 years would not be correct. Also as I said before, we don't have to call it the "Royal Standard of Canada" if that is the contention here, we can call it their "personal flag", or "ceremonial flag", something else if that matters. But we should show them on this article because they were being used in a different officiality than on the British counterpart. Fry1989eh?19:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The separation of the Crowns was only seen to have occurred in 1931 ex-post facto, at the time the majority within Canada still felt the office to be entirely British, as in fact Canadians at the time still were. Thus, it made entire sense to use a British royal standard as it was a thoroughly British institution. It was only over a 50 year period did the institution become to be Canadianized. However, today we look back at the Balfour declaration of 1926 as the start point for this Canadianization, a point which was officialized by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Subsequently, the use of 1931 as an immediate cutoff date from which all British royal symbols suddenly became uniquely Canadian is a gross over simplification. Thus, it is far simpler, and in my view keeping with the intended subject of the article, to show only those standards which were designed in Canada for the specific use of the Canadian royal family, and as such are independent of any previously used British royal symbols, whether or not the individuals who used them did so in their Canadian capacity or not. Whether or not any of the flags were designed specifically by the CHA is irrelevant, the point is these are uniquely Canadian flags designed by Canadians using Canadian symbols authorized for use by the Queen of Canada for use by herself and members of the Canadian Royal Family. trackratte (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of order: whatever the majority of Canadians may have felt in the years immediately after 1931, there was official recognition of the existence of a separate Canadian Crown; William Lyon Mackenzie King, whose urging led to the SoW, went to great lengths to make sure that fact became known. Before and during the visit of George VI to the US in 1939, WLMK stressed--even fighting against British officials to have it so--the King would be and was there as king of Canada, not King of the UK.
That, though, doesn't mean the standard flown from George's car or train was a Canadian flag, in the same way HMY Britannia wasn't the Canadian royal yacht, despite the Queen of Canada using it. At best, these things were supra-national; they took on different meanings in different contexts. The subject of this article is flags that denote members of the Canadian Royal Family only. --₪MIESIANIACAL20:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the key differentiator here is as stated in the lede, "The royal standards of Canada are a set of uniquely Canadian personal flags approved by the Queen of Canada for use by members of the Canadian Royal Family". As we can see is the case in every single letter of registration. Even older badges, such as badges used for the Royal tours of the Queen mother in the 1980s, have now been registered, and each letter of registration states when they were approved by the Queen of Canada. Registrations go back all the way to symbols from 1707 and perhaps earlier. I think it is safe to say that if it has not been registered with the CHA, it is not officially considered a Canadian symbol. trackratte (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the Royal Yacht Britannia comparison isn't the same. That ship was (prior to decommissioning) owned by the Sovereign in Right of the United Kingdom, even though the Queen "borrowed" it to visit Canada. It is the same with the crown jewels, the Imperial State Crown is owned by the British Monarch and even has strict rules about it not leaving British territory. With the flag it's different, nobody owns that flag, it has become a royal standard out of hundreds of years of practice and common usage in that role. So when King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II were acting as the Canadian Monarch, that flag was their royal standard by it's use, even if there were no statute or order by the Monarch saying so. My interpretation is rather simple: That's how they used it, so that's what it was. Fry1989eh?23:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as an answer to two points made by both users. First, Miesianiacal, you say this article is only for flags that denote members of the Canadian Royal Family. That distinction makes no sense, since when they are visiting here and fulfilling their duties, that is what they are. Whatever flag they use, whether it is based on the British arms or Canadian arms, they are acting out as a member of the Canadian Royal Family. The flag doesn't change that at all. But the fact it is being used as their distinguishing flag, whatever it's design, does matter and belongs on this article. Secondly to Trackratte, I have already stated I believe the CHA test is unfair for two reasons. Firstly, I'm talking about these flags out of a de facto use which makes them what they are, not some official registration or order. But secondly, I believe it is unfair because the CHA registry is spotty. They didn't even get the RCN badge in there until 2011, and still do not have the 1923 and 1957 versions of the Royal Arms of Canada. Fry1989eh?23:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 1923 or 1957 version of the Arms, as there is only one set of Arms of the Sovereign in Right of Canada, see the registration ("As assigned by Royal Proclamation of His Majesty King George V on the 19th day of November 1921, and as augmented with the annulus ribbon and motto of the Order of Canada by the approval of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on the 12th day of July 1994"). The Crown has used three different renditions in the past, with only the 1957 and 1994 renditions being in current official use, however the CHA has no requirement to present more than one rendition as they are not registering a specific rendition but instead only the single coat of Arms (not to be confused with the Queen having to personally approve any changes to the Arms).
The CHA had a massive backlog of registrations for a long time after its creation, since all military symbols were managed by the Canadian Armed Forces Directorate of History and Heritage, and all civil symbols were managed the relevant institutions in the UK, so the CHA literally had to design and issue thousands of registrations to migrate everything to a single registry. They are fairly well caught up now though it seems, having registered a seemingly complete series of symbols from the 1700s up to 2015.
The fact remains that British produced standards currently remain beyond the scope of the article the way the lead currently stands, and there are no sources saying that those British standards are in fact Canadian symbols. As a point of comparison, we have official and legal sources stating that the Union Jack, for example, is an official symbol of Canada even though it is the British national flag. trackratte (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As to your first point, that's not true. The Royal Arms were originally granted in 1923 and augmented twice after that, changing things such as the female harp figure to a traditional harp, the Tudor Crown to the St. Edward's Crown, adding the circlet of the Order of Canada, and changing the mantling from traditional to maple leaves, and the maple leaves in the shield from green to red. There are indeed a 1923 and 1957 version of the Royal Arms.
Secondly, so admitting that the CHA has had a backlog problem would naturally support my belief that to use the CHA as a golden standard on whether something is true or not is unfair.
On the last point, we can change the lead, that is no difficulty. Once the Canadian Monarchy came into existing, which is 1931, any flags used by them as the Canadian Monarchy belongs here. You're calling them "British standards" but they are only that in their design, that isn't the context they were being used in and the context is what matters.
Miesianiacal, I know we've had fights in the past but I have tried really hard recently to get along with you, asking your opinions in things and help. I don't know if it has registered but I hope it has. The way you have the article written right now, where it says "...after 1931, each of those standards took on a dual role of representing a member of either the British or the Canadian Royal Family, depending on the context." in my opinion is saying the exact same thing I'm trying to say. Which is, when they were acting as the Canadian Monarch/Royal Family, the flag took on a context of being their royal standard as such. It is just a different way of saying it. So why can we not show these flags separately from the British article, and explain this? I feel the two of you are so fixed on the design of the flag and it's origin, and not it's use. Yes, it's the British royal standard, and it was designed by the College of Arms. I fully admit that. But, it is being used by the King/Queen/Family Member in their role as a Canadian. That use makes it their royal standard in Canada for that period of time they used it. Is it my calling it the "Royal Standard of Canada" that is tripping you up? Could we call it their "Royal Standard in Canada"? I simply do not understand why the both of you are against it. It is frustrating and confusing, I feel like we are not talking the same language almost. Fry1989eh?22:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't sense there's anything personal happening here. I've spoken only about content and I believe I've been clear; so, I'll repeat myself juat this once more: The flags representing members of either the Canadian or the British royal family, depending on context, is already borderline original research, but is also, I think, more verifiable than the claim the flags were Canadian standards because they were sometimes used by members of the Royal Family in a Canadian context. That is definitely OR and, as such, cannot stand, per Wikipedia's rules. This article doesn't cover standards that were or are used in more than one national context; the flags covered in this article are used in the Canadian context only and are verifiably Canadian standards. --₪MIESIANIACAL03:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you sense no personal contention. However, there are both government and private sources that this happened. I believe that should be enough to be above the OR test. I'm open to any sort of compromise in the way we word things, but I remain firm in my belief that these flags belong on this article, because that is how they were used. I realise standing firm will change nothing unless I can get others to agree, but I simply do not understand why they shouldn't. I think OR is being misapplied. If something is real and documented by multiple sources, it belongs. Fry1989eh?16:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that there is no evidence that these symbols in question are Canadian. For example, the Prince of Wales would have used a British standard while in Canada prior to 2011, but that doesn't mean it is automatically a uniquely Canadian symbol. The Royal Family has only been completely "Canadianized" in this regard since 2014 now that all members have a uniquely Canadian standard, completing a process which began in the 1960s. And there are of course British symbols which we do have sources for them being simultaneously Canadian official symbols, but these British standards so far are not amongst them. trackratte (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that they were "uniquely Canadian". Obviously they aren't, as they are British flags in origin. I simply mean they were being used in their Canadian capacity. Indeed, the Prince of Wales used his British standard in Canada from around 1912 (I believe) until his Canadianised standard was created in 2011. But while the symbols weren't updated to reflect the reality, the Royal Family itself was Canadianised in 1931 which is why I choose that as a starting date. Surely there is a way we can reword this that everyone would agree to, which would allow for including those flags on this article. I just simply do not understand how the King or Queen of Canada could be here acting in that legally distinct role, with any flag as their symbol, and we not include it on this article. When Queen Elizabeth II visited in the 50s before her Canadianised standard was adopted (1962), she could have used her personal flag instead of the British royal standard, and I would still argue it belongs on this article because she was using it as her flag in her Canadian role as our Queen.. She could have used a bath towel attached to a flag pole even. For all intents and purposes, that would make it her standard as the Canadian Sovereign, for that period of time. It is the intent and use that makes it what it is, not any registration or statute. Can we not find a way to agree? Can we not expand the scope of the article, if that is the contention? Fry1989eh?16:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By uniquely Canadian symbol I simply meant a Canadian symbol independent of any other usage or context. For example, the Union Flag is most definately a British symbol, yet at the same time it is a uniquely Canadian symbol (and verifiably so) in the sense that it is a Canadian symbol independent of its role elsewhere or in other contexts. What is missing in the case of the British royal standards is the element of verifiability, and thus placing the British royal standards here is original research. Now, common sense applies and if the argument was valid and sound, then it could be reasonable to apply it. However, in this case it seems your argument, while certainly logical, is an inductive one and therefore relies on a balance of probabilities, so we cannot determine whether or not it is cogent or uncogent without a reliable source stating whether the proposition is true or false. Since we do not, it is impossible to verify its cogency. So, in this case both of your premises (the Queen is Canadian, the Royal standard represents the Queen) can be true, but the proposition (the Royal standard is therefore Canadian) can still be false. Subsequently, this is probably why this discussion is so circuitous, since you believe you have proven your premises to be true (and I would agree with you), however we still fail to see the proposition as true as the argument used is an inductive one. trackratte (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I hope my wording is a sufficient alternative. It acknowledges the use of those former royal standards to identify members of the Canadian Royal Family without going so far as to call the standards themselves Canadian. --₪MIESIANIACAL02:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that I feel incredibly defeated. I have made my argument and continue to believe it to be sound. I simply can not agree with the assessment by the both of you. Even if we aren't to call them "Canadian", they were used here and belong on this article. I am sorry, but I remain steadfast in that belief. Fry1989eh?19:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just figured I would add more evidence for unchangeable minds. This is sourced from the Toronto Star Archives and refers to the flag flown as "the Royal Standard" without inference of it being so for the United Kingdom, from the 1939 Royal Tour. This is similarly sourced to the Toronto Star for the 1939 Tour showing Queen Elizabeth's standard (as her husband was still king). We have one of the vehicles used for that tour still flying the Royal Standard while on display in British Columbia. We have the Prince of Wales when he was in Montreal in 2009. We have several examples of visits from Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip here and here. Here is another example of the Queen Mum as well as this, and the same vehicle is now privately registered with an Ontario number plate. It is so incredibly obvious what context these flags were used in. You're hiding the truth! Plain and simple.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See this official manual here that groups all of the standards under "Royal standards and State personal flags". This book here uses "Royal Standards" as the generic term. Further, the government site showing the actual flags refers to them as both flags and standards. The use of the term "Royal Standard" is certainly not OR, and I don't see any reason to change the status quo really. trackratte (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I see this as nothing more than a form of creeping republicanism. I don't mean the proposal, I presume good faith in DrKay's intentions, I'm referring to the various external sources that do not call them what they are. Fry1989eh?15:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I think we should perhaps mention that there is not currently a standard for the King, but that one can be expected to be designed/announced at such time as it is needed (a royal visit). Any idea how to word that? Fry1989eh?00:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on updating the royal standard to make it more like the CHA drawing. It won't be perfect, but it will be better. Fry1989eh?13:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok please do. Make sure to make the blue is as dark at the blue of the actual flag flown at Government House in Halifax on Coronation day May 6 2023 pictured in this article (same dark blue as the one used as coronation standard 1937 and 1953 in the article). The drawing on the Governor General's site is not on an actual flag like many of the ones in this article are. This is the closest image to the actual flag, the resolution could be higher; File:New Royal Standard of Canada 2023.jpg - Wikimedia Commons Likemike1 (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's the picture of the actual flag used at Government House Halifax on the Royal Standards of Canada Wikipedia page as well as this - both showing the blue as dark on the actual flag:https://www.canadiancrown.com/did-you-know.html
Unable to get a good .svg vector file for the dark blue design yet - anyone is welcome to use my .jpg file here to do so. It is more accurate to the actual official flag used - for example in Halifax on May 6 2023 on coronation day at Government House pictured on this Wikipedia page Likemike1 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many examples of actual Royal Standard of Canada flags past & present being officially flown using dark blue. Going all the way back to 1937/1953 coronations (no letter on the Royal Standard like currently) as well as for Queen Elizabeth's personal flag with the 'E' on it. Even if the shield of the coat of arms is light blue (it's been both light & dark blue as well), the Royal Standard has used a dark blue
The sovereign's banner in the UK has been called the 'royal standard' for centuries, even though from a heraldic jargon standpoint it's incorrect. It would be pedantic to 'correct' the term in a UK context. For Canada, however (and the other realms where Elizabeth II had personal flags) the official term has always been 'personal flag', not 'royal standard'. Calling them 'royal standards' seems to be a Wikipedia-only phenomenon. They are not, strictly speaking, banners (except the king's new personal flag for Canada), because they have other elements besides the shield of arms. So I would support changing to 'personal flag' but not to 'banner'. Indefatigable (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support a move to 'personal flag', for both for the article title and body. For simplicity's sake I think describing the form of the flags as 'banners of arms with roundels' is fine, because that's what they are. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would very strongly oppose renaming the article to anything using "personal flag(s)". A "personal flag" is a purpose, and that can be elaborated upon in the article itself, but there are several other personal flags in Canada that do not belong here, and this would be a move away from the consensus of similar articles (I don't care about "other things exist"). "Royal standard" is a colloquialism/generic term for the personal flag of a monarch, one that is widespread and has a long history in the English language. "Banner of arms" is a definition. All three terms arguably have a place.
The flag of the late Queen with its defacement was also never used as a coat of arms (unlike this this example, the legitimacy of which is under suspicion, but I'm using it here to make a point). With His Majesty's new flag now being an undefaced banner of arms of a coat of arms, the situation has also changed. I see no legitimate reason not to call it a "royal standard". Fry1989eh?13:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article title definitely shouldn't include the term 'standard', as so far as I can tell none of the flags are officially referred to as standards. The flag of the monarch of the United Kingdom is referred to as a standard, but the Canadian flag is entirely separate so the naming conventions of the former don't apply.
And the new royal standard is not primarily referred to as a "personal flag" either, with the CHA calling it in their release and related material the "Sovereign's flag for Canada". "Royal standard", as a colloquial term and as it is understood by the average person, is what these flags are. Fry1989eh?16:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The new royal flag is called a personal flag in some contexts, for example on the Canadian Government website. This gives the term more legitimacy than 'standard', the use of which I can't find any evidence for. In any case, my suggested title above doesn't use either term. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. This was bordering on a no consensus close and I believe that relisting it again would do little good. Consensus seems to be to keep the current title. If there are any concerns regarding this close, please let me know. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Seawolf35T--C00:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think "I continue to oppose" is enough to convince the closer to retain the current article title that's your prerogative. I don't think it's very persuasive, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current title is not terrible, but the proposed title matches sources better, and is more accessible to readers, many of whom will not be familiar with the term royal standard. Indefatigable (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fear of confusion by those not familiar with certain terminology is not a reason to avoid using that terminology when it is correct. If that were the case, then all the articles using "royal standard" (of which there are over 20, 40+ if we include diffusion) should be changed. Are we really going to go in that direction? Fry1989eh?22:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - They're rarely known in public as the "Canadian royal family". Rather they're most often known as the "British royal family". If the page were to be moved? then "Canadian flags of the royal family" would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Canadian flags of the royal family" is ambiguous as it doesn't identify the royal family in question. These flags belong to members of the royal family of Canada, hence "Flags of the Canadian royal family". A.D.Hope (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, as internationally they're mostly known as the "British royal family". In comparison, rarely called the "Canadian royal family". GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But they are the Canadian royal family and that is the most appropriate name in this instance. The alternative would be to sidestep the phrase "royal family" entirely and call the article "Flags of the Canadian monarchy", but (at least in theory) that's a somewhat broader category. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by your arguments. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, whose monarch resides in the United Kingdom. "British royal family" is way more commonly used in the international community, then "Canadian royal family" & therefore I can't support your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand that the Canadian and British monarchies are separate institutions, even though the two countries share a monarch. These flags are nothing to do with the United Kingdom. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On contrary, I do understand that they're separate institutions. But that's irrelevant here. What's relevant is common usage in the international community. We rarely see or hear "Canadian royal family", "Australian royal family", "Saint Lucian royal family", etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a question of balancing precision agianst the common name. "Flags of the British royal family" would obviously be an inappropriate title for this article, though I acknowledge you haven't suggested it. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I support a move away from royal standards, as shown by me starting the last requested move, because that is rarely (if ever) what they are called. I oppose this move to Canadian royal family on the same basis: it is rare for them to be called that. DrKay (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to hear alternative suggestions. For the reasons I've mentioned above I don't think the term "British" is appropriate, but there are other options. My concern with something like "Royal flags of Canada" is that we'd need to define what a "royal flag" is, and that might be easier said than done. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make a valid point, although Flags of the Dutch royal family and Royal flags of Thailand exist and several royal families don't seem to have standalone articles about their flags at all. I'm also not entirely sure about some of our translations – I understand the Norwegian Kongeflagget to literally mean 'King's flag', for example, so there's possibly a wider discussion to be had there. Personally I think Canada's consistent use of 'flag' rather than 'standard' trumps our internal consistency, but that's just me. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: This reads somewhere between "not moved" and "no consensus" to me, but some editors are noting we could possibly find a better name. Re-listing to hopefully further that discussion ASUKITE16:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I can be bold, I think there's a consensus to move to something. The proposed title is supported by myself, @Moxy, and @Indefatigable. @GoodDay supports 'Royal flags of Canada' and @DrKay supports a move away from 'royal standards', but both oppose 'royal family of Canada'. The only outright opposition comes from @Fry1989, for unknown reasons, and from @Miesianiacal because of WP:CONSISTENT.
Well, I had nothing to do with the re-listing and I'm glad further discussion has been encouraged. It would be a shame to end up with no consensus with there's consensus for a move to something. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the common name of the flag of the Canadian monarch was the 'Royal standard of Canada' I might agree, but it isn't. The topic of this article is also broader than the monarch's flag, so it's not a good fit in that regard. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose for the previously stated reason it would make this article an outlier among other articles on royal standards. To this proposal in particluar, it leaves unanswered the question of what is a royal flag in Canada? The Royal Union Flag seems to pretty clearly be a royal flag of Canada, though, it doesn't represent anyone. Is any flag representing royal authority, such as the flag for the armed forces of His Majesty raised by Canada, a royal flag?
The nominator hasn't explained how standard is not a valid synonym for royal flag; Wikipedia's own article on heraldic flags says, "flags that are used by individuals, like a monarch or president, as a means of identification are often called standards". Do the flags covered here somehow not meet that definition? And it's not as if this article doesn't presently also refer to the flags as flags.
Additionally, it's a mystery as to where this consensus to move the article is. The last discussion, undertaken a mere two months ago, seems pretty evenly split on the matter of moving the page. --₪MIESIANIACAL01:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above addresses why we should use the term 'standard' when the term 'flag' is used almost exclusively in the sources this article relies on. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title could broaden the scope of the article to other royal flags, which is in part why I preferred the earlier, more specific proposal 'Flags of the Canadian royal family'. Nevertheless, I don't think the article would need to cover the armed forces flag or similar, as so far as I can tell they aren't directly associated with the person of the monarch in the sources.
'Standard' isn't a valid synonym for 'royal flag' in this instance because the flags in the article are generally not referred to as 'standards' in the sources we use. It's not really our place to ignore the terminology used by the Canadian Government and Canadian Heraldic Authority.
The consensus to move comes from myself, @Moxy, @Indefatigable, and @DrKay, who all supported some sort of move in the last request. Opposition came from yourself and @GoodDay. @Fry1989 opposed but refused to give a reason, so I'm inclined to ignore that.
I hope this helps. I'm open to alternative title suggestions, but it does seem clear that 'flag' is more appropriate than 'standard' in relation to Canada. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I gave a rather clear and concise explanation of my reasons. You also seem to be confused in your response. The Royal flags of Thailandare not personal flags flown only in the presence of a member of the Thai Royal Family to mark their presence. They are flags flown by the public, usually on birthdays and other ceremonious events. Royal Standard of Thailand is the article about the flags that are analogous to those shown on this article. Flags of the Dutch royal family also was previously named Royal Standard of the Netherlands until it was moved by another user, which takes it out of sync with the rest and makes it an outlier, the same concern raised here by Miesianiacal. Fry1989eh?15:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your response to the last move request was 'I continue to oppose', which is concise but not clear as it does not include a reason for your opposition. However, I'm glad that you seem willing to participate more fully in this discussion.
You raise a valid point about Royal flags of Thailand, although as Thai flags aren't based on Western heraldric or vexillological conventions maybe the article isn't a good example in any case. Flags of the Dutch royal family however, has been stable for over six years and therefore has implicit consensus. Given the Canadian state favours the term 'flag' over 'standard' for its royal flags the Dutch article seems like the example to follow. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m challenging the implicit consensus of this article based on the fact most of its sources use the term ‘flag’, not ‘standard’. The Dutch article could of course be challenged in the same way if its title didn’t align with its sources. A.D.Hope (talk) A.D.Hope (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I still recommend that we stick with how it's done in the United Kingdom & the other Commonwealth realms. Royal standards, rather than Royal flags. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian constitution mentions the 'monarch', but doesn't mention a 'royal family'. Yet we have a section on the "Canadian royal family", at Monarchy of Canada. I remain opposed to changing this page's name. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title is 'Royal flags of Canada', not 'Flags of the Canadian royal family', so I don't follow your logic there, GoodDay. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the proposal is & I'm still opposed. We should keep with the usage of 'royal standards', as is done in the United Kingdom & the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. The term used in the sources should be what's used on Wikipedia. As for the consistency argument - first, I'd find it very plausible that many of those other articles should be moved as well. Second, even if for the sake of argument there are other articles where "standards" makes sense, per WP:TIES, Canadian English and Canadian sources should be preferred for this article. So there needs to be an argument on what term Canadian sources use, which it seems only the nominator is currently making. SnowFire (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the term the sources use, as well as the Canadian government itself. We should use the term that is used by the sources. I do not find any of the arguments in opposition convincing. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the proposed title is not the term used by the Canadian Government. They have never been called the "royal flags of Canada" by the Government any more than some like to point out that they have never been called the "royal standards of Canada" by the Government. Therein lies the problem, we have users confusing the title of what these are with the terminology of what these are. Those two distinct concepts don't always line up together. Title is what a relevant authority calls something, terminology is what everyone understands something to be. Fry1989eh?18:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Likely soon time for this RM to be closed. Input has virtually stopped & that's after the RM being relisted a 'second time'. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My opposition is obviously a continued one. There is no legitimate reason to move this artile and a whole bunch of reasons not to, all of which have been previously argued. Fry1989eh?
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.
@Miesianiacal, separate from the above discussion, I don't see why the article needs to use terminology such as 'Arms of His Majesty the King in Right of Canada' or 'the monarch's diamond anniversary of her accession to the throne' when 'Coat of arms of Canada' and Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II work perfectly well. The members of the royal family are also referred to in a slightly fussy way. 'Anne, Princess Royal' is fine, we don't need to call her 'Princess Anne, Princess Royal', and I'm not sure the latter is even correct. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would just point out that the formal title of Princess Anne is The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal. Yes it's fussy, and no I'm not saying we should use it in that full form everywhere on Wikipedia that Princess Anne is the subject, but you raised the question of what is "correct". Fry1989eh?15:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did search for examples of that title and came up short – even the Gazette uses 'Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal'. Personally I think the article title – Anne, Princess Royal – is fine. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the RM has finished, I've tried to simplify the language of the article again, e.g. changing 'Arms of His Majesty the King in Right of Canada' to 'coat of arms of Canada'. As before, I'm happy to discuss this with @Miesianiacal, who seems to prefer the longer wording. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't just "simplifying language". You're making dozens of changes throughout the whole article that you'll need to discuss one by one; or, at least, paragraph by paragraph. If "Arms of His Majesty the King in Right of Canada" is where you'd like to start: For an article on royal standards based on the arms, it's better for readers to know straight away the arms are also The King's, not just vaguely "Canada's". --₪MIESIANIACAL16:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you object to every change? If not, I think it would be more productive for you to list the ones you disagree with, and we can then discuss them. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To get the ball rolling, there's no need to call the arms the 'Arms of His Majesty the King in Right of Canada'. It's a very formal name, and if the article can manage being called Coat of arms of Canada then so can we. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer isn't obvious, and it's unfair to expect me to run every change past you if you do not object to all of them.
As I said above, there's no need to call the arms the 'Arms of His Majesty the King in Right of Canada'. It's a very formal name, and if the article can manage being called Coat of arms of Canada then so can we. The arms are those of the Canadian state, so noting that they are also the arms of the king, who is the personification of the Canadian state, is redundant. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is more concise to write "Arms of His Majesty the King in Right of Canada" than "arms of Canada, which represent the King of Canada, as the King is the personification of the Canadian state". --₪MIESIANIACAL17:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the proposal is to change "Arms of His Majesty the King in Right of Canada" to "coat of arms of Canada", not "arms of Canada, which represent the King of Canada, as the King is the personification of the Canadian state".
Your only response to my explanation as to why the full name is better has been, "there's no need". Repeatedly. If that's your plan going forward, 3O won't help, as the third party tries to get us to work out a resolution; 3O doesn't provide a tie-breaking vote. --₪MIESIANIACAL18:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to suggest a resolution that isn't the status quo then I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, I think a third opinion is the next step. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended to be. I think our difference in opinion is irreconcilable without outside assistance, since it's a matter of style rather than fact, but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to suggest something before requesting a third opinion. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is most certainly irreconcilable if you're never going to offer a counterargument. You can attempt to have a 3O mediate us to a middle ground between "the full name of the arms succinctly communicates to readers the salient fact that the Royal Family's standards are all based on The King's arms" and "there's no need". However, as I've said, just be aware the 3O does not give a tie-breaking vote. --₪MIESIANIACAL17:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There's no need" isn't an argument. It's just a statement.
We're not to write articles on the assumption readers will click through on every link and read other articles to understand the article they were previously reading. While readers of this article can click through to Coat of Arms of Canada to get much more info on the arms themselves, the fact that the arms are the King's ought to be communicated straightforwardly on this article so readers can immediately comprehend why those arms are used as the basis of the Royal Family's standards. King's coat of arms, royal family's flags, makes sense. Canada's coat of arms, royal family's flags, unclear why. --₪MIESIANIACAL18:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument has never simply been "there's no need". You're doing me a disservice. I disagree that using 'coat of arms of Canada' is unclear, for the reasons I've already given above. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the supporting argument for "it's not necessary" is an assumption readers will know the arms of Canada are the King's arms?
Oh gosh, I'm not sure I can cope with an RfC just now! My aim this month is to wind up the various discussions I'm involved in and get quietly stuck into editing an actual article. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GoodDay. @Miesianiacal, I'll wait until the 3O is opened before responding if that's alright. Truth be told I'm not feeling 100%, so you're not getting me at my best and that is a little unfair on you. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think calling it the "coat of arms of Canada" is any less clear; in fact, the opposite. Readers not familiar with this sort of terminology may not grasp that "Arms of His Majesty the King in Right of Canada" is referring to the national coat of arms of Canada, or even if they do, what it implies about the king bearing them. Instead, I'd state it explicitly; something like All are based on a banner of the coat of arms of Canada, which belong to Charles III in his role as King of Canada. ― novov(tc)05:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say the fact they're the King's arms is more important to this article than their being the national coat of arms; particularly in the lede. However, I'll accept adding the info about the coat of arms being Canada's as a compromise.
My feeling thereafter is that the wording should be changed slightly to, "all are based on a banner of the King of Canada's coat of arms, which also serve as the coat of arms of Canada." "[The arms] belong to Charles III" could mean the Crown copyright on the coat of arms, rather than the arms symbolizing the King. --₪MIESIANIACAL23:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doen't addess my point about the fact they're the King's arms being more important to this article. But, if you absolutely insist on that order, I'd change the latter half of the sentence to "which are the arms of Charles III, King of Canada", or, perhaps better (as they were the arms for Charles' predecessors and will be the arms of his successors), "which are the arms of the Canadian monarch". --₪MIESIANIACAL00:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miesianiacal, now that the above has been resolved we can more on to the second change I would like to implement, which is changing references to Prince William and Princess Anne from "Prince William, Prince of Wales" and "Princess Anne, Princess Royal" to "William, Prince of Wales" and "Anne, Princess Royal". This follows the titles of the articles about them, and avoids the repetition of "prince" and "princess". A.D.Hope (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to use article titles.
It's inconsistent and confusing to have some members of the Royal Family with their princely titles (Prince Andrew; Duke of York; Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh) and others without their princely titles (Anne, Princess Royal; William, Prince of Wales). --₪MIESIANIACAL15:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not. William is a prince and Anne a princess by the 1917 Letters Patent, which gave them those titles at birth. Prince of Wales and Princess Royal are titles given to them separately, at a later date, in addition to their princely titles. --₪MIESIANIACAL19:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why we need to use those titles? 'William, Prince of Wales' and 'Anne, Princess Royal' are clear enough, and 'Prince William, Prince of Wales' and 'Princess Anne, Princess Royal' are cumbersome because they repeat 'prince' and 'princess' respectively. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained: consistency for the sake of clarity. In the same vein, it's entirely possible to just use "Prince William", "Princess Anne", "Prince Andrew", etc in the article text. It appears William's standard is for the Prince of Wales,[9] seemingly regardless of who holds the title, and Anne's is shown as belonging to "The Princess Anne, Princess Royal".[10] This article properly reflects that in the gallery of standards under "Other members of the royal family". The first sentence of that same section--"there are currently five variants of the sovereign's standard, one each for Prince William, Prince of Wales; Princess Anne, Princess Royal; Prince Andrew, Duke of York; Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh; and one used by any member of the royal family who does not have a personal Canadian flag--could be rewritten as, "there are five variants of the sovereign's standard, one each for the Prince of Wales (at present, Prince William); Princess Anne, Princess Royal; Prince Andrew, Duke of York; Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh; and one used by any member of the royal family who does not have a personal Canadian flag." That would leave only one mention of "Prince William, Prince of Wales", in the lede, which I personally have no issue with. --₪MIESIANIACAL21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Standard of Canada is mentioned in our article
The ratio is 1:2 but Royal Standard of Canada.svg does not use 1:2. We should change the file to 1:2. Exceptionally, the file Royal Standard of members of the Canadian Royal Family.svg should also be restored to In the final version used in September 2016, the flag has not been changed at all, and according to the picture published on the website, a straight line should be added in the middle of the blue part of Royal Standard of Canada.svg (just like the Royal Standard of members of the Canadian Royal Family.svg (same as the Canadian Royal Family)
I've actually just gone ahead and removed the part of the sentence that claims the proper proportions are 1:2. This is not supported in the citation provided or in other citations used in the article. Feel free to readd the proportions (and for someone to correct said image's proportions) when a WP:RS on the issue is found. Leventio (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
15:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
![[6]](http://data2.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ap/c/c065499.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://c7.alamy.com/comp/EJE06R/royal-tour-of-canada-1939-king-george-vi-and-queen-elizabeth-arriving-EJE06R.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://c7.alamy.com/comp/EWHW1F/epa04815815-the-royal-standard-r-and-the-berlin-flag-are-hoisted-as-EWHW1F.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Response to third opinion request:
