Talk:Order of Grenada

Monarch as sovereign of order

There has for the past few weeks been disagreement over whether the monarch of Grenada should be listed as Sovereign of the Order of Grenada, and as sovereign of the Order of the Nation and the Order of the National Hero.

@Peter Ormond contends that, since the monarch is not explicitly mentioned in the National Honours and Awards Act, the monarch is not Sovereign of the orders. However, Burke’s World Orders of Knighthoods and Merit, published in 2006, declares on page 882 that the Queen is sovereign of all three national orders of Belize. This is despite the fact that Belize’s honours legislation has the exact same structure as that of Grenada; with the Governor-General declared chancellor, but without any explicit mention of the monarch. Jamaica’s honours legislation, likewise, declares the Governor-General to be chancellor of the 6 national orders, but has no explicit mention of the monarch. Burke’s World Orders of Knighthoods and Merit nevertheless states on page 1251 that the monarch is Sovereign of these orders. Burke’s is generally considered the absolute authority and gold standard on issues relating to nobility, titles and honours. This shows that the monarch not being mentioned explicitly in the legislation has no impact on whether or not they are sovereign of the orders as Burke’s, which is considered the definitively authoritative and gold standard work regarding titles, awards and honours, still emphatically declares the monarch to be Sovereign of the orders.

While gg.weboffice.gd is, perhaps for now, not regarded as the primary official website of the Governor-General’s Office @Super Goku V @CaribDigita, it is still indisputably an official website of the Office of the Governor-General, and it states explicitly that the King is Sovereign of Grenada’s orders. The monarch’s status as sovereign of the orders has been recognised by Wikipedia without question since this page was first created in 2015.

There is no source which states that the King is not sovereign of Grenada’s orders. The only source we have which speaks on the matter is an, of not the, official website of the Governor-General’s Office, which explicitly says that he is. The argument that the absence of references to the monarch in the national honours legislation means that he is not sovereign is shown to be false by the example of Belize, and thus to contend that in the face of an explicit statement from the Governor-General’s office to the contrary would be original research.

We only have one explicit source on the matter, and that is gg.weboffice.gd, which states that the King is sovereign of the orders. Thus, to remove the monarch’s status from the pages of the orders, after 9 years of being unchallenged, is entirely unjustifiable and such edits should be reverted. To claim that the King is Sovereign of these orders is an “exceptional claim” under wp:REDFLAG, when both Jamaica and Belize have the exact same legislative structure establishing their national orders yet Burke’s still recognises the monarch as Sovereign of them, is ridiculous.

Claiming the King is not Sovereign of these orders would be, I contend, far more of an extraordinary claim as it goes against the established precedent in both Belize and Jamaica, the explicit word of an official website belonging to the Office of the Governor-General of Grenada, and 9 years of unchallenged precedent here on Wikipedia. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

When this page was created [1], the sovereign part was unsourced. Nobody challenged this and this nonsense was published by the Grenada Monarchist League (a WP:SPS), which is now copied by a website of the governor-general. There is hardly any source that existed before the creation of this article which claims that the monarch was sovereign of such orders. The copying of this part by the GML and gg.weboffice.gd is a clear case of WP:CIRCULAR.

WP:ECREE says challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest requires multiple high-quality sources. And per WP:UNSOURCED, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and not with the editor challenging the content.

No government website, legislation, or any official source provides that the monarch is sovereign of the orders of Belize and Jamaica. As you pointed out, this is only covered by Burke’s World Orders of Knighthoods and Merit. However, majority of sources on the Belizean and Jamaican honours system do not claim that the monarch serves as sovereign head of their respective orders. This is a WP:PROPORTION issue, and accordingly an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Also, per WP:ONUS, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Peter Ormond 💬 21:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, being an incredibly authoritative source, would not have made the firm assertion that the monarch was sovereign of Jamaica’s and Belize’s orders without good reason. The 1968 Jamaica National Honours and Awards Act was enacted under the then-Jamaica Labour Party administration, a party which was then still deeply monarchist and had instituted in its constitution an aim to instill "in the hearts of the people reverence for God, loyalty to the Queen and respect for lawful constituted authority". It would have been nigh-unthinkable for the Queen, in 1968 under the JLP, to have been ever envisioned as not having a position within the Jamaican honours system.

This is reflected further in the specific choice to have the Governor-General hold the role of Chancellor of the orders, which in all other honours in the British system (as the Commonwealth Caribbean honours are based on) is a position explicitly subordinate to and under the Sovereign. It appears evident the position was intended to be subordinate to the monarch, as all order chancellors are within British honours.

It therefore falls to reason that the exact same principle would apply to Grenada, which has the exact same structure for its orders as Jamaica and Belize, with the Governor-General as chancellor. This is in contrast to for example Antigua and Barbuda, whose honours legislation explicitly declares the Governor-General to be Grand Master, and states that the monarch, consort and heir are to be ordinary members.

Traces of War, a project by the Foundation for Information on World War Two, an independent academic project based in the Netherlands, also lists the late Queen as sovereign of Grenada’s honours 1 2.

Further evidence to suggest the monarch is Sovereign of the orders is the fact that the badge of the Order of Grenada prominently features a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II. Traditionally, as can be seen with for example the Order of the British Empire, orders and medals depict the portrait of the monarch which founded them (if they use a portrait on their badge). Featuring the Queen so prominently on the badge of the order, alongside the prominent feature of the Crown on the insignia of the Order of the Nation and the Order of the National Hero, signify an obviously very deliberate intention to link Grenadian honours with the monarchy. It therefore makes no sense for the intention to have been to not have the Queen, the woman depicted in the badge itself, have any role within the order.

Ultimately, the arguments against listing the monarch as sovereign are these:

1. It is not explicitly mentioned in the legislation
2. The Governor-General’s website is not a reliable enough source

The arguments in favour of listing the monarch as sovereign are these:

1. Burke’s, the gold standard authority on titles and honours, states that Jamaica and Belize (whom have identical honours legislation to Grenada) have the monarch as Sovereign of their orders. This means that the lack of explicit mention in the legislation is evidently no hindrance to the monarch being Sovereign.
2. The choice of the title Chancellor for the Governor-General, a title in all British honours associated with an officer subordinate to the Sovereign of the Order, as opposed to for example Antigua and Barbuda which declared their Governor-General Grand Master, implicitly indicates the existence of the monarch as Sovereign.
3. The Governor-General’s website is an official website belonging to the Grenadian Governor-General’s Office. This is without question. While it copied content from the Grenada Monarchist League it did so with explicit consent and evidently in a deliberate and very particular manner, copying over only certain pages. Had the Governor-General’s Office not considered the King sovereign of the orders, they would not have copied those sections, just as there are numerous other pages from the GML’s website they did not copy over.
4. The monarch is listed as Sovereign by the Traces of War project
5. All insignia of the orders have heavy monarchic symbolism, including an out-and-out portrait of the Queen, signifying the orders were always intended to be deeply connected to the monarchy. Thus, it would make no sense for there to have been any intention to exclude the monarch from having a role as the orders’ head.

I cannot see any reasonable argument as to why the monarch should not be regarded as Sovereign of the orders. The few arguments against it are easily refutable, and there are multiple sources and heavy implications showing that the monarch is obviously the Sovereign. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no "multiple high-quality sources" making such assertion per WP:ECREE. Traces Of War is a website for information on the Second World War, and can't make valid claims regarding an honours system instituted in 1994 and 2007. It is obvious that the site copied that from Wikipedia, which is yet another WP:CIRCULAR.

References to royal symbols are also found on the insignia of the honours of Antigua and Barbuda, but we know the King is not sovereign of their honours system as provided in legislation. The Royal Crown also appears on the insignia of the provincial orders of Canada, but again the monarch is not sovereign of any of those orders.[2] Another instance is the Star of the Solomon Islands which prominently features the Crown [3], but the honour was awarded to the King by the country's government which makes clear that the monarch is not an inherent part of that order.

The case that you're making by discussing the JLP's then-ideology and the role of the Chancellor of the orders is WP:OR. As for Burke's, you should again read Wikipedia policies dictating that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and that an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Peter Ormond 💬 08:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Traces of War is, per their own description, does not deal exclusively with matters of the Second World War, though that is their main focus. The Queen, as a Second World War veteran, has all her honours and awards categorised by the organisation. You cannot simply claim out of hand that everywhere mention of her being sovereign of Grenada’s orders appears, that it must simply be copied from Wikipedia and thus must be disregarded.

The Order of the Solomon Islands, of which the Star of the Solomon Islands is a part, was established pursuant to Royal Warrant empowering the Governor-General to institute it, meaning it was established under explicit royal authority1. The monarch’s role within the order seems confused, and it likely in my view that the late Queen and the King receiving their insignia represents them becoming Sovereign of the order, rather than being “appointed” to it. This seems evident seeing as the King’s would-be appointment to the order is not gazetted anywhere in the Solomon Islands as would be required for an appointment to take effect. The Crown also does not appear on the regular insignia of the Star and the crowned star presented to the King seems to be a unique design for the monarch 2 3.

Only 1 of Antigua’s 4 orders has a very small crown in its insignia, while the reason the monarch is not sovereign of Canada’s provincial orders is specifically because they are provincial, not national, honours. Thus, they are not a good comparison to Grenadian honours, which are national orders.

Had the JLP’s then-ideological orientation and the traditional role of a Chancellor within an Order been the only arguments for stating the monarch is Sovereign, I’d certainly agree that it would be original research. That, however, is not the case here. Burke’s, the definitive and most reputable source on these matters states that the monarch is sovereign of Jamaica’s and Belize’s orders, which disproves the assertion that absence of references to the monarch in legislation means they are not Sovereign; which is the central argument against inclusion.

The Monarch’s role as Sovereign is certainly not a minor aspect. When a source as authoritative as Burke’s claims something on this topic, it is firmly worthy of inclusion. It supporting up under claims made by an official website of the Governor-General’s Office certainly makes it valid. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought we might have an RfC type discussion in part of this, but I guess not now. What confuses me is more of the focus on the monarchy. Like, why is it so important here and why is it the focus of this discussion instead of the sources? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the sovereign part for failing WP:ECREE. Peter Ormond 💬 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There has been absolutely no such consensus on this matter. You are the only one arguing this.

All evidence points to the monarch being sovereign of the Orders. The Office of the Governor-General explicitly claims so, the authoritative academic source on this matter states that all other Caribbean realms with identical honours legislation to Grenada has the monarch as Sovereign of their orders. The orders themselves are filled to the brim with royal symbolism and connections.

You are not the authority on whether or not it has failed verification. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, I don't know if it fails ECREE, but it shouldn't be used right now. That much is clear. Please self-revert. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V The reason the monarch’s role is so important is because that is what this entire discussion centres around. Peter Ormond’s contention is that the monarch is not mentioned in Grenada’s honours legislation and thus cannot be Sovereign of the Orders, and that the Governor-General’s website is not an authoritative enough source to contradict this.

However Burke’s, which is generally considered the absolute authority on matters of nobility and chivalry, conclusively states in World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, published in 2006, that Jamaica and Belize, whose honours legislation is identical to that of Grenada, has the monarch as Sovereign of their orders, proving Ormond’s fundamental point incorrect.

gg.weboffice.gd is an official website belonging to the Office of the Governor-General and has now been up for months with this present information. If it was considered wrong, it would have been removed. The fact other Caribbean nations with identical honours legislation to Grenada considers the monarch Sovereign of their orders shows that there is no reason to doubt the Governor-General’s office as this is the standard practice for Caribbean countries.

There are also additional sources which states the monarch is sovereign of the Orders, such as the Traces of War project run by the Foundation for Information on World War Two.

Specifically in regard to WP:ECREE, this is what is regarded as being an “extraordinary claim:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions

Point 1: The claim that the monarch is Sovereign of Grenada’s honours is hardly a surprising claim, considering it is the standard throughout the Commonwealth realms and all realms with identical honours legislation to Grenada has the monarch as sovereign of their orders.

Point 2: The direct source which supports the claim is gg.weboffice.gd. This is not a primary nor self-published source. It is an official website owned and operated by the Office of the Governor-General of Grenada.

Point 3: This matter is not regarding a statement, but I think one would be hard pressed to consider the Office of the Governor-a General, the King’s appointed representative, stating that the King is sovereign of orders which bear a portrait of his mother’s face “out of character”

Point 4: The claim that the monarch is sovereign of Grenada’s orders is most certainly not contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community. As I have demonstrated, the definitive authority on this matter (Burke’s) makes very clear that all nations which have the same orders legislation and organisation as Grenada has the monarch as Sovereign of the Orders. As a matter of fact, claiming the monarch is not Sovereign would be what contradicts the prevailing view.

Thus it is my contention that, seeing as we have a source from an official website belonging to the Governor-General’s Office, and that this claim is entirely in line with the established precedent in the region as well as supported by other institutions, the page should remain unchanged and the monarch continue to be listed as Sovereign. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

See, this is closer to what I wanted from the beginning; a discussion about the source not the unimportant details like this monarch-chancellor question. That said, I will note two things here that I mentioned in the prior discussion and expand a little. gg.weboffice.gd is presumably under the control of the Web Office of the Government of Grenada as mentioned at weboffice.gd with it apparently supporting the Office of the Governor-General with the subdomain. More importantly, there are questions about gg.weboffice.gd being reliable for copying content from an unreliable source. That seems to be the main issue as if gg.weboffice.gd is still deemed to be fully reliable, then we would use it as a source for the claims; thus, if not reliable, then we wouldn't. The problem here is that a conversation between the three of us won't likely get anywhere and I don't see DRN as usable for this type of issue. My best idea currently would be to create an RfD so that other might participate and break the stalemate. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The content on gg.weboffce.gd is copied yes, but per the Grenada Monarchist League it was copied after they were specifically approached and gave consent. I’d again definitely contend that in such circumstances it should be considered reliable as the office evidently saw the GML’s page, thought it explained various topics in a good manner, and thus requested the right to use some of the material. They’ve been selective in what they’ve copied over and have made edits and changes here and there, indicating it wasn’t a blind transfer of everything.

The GML is additionally a decently prominent group within Grenada, having received mention in the media numerous times. I would note that the Monarchist League of Canada, the GML’s Canadian sister organisation, is considered a reliable source and used multiple times as a source throughout pages related to the Canadian monarchy. The GML may use Wordpress as the basis of their website design, but I hardly think that should automatically relegate them to being considered so unreliable that content the Office of the Governor-General itself, with consent, copied over must be dismissed. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

RSP is very clear on the one matter: WordPress.com should never be used for claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated. It is being attempted to used, directly or not, for a claim regarding the monarchy. Additionally, MLC =/= GML.

In any case, do you have a format for a discussion that would involve more than the three of us? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m not particularly certain what would be the correct forum for greater discussion. However, I very much disagree with any removal of references to the Sovereign from the order pages while the dispute is ongoing. As I have demonstrated, the claim the monarch is Sovereign does not fulfil any of criteria for being an “extraordinary claim”. If we are determined to not use gg.weboffice.gd in the interim, which I continue to maintain should certainly be considered a reliable source, there are other sources which should and can be utilised. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)