Talk:Monarchy in British Columbia

Resolution Cove?

"In March, 1778, Captain James Cook arrived, with HMS Resolution and Discovery, in Resolution Cove and claimed . . ." Isn't it Friendly Cove? See Nootka Sound.KenWalker | Talk 09:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Also King George III not William IV who didn't reign until 51 years after Cook was killed! --Keefer4 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the whole page and noticed numerous factual errors and spelling errors (ie: dates of Royal Visits, the above, provincial name mis-spelled, name of Schools named after their respective CITY not straight after the Royals). I have changed the rating to B Class, and will take on editing some of these errors shortly.--Keefer4 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The spelling errors would be my own carelessness. However, I see nothing wrong with the Royal Visit dates, taken from the Department of Canadian Heritage's lists. The names of schools is debatable; Prince George Secondary School is still named after Prince George, even if it is via the city of Prince George.

Of course, any improvement to the article is greatly appreciated! --G2bambino 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the only ommission I noticed when it came to visits was Diana's in 1986 with Charles, when I saw them in Victoria. I originally thought that the 1985 visit noted for her was a mistake, but I see they did stop over, so my apologies. I'll just clean that part up, I see my colleague KenWalker has already corrected the King George/Friendly Cove stuff. All in all I should have added that it was quite a thorough article too :). The schools thing is debatable, but not enough of a deal to remove them probably. ANyway, just thought I'd add that.--Keefer4 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:COA-BC-Large.jpg

Image:COA-BC-Large.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Prince George

On what basis is it assumed that Prince George, BC is named for Prince George, Duke of Cambridge? This matter was discussed on that city's article's talk page, and there doesn't seem to be any firm knowledge of the identity of the George in question. Fort George, the city's antecedent, was named by Simon Fraser, evidently for the reigning monarch, King George III [1]. As far as I know, of whom the local developers and the Grand Trunk Pacific had in mind when they tossed "Fort" and replaced it with "Prince" is a matter of dispute. Certainly the Duke of Cambridge is one possibility, but so is King George V or Prince George, Duke of Kent. Are there any references? Because it would help clear up the matter on the Prince George, BC page, as well. fishhead64 07:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Akrigs say that Fort George was founded by Simon Fraser in 1807 and named for King George III. In 1910 a real estate boon in expectation of the GTPR lead to a struggle between 3 competing townships but the GTP's site, Prince George prevailed. When the first civic elections were held in 1915 Prince George was chosen over Fort George by a vote of 152 to 13. Is there another version? Akrigg, G.P.V.; Akrigg, Helen B. (1969), 1001 British Columbia Place Names (3rd, 1973 ed.), Vancouver: Discovery Press --KenWalker | Talk 07:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know - yours' is the version I've heard as well. The other reference, Runnall's History of Prince George, is entirely silent on the question of who the Prince is in "Prince George." One of the interlocutors on the Prince George, BC talk page floated the intriguing theory that the Grand Trunk officials named it for one of their coastal steamships, the SS Prince George. More likely, I think, is that "Prince George" sounded better than "Fort George," where the rival CN had its station and property, and that there may have been no fixed individual in mind. In any event, I will mark the attribution in this article for citation. fishhead64 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, there is an article about the Steamship Prince Rupert which was a sistership to the SS Prince George. Looks like she began about 1910, just a few years before the mentioned plebiscite but long after the place was named Fort George --KenWalker | Talk 00:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Simon Fraser himself notes that he named the fur trading post "Fort George" in honour of George III - the issue is who the proponents of "Prince George" had in mind when the community was renamed. fishhead64 01:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Crown in Right of British Columbia?

The Monarchy in British Columbia is a legal entity formally known as the Crown in Right of British Columbia. When did this change? What reference can be given for this? Ozdaren (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What change are you talking about? --G2bambino (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I cut and pasted the section from the article. It calls it the The Monarchy in British Columbia. who calls it this? If it is known as the Crown still, shouldn't the article be titled the The Crown in the Right of British Columbia not Monarchy? The Crown is a legal entity and is refered to as this in normal and official communication. Ideas? Ozdaren (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know where the words came from; I just couldn't figure out where you thought there'd been a change. It says formally, not formerly. I suppose the article could be titled as you suggest; the present format stemmed from the "parent" article Monarchy of Canada, which used to be titled "Monarchy in Canada." This article was titled as it presently is for consistency. My only arguments against chaning the title here to "Crown in Right of British Columbia" is that it's clunky - especially once we get to the "Crown in Right of Prince Edward Island" - and the Crown in British Columbia is, really, the Canadian Crown operating in the jurisdiction of BC; therefore, it's the Canadian Crown in British Columbia.

I'm not wholly opposed to a change, it's just it would be a lot of work to change all ten articles and all the relevant links to them from elsewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra of Denmark items

Plase see Talk:Alexandra of Denmark re various items. I rmoved Princess Royal Island, and have my doubts about James Island re Gov. Douglas (threre's nothing in BCGNIS about name origin either)Skookum1 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

re Princess Royal Island

It was named for a ship; we're trying to dig to see which princess, if any, the ship was named for...presumably one of George II's family, but.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably Charlotte, Princess Royal. Lots of place names were named for ships which were named for people, like the Queen Charlotte Islands, named for Dixon's ship, Queen Charlotte. Still, people usually say the islands are named for the person, even if there is another step in between. Pfly (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Important to ask if she was Princess Royal when the ship was commissioned/named; it would be the contemporary princess of that title at the time, I'd think....what year was the ship built again?

It couldn't have been Charlotte, Princess Royal as she was PR from 1789 on, and Duncan named the island in 1788. The preceeding PR was Anne, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, who was PR from 1709-1759. There was no PR when the HMS Princess Royal (1773) was launched, and unfortunately the article doesn't say who the ship was named for. --G2bambino (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't the HMS Princess Royal (1773), it was a private vessel, quite small -- a one mast sloop. Also the page on Charlotte, Princess Royal says her titles included "Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal -- In use practically from birth October 1766". Still, I couldn't determine when the sloop was built. Pfly (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's odd; the article Princess Royal states that Charlotte was PR starting in 1789. Obviously a conflict there. As for the Princess Royal, I do now see that the one we're talking about here was a sloop, not part of the Royal Navy. My mistake! Regardless, if the geographic feature was named for a royal indirectly - i.e. through the feature being named for a ship that was named for a royal - should we count that as the feature being named after the individual? --G2bambino (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]Yes of course; we're just trying to determine which individual....Skookum1 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

re King Island

I'll be removing it from the article after posting this. it wasn't named for royalty, but for a Mr. King who was a friend/shipmate of George. Vancouver on the Discovery - see BCGNIS listing "King Island"Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen Peak

See this, which gives no origin information. That this peak is close to and visible from Queen Charlotte Strait leads me to think it was named a long time before Victoria, and ergo couldn't have been maedfor her if it was...if in the days of Fort Rupert, fine, that's Victoria' era; if in the old exploration days, nope gotta be a different queen (.Skookum1 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The source provided says it's named for Victoria. That's all we can go by. --G2bambino (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

More's the pity; the Canadian Encyclopedia, true to form, doesn't cite its own sources and more than once once in BC history articles I've found stuff that seems either made up or "talked through the sleeve"; I don't trust it as a source and know from experience that a lot of its stuff is distorted, or written up by "qualified academics" whose degrees don't have to do with BC history, but because they're history profs at BC universities, are consulted for this stuff without really been read up on BC history. The line from the CE about this says:

And long after her death, Queen Peak in northern BC was named for her in 1933 because of its association with nearby Victoria Peak and Consort Park.

....which is a nice assumption and all, but there's a dead giveaway in that sentence that its author isn't from BC, and doesn't know frig-all about BC - referring to the North Island as "northern BC" is just so rank and amateurish; if the words of a BC resident, the words of someone who doesn't leave Greater Victoria or Greater Vancouver much, and probably thinks Campbell River and Whistler are "north" too. One of these days I'm going to shoot down the CE's claims to "authoritative" source by deconstructing their history writeups on BC, and looking at what few citations they provide. I really don't trust the entry in question, I need to see a contemporary news or gazetteer item (e.g. BCGNIS) stating the reason for the name creation/change; I don't trust the CE, it's really a comic book relative to what it's regarded as.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do print encyclopaedia's usually cite their sources? To be honest, I've never looked. Though, I have noticed errors and misconceptions in them before, so I can see your point that the CE's word can't be taken as though it came from God. However, it is a source, and, as far as I know, it meets WP:V; so, I guess what we need is another source that either backs up or disputes what the CE says. --G2bambino (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As we are in the mood to rename everything, and purge history down the orwellian memory hole,...Salish Sea, Haida Gwaii, Metro Vancouver, Terasen; Lets rename the who bloody province British Dianaland, or British Disneyland... sfs

I agree, SFS, but in the meantime the trick is keeping the old names alive and fighting off the newspeakers...Skookum1 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BROY

I'm not sure why this page has been put as a part of WP:BROY. What's the reason? --G2bambino (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is, because there's no WikiProject Canadian Royalty. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't. But that doesn't mean this necessarily falls within the jurisdiction of WP:BROY. The only possible connection I can think of is that some places in BC were named for members of the British Royal Family, but, do articles about places named for historical British royals fall within WP:BROY scope? I can't see any information on the project page that says yes. --G2bambino (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well...I don't see anything that says it doesn't.....(following written before I saw the immediate relies above) I deliberated a bit before adding it, but decided it was the right thing to do; most of the page has to do with the British royal legacy in British Columbia, which as you can see from the redlink I just created is perhaps a split-away article waiting to be made where WP:BROY is more pointedly suitable. The page title as it sits is theoretically about monarchy as an institution in BC, i.e. the nature of the Crown and the functioning of it as part of the constitutional structure; not about royal visits and royal names. Princess Louise, for instance, was not a monarch, but a royal, and there's a difference....maybe it's the focus of the page, then, that's the issue; the royal legacy thing is definitely part of BC's story and needs an article; and I can't see why it's not to be connected with royalty articles; an abstract "Monarchy" article seems harder to pin down (although it's true the genesis of Crown power in BC was different from elsewhere in Canada, so a separate BC article is warranted on those terms). BC is/was known as "the most royalist of all the dominions" ( that's citable, though exact wording may vary") and the role of the monarchy here, abetted by endless visits by royals, is part of the fabric of the place's history (esp. Dufferin's visit, but that's a long story not told here yet...I have an unfinished post on "First Nations and the Crown" which I'll hopefully get to later today....).Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, this seems to be one of those instances where overlaps start to happen and the distinction between one are and another is blurred. I see your point r.e. royal associations vs. constitutional structures and obligations; I suppose this page ended up as it did because it was modelled on Monarchy in Saskatchewan, which itself seemed to have been based on Monarchy of Canada (then Monarchy in Canada), and that article included info on the history of royal activity in the country. So, a "royal legacy" article sounds interesting in principle, but the proposal leaves a lot to be sorted out; for instance, when does legacy stop and contemporary begin? When does the legacy stop being British? I'm not saying something can't be done - for some time now I've given a thought here and there about what to do with all these provincial crown articles - but we may just need to sort some issues out first. --G2bambino (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of WPBROY, this article should be under Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but maybe there is a legitimate reason to have it under WP:BROY. Maybe... --G2bambino (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

one note: "Royal legacy in British Columbia" leaves the door open for the "legacy" of the Kaiser's arbitration of the boundary disputes....so "British royal legacy" or "Canadian royal legacy" at least should be in the name; "Canadian " is problematic because BC wasn't Canadian until 1871, after much of the royal/royalist nature of the place was already underway. I don't see legacy items having much at all to do with "Commonwealth realms" though, but I'll look at that project and see what it's about. Other than the Kaiser, btw, there might be other non-British "royal legacies" kicking around; a Romanov heir lives in Victoria, for instance (Nikolas Golitsyn), though nothing's named for him....Skookum1 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

First Nations and the Crown section

If that section-title is to be use at all there's a lot more that could be in this section. It's not a bad précis of the history of the land claims issue, but that's not really the Crown/First Nations relationship; Some that do not recognize Canada/BC nonetheless still look to the Crown, if only as an equal in status; and there's along history of royal appeals and assertions of loyalty; first to mind is Lord Dufferin's visit, when native rights was brought to the fore, and Dufferin put in an awkward spot about it (BCers have a history of using L-G's and G-G's for political purposes) , and things like Joe Capilano's and the Nisga'a leadership and other leaders' trips to Buckingham Palaceat various times, or meetings during royal visits. Several royals have been conferred indigenous names and honorary band/nation memberships, also. Anyway it strikes me that while the land claims issue is relevant, it is not teh central point of "the Crown and the First Nations" as a topic; I'll try and remember to come back here ewith materials for consideration/citation.Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's (much) more that could be added to the section; I merely started it with what little bits I could find. However, I think that in expanding it, we'd have to be careful of distinguishing between any FNs relations with the Crown in Right of BC and the federal Crown. Admittedly, I'm not very well versed in the intricacies of FNs/Crown interactions, though I'd love to understand more. --G2bambino (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince George and other royal geography problems

I just checked the BCGNIS listing for Prince George and according to the source quoted there it was George III that Simon Fraser named Fort George after - in 1807. I'm not sure that this is correct, i.e. either BCGNIS or the source made a mistake - on the Princeton entry, for example, they say the relevant Prince of Wales was, ahem, Edward II. "Fuzzy history" bedevils some histories in BC; I think the only resolution to this will be in Simon Fraser's journal-passage about the founding of the Fort. Also the Queen Charlottes and Princess Royal Reach/Island et al. were not named for queens and princesses, but for ships named for the queens and princesses; an important distinction; there's more than one Princess Royal vessel so I'll be back as to which one, and whose ship it was likewise Queen Charlotte.Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Princess Royals

OK, I'll buy the Victoria, Princess Royal attribution for the Jervis Inlet-area items; I was surprised not to find Princess Royal Island here - er, I guess maybe it was me who took it out - but it, like the Queen Charlotte Islands, was not named for a royal personage, but for a ship Capt. George Dixon's vessel, the Princess Royal) named for a royal personage; quite a different thing; should I put Princess Royal Island back in, and move it and the Queen Charlottes to a subsection for "indirectly named for"; it's an important difference - something by the side of the King George Highway being the King George Whatzit, but it was the highway named for thte king, not the whatzit. This is the same situation with these ship-named islands; they're not directly royal legacy. Feedback pls.Skookum1 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Coat of Arms of British Columbia.png

The image File:Coat of Arms of British Columbia.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Boswell Inlet

That's a redlink, it's an obscure inlet near Rivers Inlet; see "Boswell Inlet". BC Geographical Names. about its naming, which was for hte grand-daughters of Henri Joly de Lotbiniere during his tenure as L-G. I'm uncertain as to how far down the viceregal tree to go when accounting for things named for viceroys and their kin, but posting this here out of interest...Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Russians

Noting in passing that, as on Talk:Royal eponyms in Canada, Fort San Miguel at Nootka Sound was named for the name-saint of Miguel III, then King of Spain, the Russian Empire's claims in the region were formalized in 1799, with the southward declared limit of Russian sovereignty being the 51st parallel (just north of Cape Scott, the NW tip of Vancouver Island); "the line of the Emperor Paul" was how that line was described later during negotiations to reduce and expanded Russian claim, declared in 1821, down to the mid-Oregon Coast (43-50 N I think), which was withdrawn to 54-40 in 1824/25. Technically, what is now the BC Coast was part of the Russian Empire, in Russian eyes, from 1799 to 1824/25; only the 51st line of latitude lasted very long, not that the Russians did much with it (no bases south of Sitka, and only marginal exploration....Fort Ross, California not established 'til much later and never part of formal Russian territorial claims.Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'm not sure if La Perouse conferred any French royal names; his contact with the Coast was mostly the QCI and northwards.....he might have, I haven't looked at the toponymy in that area....his own name etc falls in the "nobility "category, but there's scads of that in BC so not sure an article is all that relevant (Minto, Dufferin, Carnarvon etc...)Skookum1 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Campbellitis - politician spam

Re this removal: this is one of those "hey look at me, I stood next to the Queen" things that politicians like to do, and it has no place here; especially if other politician-bumpf from earlier eras and other visits is not equally included, which of course is impossible. "I thanked the Queen" is what this is, and has no real relevance other than promoting this particular politician's "legacy", same as with him cutting in on spectator benches at the Olympics next to medal-winners and other camera-hogging b.s., or grabbing the flag and singing O Canada (very badly) at the opening ceremonies... WAC Bennett's previous sally in 1959 is notable because of Ottawa's over-ruling of it...but you don't see here the speeches welcoming Edward VII's visit as Duke of Cornwall and York, or Edward II and HM Elizabeth (the Queen Mum) during their visit. Campbell's political promotional-poop has been all over Wikipedia articles (cutting ribbons on everything from bridges to playgrounds) and it has not place in an encyclopedia especially when other politicians who have sucked up to the royal ermine (and in more discreet fashion) are not equally/similarly featured....Skookum1 (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bennett and the Throne Speech

Twice now, the the following claim (or something very similar to it) has been inserted into the article: "This request [Bennett's in 1959 for the Queen to deliver the Throne Speech to the BC legislature] was turned down by the 'Office of the Governor General, who refused to sanction such a suggestion for two reasons: such an unprecedented ceremony would hinder [the Office's] ability to 'Canadianize' the Crown and the constitution specifically assigns to the Lieutenant-Governor the function of giving royal assent to provincial bills'." However, the quote is actually a misquote from the source (it actually being: "The Office of the Governor General refused to sanction such a suggestion for two reasons: such an unprecedented ceremony would hinder our ability to 'Canadianize' the Crown and the constitution specifically assigns to the Lieutenant-Governor the function of giving royal assent to provincial bills") and it clearly refers to the granting of Royal Assent in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in 2005. It thus has nothing to do with the subject of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. As I mentioned on my talk, perhaps an internal link using a segment of the text to link everything together with the other pages would be beneficial. It seems there are an abundance of pages on Monarchy in Canada; many of them covering similar or the same things. Trackratte (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need any more repetition than is necessary. I wonder, though: what does the debate about the rightness or wrongness of the federal decisions regarding the Queen's role in the provincial legislatures have to do with the history of the provincial crowns? I think it's rather tangential. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:I 61926.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:I 61926.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:I 61926.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monarchy in British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228171614/http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/legacy.htm to http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/legacy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228124243/http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/chronvisit.htm to http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/jubilee/chronvisit.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)