Talk:Canadian titles debate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Address of the Nickle Resolution[edit]

Resolution text and source docs' (from http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/black2/doc9.html) in case someone thinks they should be added to article...

Address of the Nickle Resolution

"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased: –

(a) To refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.

(b) To provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to ensure the extinction of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, and of a dignity or title as a peer of the realm, on the death of a person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada at present in enjoyment of an hereditary title of honour, or titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, and that thereafter no such title of honour, titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, shall be accepted, enjoyed or used by any person or be recognized.

All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration."

May 22, 1919

--

Regulations respecting the acceptance and wearing by Canadians of Commonwealth and foreign orders, decorations and medals

GENERAL

1. The acceptance by Canadian citizens of foreign orders, decorations and medals, of whatever kind or class, is subject in each instance to prior approval by the Government of Canada and publication in the Canada Gazette.

2. Approval is NOT given to accept an order or decoration—

(a) which carries with it a title of honour or any implication of precedence or privilege; (Note: The regulations do not apply to the acceptance of academic degrees and the use of professional and academic titles conferred by institutions in other countries.)

(b) which is conferred otherwise than by the Head or Government of a Sate recognized by Canada as such;

(c) which is in recognition of services by a member of the Canadian Armed Forces or by an officer or employee of an agency of the Crown in Canada in the fulfillment of his normal duties and offered before, on or after the completion of a tour of duty in the donor country;

(d) which is in relation to events more than five years prior to the proposal for the award;

(e) which is at variance with considerations of general policy or public interest.

3. Approval is, otherwise, contemplated in the case of any Canadian citizen (including members of the Canadian Armed Forces and of the public services of Canada and the provinces of Canada) to whom an honour or decoration is offered on one of the following grounds:

(a) for an extraordinary service to mankind;

(b) for conspicuous bravery in saving or attempting to save life;

(c) for important and personal service to the reigning Sovereign or to other members of the Royal Family;

(d) for services rendered while in the salaried employment of the donor country;

or in recognition of an exceptional achievement or service.

4. Qualified approval may be given to the wearing of orders and decorations conferred on a member of the Canadian Armed Forces or an official in recognition of personal attention to a foreign Head of State on the occasion of State or other official visits.

5. Approval is generally given to accept orders and decorations conferred on Canadian citizens who have dual nationality, provided acceptable evidence is offered that the recipient is ordinarily resident in or has a closer actual connection with the donor country.

MEDALS

6. The acceptance and wearing of medals are subject to the foregoing regulations in the same way as orders and other State decorations.

7. Polar Medal. Any Canadian may accept the Polar Medal when conferred in recognition of services rendered as a member of a Commonwealth team in an expedition organized or sponsored by one or more Commonwealth governments.

8. Medals awarded by private societies for saving or attempting to save a life should be worn on the right breast and not on the left.

9. Applications will be considered for permission to wear foreign medals gained in war-like operations, provided such permission is consistent with general policy and public interest.

APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION

10. The application and interpretation of these regulations are subject to advice and recommendations from the Government Decorations Committee.

Secretary of State Department Ottawa, 1968

--

POLICY RESPECTING THE AWARDING OF AN ORDER, DECORATION OR MEDAL BY COMMONWEALTH OR FOREIGN GOVERNMENT

1. Any Commonwealth or foreign government desiring to award an order, decoration or medal to a Canadian citizen shall obtain the prior approval of the Government of Canada.

2. Commonwealth and foreign governments desiring to award orders, decorations or medals to Canadian citizens shall submit their proposals to the Government of Canada through their diplomatic missions in Canada.

3. The Government of Canada will consider granting the approval referred to in section 1 for the awarding of an order, decoration or medal offered in recognition of:

(a) an extraordinary service to mankind;

(b) conspicuous bravery in saving or attempting to save life;

(c) an exceptional service rendered to the country desiring to make the award; or

(d) any substantial act or acts contributing to better relations between Canada and the country desiring to make the award.

4. The Government of Canada SHALL NOT grant the approval referred to in section 1 of an award:

(a) that is at variance with Canadian policy or the public interest;

(b) that carries with it an honorary title or confers any precedence or privilege;

(c) that is conferred otherwise than by a Head of State or a government recognized as such by Canada;

(d) that is conferred in recognition of services by an individual in the employ of Her Majesty in Right of Canada or of a province in the normal performance of official duties; or

(e) that is in respect of events occurring more than five years before the offer of the award.

5. The Honours Policy Committee may advise and recommend on the interpretation and application o this policy and on the disposition of cases arising therefrom.

Original signed by Paul Tellier

January, 1988 ___________________________ Peoples must know that a ""resolution" is not a law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost rider1000 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A spotty history of application[edit]

Even beyond the period of Bennett's premiership when the resolution was not in force, at least two Canadians have been made peers by the Monarch. For example, Roy Thompson was made first hereditary Baron Thomson of Fleet in 1964, and upon his death the barony passed to his son Ken.

In my opinion, it is foolish anyway to prevent Canadian citizens from being made nobles of countries other than our own, and I haven't a clue what nonsense was rattling about in Nickle's head to make him want to cease this. --coldacid 01:40, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

It's not quite accurate to say that the Nickle Resolution was "reaffirmed" or that "the former policy ... has been in effect ever since", because the Nickle Resolution applies to "subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada" whereas the subsequent Regulations (1968) and Policy (1988) apply to Canadian citizens. This reflects the coming into existence of Canadian citizenship, but is not merely an idempotent change of wording (though it may be the closest possible). I don't think that Conrad Black fell under the original wording at the time of the controversy over his peerage.

The present topic may have some bearing on the question of the unity of the Commonwealth Crown. Was the Canadian government's request that Black not be ennobled passed to the British government, or directly to the Queen? If the latter, it would illustrate that the "Queen of Canada" and the "Queen of the United Kingdom" are not totally independent; for no advice given by the Canadian government to the former could then affect the action taken by the latter in awarding an honour to one of her own (i.e. British) citizens on the advice of the British Prime Minister. See also Talk:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act. G Colyer 13:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up required[edit]

This article is ridiculously long to have no sections or organisation. There are several bits that are also completely off-topic and POV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking is good, too. For more than a year, this article linked to a silent film actor as being the first Baron of Longueuil. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Passage[edit]

Am I the only one who can't understand the following passage from the article? "Its adoption and use as a precedent in the area of titular honours for Canadians also informs the history of the creation of the Order of Canada in 1967, which was designed to bestow no titular honours on those recipients whom the Government of Canada recommends that the Queen of Canada honour with membership in the Order." HistoryBA 23:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have grasped the nettle - it's only been confusing the unwary reader for 3 years. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The article seems quite biased against the Nickle Resolution and against Nickle in particular. For all its detail, it did not mention (until my edit a few minutes ago) that Nickle didn't simply write his resolution on the back of an envelope one day but was appointed to head a special committee to look into the honours question.Homey 10:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint John[edit]

Although this may be a little iffy in terms of British Honours, according to the book Her Excellency Jean Sauvé by Shirley E. Woods, Jean Sauvé was made a Dame of Justice in the Order of Saint John during her visit to England shortly following her swearing in as Governor General of Canada. This was in addition to being Order in Prior and Chief Office in Canada. Perhaps this might fit somewhere ? Dowew 00:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples of Canadians getting British honours[edit]

Although titicular honours would be more approriate to this article, I am going to look for example and anomalies of Canadians getting British Honours : Dowew 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Irony: That resolution made impossible for canadian to be honoured by "a foreign sovereign"...but the problem is that former King of Emgland and now the Queen, is Chief of State of Canada. So, she's not considered as being a "stranger"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.39.41 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Another Canadian knighted without permission of the PM. Graham Day in 1989 Dowew (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible other example Albert Walsh first lt gov of Newfoundland after confederation. Looks like he may have been knighted just after confederation in 1949. Dowew (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viscountcies for Dominion PMs[edit]

In the section "Mackenzie King reaffirms ban", R. B. Bennett's elevation to the peerage as Viscount Bennett is described as being "a reflection of British policy at the time of conceding viscountcies to retired dominion prime ministers, if recommended". Are there any other examples of dominion prime ministers receiving viscountcies apart from Bennett and Stanley Bruce? Opera hat (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind there weren't that many dominions. They were mostly still colonies. India was in a different category as the "empire of india". Off hand I think the dominions were Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). The widow of Sir John A. Macdonald was made a Baroness shortly after his death. I suppose the question would be how many former PM's of the dominions were willing to move to mother england after their tenure was up ? Dowew (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't need to be a citizen or reside in the UK to receive a peerage I don't follow your point AllsoulsDay (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titular honours[edit]

I see that this expression is used throughout the article. Is this the recognised term in Canada for an honour that comes with a title? I don't think it applies anywhere else. "Titular" normally refers to a title that has powers technically associated with it, but the holder of the title actually wields little or none of the powers. Such as a titular bishop in the Roman Catholic church, who has a see that contains few if any Catholics. That is, it's a title in name only. A "titular honour", the way it's used here, suggests it's a hollow title, which I'm sure isn't what's intended. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems about right...it's not like the Marquis of Saskatchewan is going to raise an army of his serfs to defend Moose Jaw. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Why quote a magazine article at length and not say WHICH magazine? I've taken it out. If I can't find "Hansard" on line I may remove the extensive Bennet quotes, which do little to illuminate the discussion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern policy section[edit]

This section of the article doesn't tell the reader anything at all about the modern policy. It just mentions two published papers with no description of the policies contained therein. Biglulu (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other Commonwealth countries[edit]

The Queen has conferred titular honours on Australians upon the advice of both British and Commonwealth governments. Since 1992, Australia treats such awards as foreign awards. If the claim that ‘acceptance of such an honour was dependent upon the approval of the Australian Cabinet’ there should be a reference. I have doubts and have added [citation requited]. For Australia, the issue is more broadly British honours rather than just titular honours. The big difference between Australian and Canada is that Australian State Governments retained their right to recommend British honours which continued until Queen’s Birthday 1989. The Federal labor government, similar to the Canadian Government, did approve British awards for operational areas in the Second World War. State labor governments, similar to the Canadian Government, did approve British gallantry awards to both military and civilians. The last Canadian recommendations of British gallantry awards were gazetted after the creation of the Order of Canada and the last Australian recommendations of British gallantry awards were gazetted in the late 1980s. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The introduction should be updated. The sovereign grants honours but they are recommended by the Canadian government. If the Canadian Government does make recommendations none will be granted which is exactly what happened for most of the period after the Nickle resolution. The last sentence should be replaced with something like ‘Although there were several attempts in the years following 1917 to establish Canadian honours it was not until fifty years later with the creation of the Order of Canada that the modern Canadian Honours System evolved’. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian titles debate. 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:

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) 08:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_titles_debate&oldid=1206528942"