Talk:John Buchan/Archive 1

Anti-semitism

As the article hints at Buchan's alleged anti-Semitism, should it perhaps mention that he was a Zionist, a friend of Chaim Weizman and a member of the Tory Friends of Israel, as well as him writing that he greatly admired Arthur Balfour, author of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - promising a homeland for the Jewish people? Benson85 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the anti-semitism expressed by a character in the first chapter of The 39 Steps is later dismissed by another, "He had a lot of odd biases, too. Jews, for example, made him see red. Jews and the high finance." 68.111.94.69 16:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd that a character that is treated as queer in the book, can be perceived as aligning with the author’s own views (that of being anti-semitic) of which we can prove neither, this is all hyperbole. I would be quite content to see that section dropped from this article, and if it really needs to be kept, moved to the books’ article -- johndrinkwater (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

R.L.Stevenson

There is a distinct R.L.Stevenson flavor to Richard Hannay being chased across Scotland in 'The Thirty Nine Steps', reminiscent of David Balfour in 'Kidnapped'.

Postnominals in panel (degrees)

I shall remove LitHum as this is never placed after somebody's name. Did he ever take his Oxford MA? Did he have a degree from Glasgow?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Style

At present the article has Buchan's formal title in the lede text, but a different style in the infobox. According to Debrett, which cares about such things, this is acceptable: "Within a letter, article, caption etc...the first formal reference to a peer is usually made to his exact rank. Subsequent references...may be made to Lord [Tweedsmuir]." The "social style" of "The Lord Tweedsmuir" should be used in social situations. Well, who cares? This is an encyclopaedia, and we should try to get it right. Thus, the infobox should be "Lord Tweedsmuir" (simplest) or repeat the full title. I propose, once again, to put this right. The work I am citing for all this is Debrett's Correct Form by Patrick Montague-Smith. Comments? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

All this stuff from Debrett is irrelevant. This is from the MoS: "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title". So: we use the full (official) name of the article's subject with or without the common name. Reverting. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation?

How does one pronounce Buchan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.251.2 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's /'bʌχən/. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to an audio file. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor legacy

I added a major legacy, Tweedsmuir Provincial Park, but wanted to comment that I know of a bit of minor legacy which is less notable and difficult to cite and may not be there anymore; a small apartment hotel in the Stanley Park neighbourhood of Vancouver called the Buchan Hotel. I stayed there once in the '70s; it was still there in the '80s and had a boutique/gourmet restaurant in its basement; I'm thinking Lola's but maybe that's wrong; it may be a heritage structure, I'm not sure.Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nelson's History Of The War

I have here the first two volumes of a series titled 'Nelson's History Of The War." By John Buchan, published by Thomas Nelson And Sons, LTD. It was acquired by McMaster University library in 1917, the the preface by "the Earl of Rosebery, K.G.' was written October 1914. Can someone help me work out the exact dates (possible of each volume) so I can add it to his list of writings? There is some reference to this work sans title in the main article, does anyone have access to that source to see if this is the same work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canageek (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture in box

Would File:John Buchan.jpg not be a better photo for the box? Buchan wasn't big on the imperial hoo-ha and Mackenzie King expressly wanted a Canadian for the post of GG. George V refused but conceded grudgingly to appoint Buchan. The Imperial guff must surely have embarrassed him somewhat, democrat that he was. Masalai (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Honours

In the images of the medal ribbons should also include any general issue war service medals such as the British War Medal and the Victory Medal (United Kingdom) from when he was in the Intelligence Corps in WW1. Dabbler (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice the first on the row in his infobox photo appears to be the Queen's South Africa Medal with at least 2 bars, which was apparently awarded to civil administrators of the war zone as well as servicemen. Worth investigating.Cloptonson (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Esquire

The use of Esquire is much more free in Britain than in some other places. Basically anyone called Mr may also be called Esquire, both are indications of being a gentleman and out of politeness everyone is considered a gentleman. The connection to the legal profession is very tenuous and until I came to North America as an adult I was completely unaware of the usage. Buchan could have been perfectly correctly addressed as either Mr John Buchan or John Buchan Esquire at any time up to his ennoblement. One important honorific missing though is MP which he was for several years. Dabbler (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article Esquire says nothing of what you mention above. What it does say is that the title is given to, amongst others, "Barristers (but not Solicitors)". Buchan was called to the Bar in 1901 and, according to the census from that year, was a barrister. He was thus entitled to use the term esquire. This is affirmed by later publications of The Gazette, which use Esquire or Esq. following Buchan's name. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Esquire article also says that it could be used by "Masters of Arts and Bachelors of Law and Physic." All Oxford graduates can acquire a Master of Arts degree by waiting a few years (see Master of Arts (Oxbridge and Dublin), are you sure that he did not get his Esquire by that means at an earlier date or is this OR that he got it as a result of being a barrister. Where is the cite which I originally asked (and you reverted) for the statement that he was only called Esquire after becoming a barrister? In addition, Buchan never practiced as a barrister and I am not sure of the status of people who qualify but never practice. Dabbler (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that one could use the honorific esquire after obtaining an MA from Oxford. Yes, I suppose it is somewhat OR to settle on 1901 as the date on which he became eligible to have esquire follow his name; I haven't yet found any sources from which to form a more concrete conclusion. Your request for a cite, however, seemed directed specifically at the claim that Buchan was ever entitled to the honorific at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this will just muddy the waters further, but as I recall from (British) etiquette books, a man would be addressed as John Smith Esquire in a private capacity (e.g. in sending him an invitation to a wedding), as Mr John Smith in a business capacity (e.g. in sending him an order or payment). So perhaps the point is that barristers in a business capacity as well as a private capacity would be addressed as Esquire. In any case, it is a matter of custom only; no one "gets his Esquire" in any formal sense. Robina Fox (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I can't find any other article about a well known British person of about the same time that mentions the fact that he was known as Mr (or Esquire). Also no one would be called Mister John Buchan from the date of his birth, only once he had matured enough to be considered an adult which would be at some indeterminate time between the late teens to early twenties. There is no "official ceremony" naming you to the title of either a Mr or an esquire, it is a matter of custom and to call it a title is dubious at best. I suggest that the distinction be removed completely, his only title that was specifically awarded to him was his peerage. Dabbler (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Robina Fox (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The standard practice for such lists is to start at birth. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The lists I have seen (mostly military figures) usually start off with just the name (no Mr etc.) and then when they are appointed to a rank in the forces the list then starts using the rank and then any titles as they were awarded. I can't recall seeing any civilians unless they were members of the peerage from an early age in which case it gives their father;s secondary title for example until they inherit. Dabbler (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Regard Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Sarah, Duchess of York, Quentin Bryce, which use Miss and Missus. It would seem, though, that those articles about British men who were elevated to the peerage and have chronological lists of their styles and titles through life show that individual as having Esq. from birth until some time when they received a higher honorific or title; see Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife, James Callaghan, Harold Wilson, John Packer, and Anthony Priddis. Bill Hayden, an Australian, has Mister. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Just came across this discussion. Esquire and Mr. are separate titles. The eldest child of an esquire for example is also an esquire, while younger sons are Misters. These distinctions were strictly observed in the London Gazette of the early 20th century. TFD (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Kings and things

I was finding the frequent references to "the King" somewhat jarring, especially in light of the equally frequent references to Mackenzie King. It has been claimed that the MoS allows the capitalisation of titles if they act as a shorthand for a specific person, but I don't agree that this applies here as no less then three different kings are referred to and many readers may not know which is which. I have tried a rewording which avoids this awkwardness.

On another note, "however" means "nevertheless", not "moreover": I find this one of the most frequently misused words on the project and have written a short user essay on the practice.

I hope you'll agree the article looks better with these infelicities removed. --John (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm dead against awkward phrasing in written English, and I've staid out of this particular battle for years, but it's been going on for as long as I can remember. If a specific king is doing something, then what is wrong with saying, "The King had lunch with the Queen"? If we use full titles, then capitalisation is fine: "The King of Canada dined with the Queen of New Zealand," and nobody gets their knickers in a twist. But shorten the titles, retaining the Individuals, and suddenly they become just instances of the classes of people known as kings or queens. It looks wrong to my eyes. --Pete (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider that we should be using the full name for the first occasion and then while we are still talking about the same individual, then it should be acceptable to use the capitalised King as a shorthand just as we use surnames for other individuals. As for the Mackenzie King - King George VI confusion, we should use his real surname, Mackenzie King, instead of a confusing abbreviation. Dabbler (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see now how confusion might arise from the fact that this article mentions no less than three kings and a prime minister named King (!). I think the way it is now, though, is clear enough.

I should note that, while Canada was by 1936 an independent kingdom, the monarch had no official title (that didn't come until 1952). George V was therefore king of Canada (i.e. Canada's king), but not King of Canada (he did not possess the title). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Four children

Is it not possible to mention the four offspring by name and birth-dates, two of them having remained in Canada after the death of Buchan and return to the UK of his wife? No violation of privacy given their birth considerably before 1935. Masalai (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless the children are notable on their own I don't think it would add much to the article. Pburka (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

At least two of them already have articles in Wikipedia, as 2nd and 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir (and they had other accomplishments too). We could at least link to them. Dabbler (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Make that three of his children have WP articles. I think that it would be worth adding them as links. Dabbler (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lawyer

This article, together with other places on the web, states that Buchan did not practice as a lawyer. In his autobiography "Memory hold-the-door" he actually mentions that for 3 years after his return from South Africa, whilst his main pusuit was writing a taxation law book he did in fact take occasional briefs. It was after this period, in 1906, that he bacame a partner in Nelson's publishing house.188.28.89.107 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) TallPaul

King of Canada

There is a dispute about how to describe Buchan's appointment as governor general in 1940:

Buchan "was appointed Governor General of Canada by George V, king of Canada, on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada Richard Bennett", or

Buchan "was appointed Governor General of Canada by George V, king of Canada, on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada Richard Bennett".

The title of the sovereign at the time was, "George VI by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." Neither the appointment nor the sources use the term "king of Canada." The text "on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada" is sufficient to convey that the appointment was made on the recommendation of Canada, rather than of the UK Prime Minister. Incidentally none of the sources say that the appointment was made on the advice of R.B. Bennett.

TFD (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The title has nothing to do with this; the lead makes no claim that "King of Canada" was a title held by George V. Canada, however, had a king, and he was George V. Thus, George V was king of Canada, though not titled King of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is tendentious to say "king of Canada", when that is not the normal way in which he was described, especially when not used in the sources. TFD (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Tendentious"? I don't see how. It's common to describe a monarch as king/queen of whatever country they are or were king or queen of. I'm sure you'll see there are a number of sources showing he was referred to as king of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is tendentious to use rarely used terminology because you prefer it. It is also tendentious to change references to the Canadian government to the Queen of Canada, especially when further investigation shows that the actual parties are, in the two examples I remember, specifically a numbered corporation owned by a Crown corporation and a cabinet minister and his assistant. It makes the articles read in a most peculiar way. I have set up a discussion thread at WP:NPOVN#King of Canada. This is not the forum for promoting use of the term "Queen of Canada." TFD (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Prove that it was rarely used. I went and found a number of sources both modern and from the 1930s that refer to George V as king of Canada; WP:V's requirements have thus been fulfilled. You've also come up with no source that even suggests George V was not the king of Canada.

If this isn't the forum for promoting the term "Queen of Canada", why in hell did you inexplicably pull it from out of the blue into a discussion about whether or not her grandfather was called "king of Canada"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You found scattered references. That is typical of tendentious editing. Instead of reporting what the main sources say, you decide what the article should say and mine for sources. TFD (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You first tried to justify your edit by claiming the term "king of Canada" wasn't used at the time. I found sources that prove that claim wrong. You then tried to justify your edit by pointing out that George V didn't hold the title "King of Canada". I explained to you that "king of Canada" is descriptive of George V, not a title. Now you're trying to make this personal. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're now on your third attempt at a reason to delete, still without consensus to do so, the words "king of Canada"; this time trying "Not commonly called 'king of Canada'". You have no way to affirm that statement.

If you're set on pursuing this, I sugeest you start the dispute resolution process. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The references quite obviously prove your claim the term "king of Canada" wasn't used at the time to be entirely false. Your personal feelings about the sources mean nothing.

Start an RfC. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You have found a few scattered references, which proves nothing. Your first reference is an announcement by the long forgotten "Classology League of Canada" in the The Beacon (motto "Onward To The Canadian Christian State! ORDER-JUSTICE-TOIL). "[1]

I do not have to prove that "King of Canada" was not the normal usage. It certainly was not the title in official documents or in the sources used for Buchan's appointment. Unlike this example, I can find many references to Diefenbaker as "The Chief". That would not justify my changing every reference to Diefenbaker in every Wikipedia article to "The Chief." I notice that Threadnecromancer also disagreed with you.

TFD (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Titles is a red herring.

You just keep repeating yourself. As you'll see below, I've started an RfC myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments on RfC (below)

Quark was ruled against because the Lords determined that the Governor was appointed by the Queen of SGSSI on the advice of the UK cabinet, not by the Queen of the UK on the advice of the UK cabinet.

How is it helpful to have this rarely used non-title description in the lead?

19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

RfC on use of 'king of Canada'

Is it acceptable to refer to George V as king of Canada (note: not King of Canada) in the context of his appointing John Buchan as Governor General of Canada? Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes Following the Statute of Westminster 1931, George V held the role of king of Canada (and of other countries) apart from his continued role as king of the United Kingdom, though the royal title did not catch up with the fact of a person shared as monarch of multiple states until 1953. Hence, this article does not attempt to pretend 'King of Canada' was a title held by George V. It uses the term 'king of Canada' in the common practice of refering to the monarch of a country as 'king' or 'queen of [Country]'. Contemporaneous sources already provided prove that the term was used in the 1930s. The frequency with which he was referred to by such a descriptor is both incalculable and irrelevant; it is an acceptable term to use and it is appropriate to use in the context here as it makes clear to readers who might otherwise not be aware of the one-person-multiple-crowns arrangement already in place by 1935 that George V was, when appointing Buchan as governor general, acting as Canada's monarch, not the UK's. This format is consistent in all biography articles on Canadian governors general from this one on up to David Johnston. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The dispute is whether the lead should include "king of Canada" when it says that Buchan was "appointed Governor General of Canada by George V, king of Canada on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada Richard Bennett...." (my emphasis). TFD (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• No The sources used to support the appointment of Buchan do not use the term "king of Canada." The title "King of Canada" was never used officially until Canada's titles act, passed 20 years later, when it became one of several descriptions that could be used, and is still rarely used in mainstream sources, especially outside Canada. TFD (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes George V was the king of a country called Canada. He did not have the title King of Canada, the bringing up of which is a major red herring in this discussion and to me an indication that there is no good argument against the usage king of Canada. Dabbler (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What is the argument for the usage? TFD (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Avoid; "by King George V, on the advice..." would seem to be a perfectly inoffensive solution here and much more in line with usual English-language style. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

But what about what I said above about the average reader likely not being aware of the one-person-multiple-crowns arrangement already in place by 1935 and thus that George V was, when appointing Buchan as governor general, acting as Canada's monarch, not the UK's? That question extends from this article to those on all subsequent governors general, since the same sentence structure used here is carried through all of them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly true that many readers may not be aware of the complexity of the Crown's status in the various Commonwealth realms (or Dominions) - but do we need to emphasise it in the lead of articles about governors-general? The current structure, with six footnotes for a single phrase, is very odd; in a lead, we should be summarising key details, rather than dotting every i and crossing every t. If we need to explain a complex detail precisely, there's the relevant bit of the article. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the six citations are a result of a claim made by an editor to justify deleting the phrase 'king of Canada'. Regardless leads are indeed summaries. But, I'm still fairly convonced most who read "In 1935 he was appointed Governor General of Canada by George V on the recommendation of Prime Minister of Canada Richard Bennett" would immediately think something along the lines of "Oh, he was appointed to an important position in colonial Canada by the king of Britain (or, maybe more likely, England)." The additional only three words, I think, prevent that from happening. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by this, and it's not the way we normally handle leads (note that this seemingly vital detail is ignored in the body of the article); if I'd come across it without the dispute, then removing it would have seemed perfectly uncontentious and sensible copyediting. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it states in the article body: "Buchan was the first viceroy of Canada appointed since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster on 11 December 1931 and was thus the first to have been decided on solely by the monarch of Canada in his Canadian council." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So it is; I misread that bit, apologies. My feeling that it's inappropriately detailed for the lead still stands, however. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying that George V was "king of Canada" does not necessarily imply anything about Canadian independence. As explained in "Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark (House of Lords, 2005),[2] the king is king of each and every territory subject to him. In this case, the sovereign was considered to have been acting as "Queen of the SSGI", a terroritory that has no inhabitants and therefore cannot be considered independent in any way. We could re-write all the articles about the British Empire to show for example that the American revolution was fought against the king of the 13 colonies, which would be technically correct, but not the terminology normally used. TFD (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your last sentences are hyperbole. Otherwise, yes, the monarch can act in right of semi-sovereign jurisdictions (the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Scotland, Alberta, Northern Territory, etc.). But, the case you cite does exactly what I've said (without actually using the word "independence") needs done here: it clarifies that, for the SGSSI (which are not part of the UK), Queen Elizabeth II acts not as queen of the United Kingdom (which I assumed she would), but as queen of the SGSSI ("in right of the SGSSI" as is also said in the case), just as, in appointing the Governor of New South Wales, Queen Elizabeth II acts not as queen of the United Kingdom (or even of Australia, since the federal government there has no involvement in the appointment of governors), but as queen of New South Wales, just as, in appointing Buchan as governor general, King George VI acted not as king of the United Kingdom (as people are likely to otherwise assume), but as king of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Lords said in Ex parte Quark, "[The constitution of SGSSI] makes plain that the Queen is the head of state and the source of authority in the state. Those who hold office locally do so during her pleasure and subject to her instructions and control." So from the time Canada was ceded to the UK, the Governors-General have been appointed by the king of Canada. So it is not hyperbole to say that the king was also king of each of the 13 colonies. But it would sound strange to re-word the articles on colonial America (and Canada) because that was not the terminology used at the time. TFD (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

From the 1760s to 1931, the governors and goverors general were appointed by the king of whatever territory as king of the United Kingdom; ie. the king acted for those territories on the adivce of his ministers in the British Cabinet only; he did not follow the advice of ministers in the Canadas, who had to go through the British Cabinet to communicate with the king. After 1931, that was no longer the case; the lead presently makes clear what the reality was at the time: the king of Canada (not the king of the UK), acting on the advice of the Canadian prime mininster, appointed Buchan as governor general.

Terminology in the 1930s included the term 'king of Canada'. I provided some examples for George VI; there are plenty more for George VI, including from the official historian of the 1939 royal tour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Quark is quite clear. "[T]the Queen is the head of state and the source of authority in the state. Those who hold office locally do so during her pleasure and subject to her instructions and control." IOW, the governor of SGSSI, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the government of the UK, is appointed by the Queen of the SGSSI and not by the Queen of the UK. It does not matter whose advice the Queen seeks, in earlier times she might have sought no advice at all. What matters is for what territory her authority is used. The effect in that case was that the Queen of the UK was not held to treaty obligations, because she does not act as Queen of the UK when governing territories outside the UK.

George V was rarely referred to as "king of Canada" and certainly not in official documents. See for example the Letters Patent, 1947 in The Canada Gazette, affecting the office of the Governor-General. They are from "George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, KING", not from the "king of Canada."

TFD (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Quark was ruled against.

It's been stated too many times now that titles are irrelevant; you're repeating yourself again.

"Rarely" is unprovable and irrelevant. The term was used and, I think, it helps to have it in the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So as not to clutter this RfC, I will respond above at Talk:John Buchan#Comments on RfC (below). TFD (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No/Avoid If acceptable for this to be mentioned as a minor detail in the context of the article, it is not suited to the lead. As to the notion that its use in the lead would make "clear to readers who might otherwise not be aware of the one-person-multiple-crowns arrangement already in place by 1935 that George V.. ", that is fanciful. Some readers are already sufficiently aware of the constitutional niceties but would find it pedantically irksome and inappropriate to force the point on readers in such a manner. But it can be surmised that most readers would neither know nor care about it, and would be little the wiser in their indifference as a result of this possibe drift off-topic. In my view, in this conneciton it is no hyperbole to draw attention, for comparison, to the position of George III as king of the 13 colonies who made rebellion and seceded. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No/Avoid The term "king of Canada" is non-neutral because it gives undue weight to a phrase that is rarely used, and also because it makes a misleading implication about the Canadian view of the monarchy. I have been following Canadian news all my life, and have also studied Canadian history, and I have very infrequently seen this kind of term. Also, by implication, the term presents a view of the British monarchy that is at odds with that of most Canadians, at least as I read it. Most do not think of the British monarch as their head of state but rather as a kind of arms-length moral authority and perhaps an inspirational figure. The term “king of Canada” implies a far greater degree of statutory authority than is actually the case, and that is probably why the term, even tho not technically inaccurate, is little used in popular or scholarly discussion. EMP (talk 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think you quite understand the subject. The monarch of Canada was and is a separate office from monarch of the UK; the monarch of Canada is not such because Canada is within the sovereignty of the British monarch. Your comments only reinforce my point about how, absent any clarification, many, if not most, readers will filter the information about George V appointing Buchanan through their misconceptions and interpret it as the king of the UK appointing his Canadian governor general to represent him in Canada as the British monach, which is entirely wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize. And your knowledge of the subject is admirable. Many (myself included until now) do not appreciate that after 1931, the British crown has ruled Canada in a more consultative framework, in which Canadian politicians have direct access to the crown and do not have to go thro the UK government at Westminister. I believe an example of this may be Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s direct and fruitful discussions with the current Queen regarding the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. You also raise a valid point that this phraseology is used in the WP articles on other Governors-General. However, in the end, my own feeling is that because the term has been little used in Canadian media coverage or in historical accounts, the use of it here, in such a prominent position, gives it undue weight. EMP (talk 00:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Avoid anachronism. --John (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What anachronism? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The anachronism of referring to him by a title that did not come into being until after his death. --John (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No title was used; "king of Canada" is a descriptor synonymous with "Canada's king" or "monarch of Canada" (except gender specific). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What do the sources call him? King of Bermuda? King of Canada? Or King of Britain? My bet is the last. So that's the better term to use. --John (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources were supplied in which he was referred to as king of Canada. Regardless, the consensus is obviously to not use the term, so I've removed it from all relevant articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No - Since it seems to create controversy and confusion. But if its worthy to acknowledge the distinction and subtle nuance of the title as EMP indicates, then create an article or incorporate it in the appropriate one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Depending on how far one wants to descend into legal pedantry, my understanding is that the British Crown was actually one global metaphysical entity until the 1953 Royal Titles Act, when the wording was changed to imply that the Crowns of Canada, Australia etc were separate offices held by the same person. That does raise a question as to whether it is correct to talk of a "King of Canada" before 1953, whether or not the phrase was sometimes used.Paulturtle (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The concept that the crowns of Canada, Australia, etc. were separate was acknowledged almost immediately after the Statute of Westmisnter 1931. Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King went to great lengths to organise a tour of Canada and a visit to the US in 1939 by George VI precisely to highlight the point that the King was now king of Canada apart from his being king of the United Kingdom, a subject covered in this very article, since Buchan was in full agreement with the plan. Two other examples off the top of my head are the abdication of Edward VIII, which wouldn't have had effect in Canada had the Canadian government not requested and consented to the Abdication Act becoming part of Canadian law (unlike what the Irish Free State did, resulting in Edward being king of the IRF a day longer than he was king anywhere else) and the Canadian government's assertion that George VI's declaration of war as king of the UK did not have effect in Canada and its wait for a week before having George VI issue another declaration of war as king of Canada.

The fact that the actual title and style of the monarch didn't come to align with the reality of the monarch's wearing of multiple crowns until 1953 didn't negate the other fact that the monarch wore multiple crowns prior to 1953.--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No/Avoid. Given that the lead is a summary, why is it considered important to include in this paragraph who appointed him at all? The article is about Buchan, it's the fact he was appointed that is the important element not who appointed him. Since all governors general are appointed (by definition) by the monarch, the inclusion of this arcane information in the lead is superfluous. Delete it and stick in a link to the GG article for the curious. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 08:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Avoid He should simply be referred to as "King George V". The reference to him being appointed on the advice of the Canadian PM, is sufficient to indicate in what capacity the King was acting. Using "king of Canada" as a descriptive term at a time when the royal style in Canada was completely different is liable to cause confusion and lead people to think he actually had the title of "King of Canada" (the lack of capitalisation is easily overlooked). Neljack (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No - per other arguments made here. United States Man (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Avoid/omit as trivial and confusing to the ordinary reader, most especially in the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Avoid/omit as per Orange Mike | Talk's comments. JRPG (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple footnotes

I see no reason to have multiple intrusive footnotes for a point that is not under contention, such as Mackenzie King being minister in attendance or George VI being king of Britain. DrKiernan (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why raise that red herring while ignoring the fact of George VI being king of Canada and deleting all references to his visit to the United States being one made on behalf of Canada, with him entering and acting there as king of Canada, and deeming the multiple sources that support that information to be "intrusive"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't deleted that. The article has consistently said "George VI was to assume the additional title of King of Canada," (even though there was no such official title) and has consistently stated "the fact of Canada's status as an independent kingdom". What I have done is added or altered material to address the misleading impression given by the previous wording that he was there solely on behalf of Canada or solely as the king of Canada, which is not the case. My first edit avoided saying he was king of Britain or there on behalf of Britain, too, but that was not acceptable. I believe I'm OK with the section as it currently stands. DrKiernan (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Struck out. Primary sources removed. DrKiernan (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) His being there as king of Canada is most relevant to an article on his Canadian representative who conceived the tour and stated clearly its purpose was to illustrate Canada's sovereignty. But, in what way does "In May and June 1939, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth toured the country from coast to coast and paid a state visit to the United States on behalf of Canada... and the Commonwealth" even hint that the "he was there solely on behalf of Canada or solely as the king of Canada"?

WP:PRIMARY makes no claim that primary sources are disallowed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's bad prose. Britain has been split off behind two mdashes and a long clause in order to which hides it from the reader, and it's bad form to split a list of items with a long side-comment in the middle. It's better to order the list so the item requiring the side-comment is at the end. DrKiernan (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Amended 15:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you don't tell me why I did things.

Your order was inappropriate for this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's wasn't my intention -- amended. DrKiernan (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)