"Although the lists of members are not identical, most of those who form the British royal family also comprise the separate Canadian royal family".

Should the above statement be added to the lede of this article, as a paragraph following the opening paragraph see here, yes or no? ₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for alternate wordings are welcome. Please also note the information in the "Discussion" section below, pertaining to realms other than Canada and the UK. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

• No - as this page is about the British royal family & not the Canadian royal family. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @GoodDay that this statement should not be in the lede, but I have no objection to it being placed in a more appropriate place further down in the article. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. It seems like an interesting and relevant fact, so could warrant inclusion somewhere further down. But I don't think it is important enough to be included in the lede. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No - This page is titled British royal family, therefore it is about the British royal family. Anyone familiar with how Commonwealth realms work should be able to know that most members of the British royal family are also members of the Canadian royal family. There is also no point on adding this sentence since they are only referred to as the Canadian royal family inside of Canada. DDMS123 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes It's pertinent information about members of the British Royal Family that reciprocates the same statement (in reverse) at Monarchy of Canada#Royal famliy and house ("given the shared nature of the Canadian monarch, most [members of the Canadian Royal Family] are also of members of the British royal family"). A numnber of links from other articles that discuss the Royal Family in a multi-country context direct here and, as such, it's a disservice to have readers arrive at this page where the shared nature of the British Royal Family is, without the proposed addition above (or something similar), otherwise completely ignored. Baseless assumptions about what people should know are not a valid guide for editing; we should assume everyone doesn't know. (Also, not that it's germane, but The Telegraph, a British newspaper, has made reference, on more than one occasion, to the Canadian Royal Family.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re reference to realms other than the UK and Canada, see the "Discussion" area below. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Essentially, unsourced original research constructed from one primary source. There's no official list or clear definition in either country and they are not different or separate families. DrKay (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So many reliable sources say otherwise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No It's not reasonable to mention Canada and then exclude all the other Commonwealth realms. Not to mention that the article is about the British royal family. We already have Canadian royalty which can be expanded. Keivan.f^Talk 07:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• NO, First and most importantly: the article is about the British royal family. Furthermore if Canada would be explicitly included, then it's not reasonable to solely mention Canada but at the same time to exclude all the other remaining Commonwealth realms of which Charles is monarch. -- fdewaele, 12 April 2023, 9:42 CET.

• Yes Where two things or concepts are similar but not quite the same it is clearly relevant to discuss the differences between the two in the articles about them both. An article about pears could include the differences between pears and apples,the same with potatoes and sweet potatoes. In an article about the English language it would be OK to consider the differences between English as spoken in England and Canada or Australia or US. In an article about the French language it would be OK to describe the differences between French as spoken in France and how it is spoken in Canada,Belgium and Switzerland. So it would be OK in this article to describe the differences between the way the family is seen in Britain, Canada, Australia. New Zealand or Jamaica. Therefore it is not a good argument to say that this is an article about the British Royal family and so references to Canada etc should not be included. One editor may not have Australian sources as well as Canadian ones so I don't think it is a good argument to say you have to include them all.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:20, 12 Spinney Hill (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No. No citations and apparently contradicts both this article (which says 'There is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member, although the Royal Household has issued different lists outlining who is a part of the royal family.') and Monarchy of Canada (which says 'There is no legal definition of who is or is not a member of the royal family'). While the Monarchy of Canada article claims that 'the Government of Canada maintains a list of immediate family members', that claim is not supported by either of the citations there; one of the citations implies it is a list of 'working members' but it is not since Andrew, Meghan and Harry are on it, and the other mentions a list but not whether it is Canadian or British or who is on it or whether it is different from other lists. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No By solely specifying Canadian Royal Family we would be implicitly excluding the other Commonwealth Countries. So it must be all or none and an inclusive list would be intrusive. OrewaTel (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OrewaTel: Please see the discussion below. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the discussion but since the points were well covered there didn't seem much point in adding to it. It seems that maybe I should. OrewaTel (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first pertinent comment there directly addresses your assertion that "it must be all or none". The only "all" there is is Canada and the UK. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• NO I think the subject here is the British Crown not the Canadian Crown. Although many members of the British royal family were also members of the Canadian royal family, the subject here is the Canadian royal family, and I think the link to the Canadian royal family could be added in terms of expansion, rather than adding the Canadian royal family to the British royal family.--Caiyayu (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly baffled by this "the article is about the British Royal Family" argument. Nothing in the sentence or the insertion of the sentence says otherwise; the very subject (in terms of grammar) in the sentence "members of the British Royal Family are also members of the Canadian Royal Family" is members of the British Royal Family. All the sentence does is give information about members of the British Royal Family.

Regardless, aside from that, without the sentence here, there still exists the problem of every biography article for every member of the Royal Family stating only that the individual is a member of the British Royal Family, with a link here. That means every reader of a royal bio article who clicks through to this page will never know the royal figure(s) act in another capacity. Further, articles like Commonwealth realm just don't link any of the multiple uses of the words "royal family" to anywhere, likely because linking here presents the same dead-end problem. Changing Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house into its own stand-alone article won't rectify any of that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, for the simple fact that this article is about the British royal family. Mentioning Canada exclusively would confuse. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, although the article is about the royal family, i'm not against giving more context BahakFlo (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, giving readers more notable, reliably sourced information about the British Royal Family enhances the article. Pistongrinder (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not sourced at all, let alone "reliably sourced". As there are no sources, it also fails the notable test. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information linked to is plenty reliably sourced. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No - It is a minor and not WP:LEAD material to note side relationships, and is misstated as phrased. There is no “Canadian royal family”, the Monarchy of Canada is the British royal family members that are recognized by Canadian law. And detailing the specifics or differences between British law and Canadian law roles for His Majesty seems clearly not a major or key part of this article nor is it a large amount of the text here, so by the MOS WP:LEAD should not be in the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There most certainly is a Canadian Royal Family. The RfC clearly says suggested alternative wordings are welcome. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the King of Canada is British, not Canadian. There is no separate Canadian Royal Family. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No - This is a minor trivial fact that is certainly worth mentioning in the article, but not the lead. Fieari (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All are free to give their input :) GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People are bringing up the realms besides Canada and the UK. They are not relevant, as those countries don't (so far) claim to have their own royal families. "The development of a distinctive Canadian royal family is in itself a remarkable nationalization of the monarchy [...] Nevertheless, it appears the concept has not been adopted in other realms and there are no official references to the Australian royal family or the royal family of New Zealand."[1] --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should have its own article, where aspects of the family's role in that country are discussed exclusively. Because this page primarily deals with their role within the UK, including their funding by the "British" government, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 08:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, nobody has proposed changing the primary focus of this article or anything about this article other than the addition of the sentence to the lede; there's no reason to add more here about the Canadian Royal Family than that sentence. And the question of whether or not Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house becomes its own article is, well, rather a red herring. Members of the British Royal Family would still comprise the Canadian Royal Family and this article should still acknowledge that fact and link to either the section Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house or to a separate article Canadian royal family (it doesn't matter which of the two), in the same way that section at Monarchy of Canada (possibly its own article in future) acknowledges members of the Canadian Royal Family comprise the British Royal Family and links here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't need to be altered, as this page is about the British royal family. Again, I suggest you create a page called "Canadian royal family". However, if such a page ends up deleted or re-directed? Then perhaps that would be a hint to no longer further push, whatever you're trying to achieve on 'this' page. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have said that to me 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 times already in the last four days. It has been well established, since some time back, that the argument is logically indefensible and, so, with that goes the accompanying suggestion of an irrelevant alternative course of action. Do not repeat it to me again or I will consider it deliberate provocation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miesianiacal, alternate wordings for what? GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seven separate editors have opined that there is no need for a specific reference to Canada and they have given their reasons. Naturally the reasons tend to be similar. I can understand that another editor thinks differently but most editors (certainly myself) have considered the dissenting editor's argument before disagreeing. Perhaps the dissenting editor should rethink.

We work by consensus and that seems fairly clear. It does no good to repeat statements once they have been rejected. It is not easy when the consensus goes against you (I speak from experience.) but you must accept it. Often the best thing to do is to drop the subject, work out the rationale behind the opposition's point of view then revisit the talk page in a couple of weeks time with a new proposal that respects the consensus and says what you want to say. OrewaTel (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One is entitled to disagree. But, that doesn't mean one's arguments are sound and anyone is equally entitled to point out the holes. That's why it's extremely premature to say an RfC that's been open for one day should close up now. I've clearly said suggestions for alterative wording are welcome, which is a gateway to possibly working out something there can be a consensus on; i.e. progress, which repetition is the antithesis of. However, you seem to have mixed up who's actually been repeating themselves in this affair; in the talk ahead of the RfC and in edit summaries on the article page itself. Regardless, I hope we're past that blockage now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

Notifying editors who've (so far) participated in this RFC. @Pickalittletalkalittle:, @DDMS123:, @DrKay:, @Keivan.f:, @Fdewaele:, @Celia Homeford:, @OrewaTel:, @Caiyayu:, @ParadaJulio:, @Markbassett:, @Pistongrinder:, @BahakFlo:, @Spinney Hill: & @Fieari:. I've noticed that today, an editor has added the Canadian royal family to the very top of this page. IMHO, this seems to go against what is a developing RFC consensus, not to do so in any form. What are your opinions? Should the addition remain, or be deleted.

In order to minimise your needless bothering of other editors, please clear up your confusion between article lede and body, infobox, hatnotes, and the like that you've now brought from Talk:Charles III here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the addition you made, goes against the spirit of what's developing in the RFC. But, I'll let others make that decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are confused, not only about the structure of pages, but about who's responsible for what your opinion is. In addition to the policies you've ignored at Talk:Charles III, you may want to have a gander at WP:DRAMA. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the other participants decide, if your addition should remain or be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You also seem to have forgotten you already said that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added onto "This article is about the family of Charles III. For the British monarchy itself, see Monarchy of the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus here is clear. We are waiting for a disinterested editor to close this discussion.I have reverted the edit that was at variance with the consensus. OrewaTel (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you please point to the consensus on a hatnote? I'm unaware of any discussion on that part of the page, let alone any particular edit to it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though the RfC on the lead will overwhelmingly select 'No', and so the disruption has moved focus from there to the hatnote. Editors know this phrasing to be controversial and know that it will be disputed, so there's really not much excuse when they change it without assessing consensus first. DrKay (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The disruption" and "this phrasing" are vague and thus have no obvious association with anything that's going on. The RfC has nothing to do with the latest edit to the hatnote: different phrasing, different part of the page. So, how is one to know an edit to the hatnote would be controversial when it's not been done before? One bold edit was made. One revert was made. So, only you know where any disruption is taking place over "controversial" phrasing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor (not me) has just added a section heading to this discussion, making it into a separate discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, it was (correctly) made into a sub-heading, by another. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• User:GoodDay - another editor has already undone that hatnote, which I agree should not be there. I think you have seen my view that Charles III is British -- not Canadian, Australian, Jamaican, nor anything else -- so it is the British royal family and not a Canadian royal family. He is King of Canada by the Canadian part in the Proclamation of accession of Charles III, but not a Canadian citizen. Even Harry and Meghan would have had to apply for citizenship like everyone else. It's also just more concise and understandable to stick with the simple hatnote. I don't think anything applicable is in MOS:NATIONALITY, and my little exposure re the WP:ROYAL group has not gone there, but I think 'British royal family' is a local consensus. Cheers Markbassett (talk)

Reliable sources are what we go by, not personal views. And reliable sources say different to your views. "'British royal family' is a local consensus" is a non-sequitur; nobody tried to change any instance of the words "British royal family". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful or this article could end up like Charles III. That article (here) is plastered with inappropriate Canadian flags. (We may need to correct that article.) As a loyal Kiwi, I find it slightly annoying that another country has attempted to hi-jack New Zealand's Royal Family.

By the way. This article does not have a lede. It is written in British English and consequentially has a lead (or better a lead section. OrewaTel (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't imagine, who might've put those Canadian symbols, there. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the addition should be reverted. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]