Ordine del Collare di Sant'Agata dei Paternò
jonar242
with a prominent member. The order claims to be a 19th century revival
of an order that existed in Mallorca. The source put forth for this is
a book, written by a member of the Paternò family published in 1851.
There are a number of points that can be discussed about this order,
but what I would like to ask the learned particpants on this group is
if an "Ordine del Collare" of Mallorca is corroborated by any other
source?
Kind regards,
Jonas
Andrew
The Order of Knighthood with such a name is not exists in reality. It
is just an fantasy "Order". It is an private invention of an fantasist
, or, probably, as more usually, an fraudulent 'pyramid of vanity'
directed to defraud people and to earn money for swindler's pocket).
Caveat emptor.The only real Order dedicated to St. Agata is an
Sanmarinise Order of Merit.
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>I have had an intensse discussion during the last month on this order
>with a prominent member. The order claims to be a 19th century revival
>of an order that existed in Mallorca. The source put forth for this is
>
>There are a number of points that can be discussed about this order,
>but what I would like to ask the learned particpants on this group is
>if an "Ordine del Collare" of Mallorca is corroborated by any other
>source?
It is all a fantasy and the 19th century documents forgeries. The claim
by this branch of the Paterno Castello family to represent the Guttadauro
would be more sustainable if they were actually the primogeniture
representatives of that cognatic line. In any case, the very idea that this
family could somehow conjure up a claim to the throne of the Balearic islands
is in any case without any historical basis. Successive dukes of Carcaci
have refused to support the claim of this junior cadet and, indeed, both
the present "pretender" and his late father have been several times the
object of Italian prosecutions.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
matsla...@spray.se
an active Nordic contingent which recently has set up shop at
http://www.mocterranordica.org/
/Mats
George Lucki
news:1133289992.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are the documents on the links page
http://www.mocterranordica.org/Arkiv.html the forgeries referred to by Guy
in an earlier post. In particular I was wondering about No.10 which appears
to set out a complex process for succession to the grand magistry of a
Paterno order and the family pact in No. 6 - the whole argument set out in
the documents is a complex one - and frankly I don't have the time to try
and follow it (I think I understand the criticiem - legendary order;
skimpy and flawed proofs of its 19th century recreation and doubts about its
later 20th century revival by other than who we might normally assume would
be the lawful successors to such an order had it existed and survived) - but
was hoping someone might provide the thumnail sketch of any of the
deficiencies of the documentation.
George Lucki
Andrew
George,
I think the proper comment on such a "Order" might be as following:
Since the genuine name for such inventions, as this so-called
"Order" is : "The Order of the Pyramid of Vanity" or "The Order of the
Angry and Brave Mickey Mouse Rampant", the one year is not enough to
calculate their quantity in the world. Nomen illis legio (in similarity
to quantity of crackpots and lunatics, who playing in such a game
invented by clownish swindlers especially for 5 years old child).
George Lucki
news:1133301931.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:)))
Great names for such ventures!
George Lucki
pritch...@hotmail.com
Believe it or not there is a poster to this forum who is a member of
this bogus order, Fr. Guy Selvester. His arms can be seen here:
http://www.heraldrysociety.us/MemberArmPages/membersarms.php?page=Selvester
Obviously he does not feel particulary proud of his membership in the
fake order because its insignia does not appear in any of the
illustrations. Fr. Selvester wrote to me that he was recruited by a
well known heraldic artist, Andrew Jamieson, see:
http://www.medieval-arts.co.uk/
Dave Boven
pride in membership? By convention, aren't the achievements of Roman
Catholic clergy devoid of all Orders and Insignia aside from the SMOM
and the EOHSJ?
--dave--
jona...@hotmail.com
denigrate in tone but soberly try whatever claims are put forth.
The problem in general is that MOC gives a massive documentation to
support the claim, but is does not in itself present coherent
argumentation and explanations to some of the questions that arise.
Also, there is an unfortunate tendency to stress the importance of the
three court decisions, along the line: "This and this is because so and
so. But we already have a court decision, why question MOC?". If the
succession line is corrupted, then it is an open-and-shut case and the
court decsions are clearly void. But I would like to learn more about
what is commonly agreed upon by scholars to fully understand this
point. One point in particular is that they claim that the
Giovanni/Guglielmo the older in the ancient ancestry of the Paternò
family was the son of one Miguel señor de Paternò, son of Pedro
señor de Àyerbe, son of Pedro señor de Àyerbe, son of James I of
Aragon. On the Internt family trees I have seen for both the Paternò
family and that of the crown of Aragon, this is false as no Miguel
señor de Paternò exists in either of these sources.
A few other notes: MOC does not put forth any other source that the
book from 1851 for the medieval order, written by a person about the
findings of another persons voyage, where he finds hints and traces
which he interprets as a medieval order, but to me could be interpeted
as anya kind of military bortherhood without being an order. I am not
at all familiar with Mallorcan history, which is why I ask for other
sources. The long chain of circumstantial evidence presented by MOC
does not, so far, support any claim of a medieval order. This is
irrelevant for the question of legitimacy itself and relates more to
the "Military" in the name and the medieval traditions that MOC
willingly promotes. If the medieval order is a legend, the designation
"Military" is doubly inappropriate. (It is, of course, inappropriate in
the first place because the revival has not had any military
functions.)
The documentation (true or forgery) gives that the order was primarily
a regional matter between 1838 and early 1860. It was allowed in the
dominions beyond the Sea, which I interpret to mean Sicily from the
perspective of the capitol Naples. Between Feb 1860 and September 1860
it could possibly have been allowed on the main land by permission of
the king depending on whether on the Feb proposal was enforced during
that period. The full recognition is from September 1860, when the King
had already left the capitol for Gaeta in the face of the invading
forces. If the documents are real, then it is fully understandble (if
perhaps not altogether wise) that the King, preoccupied by other
matters, gave a recognition for MOC.
/Jonas
Andrew
bla order, bla succession, bla royalty, etc
What are you talking about? What succession? What Order? What kind of
Royalty? Do you believe that anybody at this forum is silly, or a
clown, or potential victim? Do you know who the King of Spain is?
Since no any authority ( no any reigning monarch, no any REAL former
ruling dynasty) within the world recognise the buffoonish body you
advertise here (so-called and self-styled "Order") not as Order of
Knighthood, no as Order of Merit, no as House Order "per ami", ----
such a body is : 1. Fraudulent pyramid.; or : 2. Buffoonish
performance,; or: 3. Game for child.;
Andrew
>Would a display of the insignia really show a Roman Catholic priest's
>pride in membership? By convention, aren't the achievements of Roman
>Catholic clergy devoid of all Orders and Insignia aside from the SMOM
>and the EOHSJ?
Any proper insignia of any legitimate Order of Chivalry founded by
Papal Bull is normal for Roman Catholic clergy.
By the instruction of State Secretariat of date 28 April 2004, members
of the Curia of the Holy See and Vatican State City officially
recommended to avoid any other Order insignia, with exception of SMOM
and EOHSJ insignia. It was done just to avoid any mistake, because a
lot of fraudulent bodies (self-styled "Orders") recruited famous
people to be its "members" (as "advertising") , since amongst
clergy is not so many specialists have ability to make a differencing
between real Order and an bogus "Order" (an fraudulent body with
invented "heroic history").It will be a great shame, if a member of
the Government to wear "insignia" of such a worthless and shameless
perpetration, as an mentioned above sequential one "Order of Mickey
Mouse Rampant".
jonar242
Andrew skrev:
The discussion so far:
"Jonas: I know that this order is considered bogus, but for the sake of
argument, give me clear reasons why."
Andrew: It is bogus because it is.
Jonas: but why?
Andrew: BECAUSE IT IS."
Really, this kind of argumentation is not helping. If I want to be
offendend, I can get that from members of the Order that are affronted
because I have placed them where I have on my website, as illegitimate.
The recent MOC Nordic site appears to be in response to this. The fact
that I do not accept either side's "because it is" does not mean that I
in any way wish to promote or support this order. I just wished for
some intelligent aid and articulate argumentation.
/Jonas
George Lucki
news:1133341683.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
/Jonas
Jonas,
It seems that there are a number of questions for the MOC folks to address
themselves to. You have raised a number of them. From my perspective we can
go no further if we do not establish there was in fact an order.
1. The first issue is the prior existence of the MOC. I understand that the
basis for inferring the existence of the pre-19th century order is on legend
and apocryphal references (paintings and the like). This is a rather poor
basis for inferring the order had existed and survived. Even with the
poverty of record keeping of earlier times one might have expected the
survival of more documentary evidence. The MOC really does not appear in
documentary evidence until the mid 19th century. At this point setting aside
the documentary value of a book written by an interested party the MOC
argument gives weight to the apparent recognition of the order and some
Paterno rights in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, but the difficulty to
overcome is that such recognition if given, and whatever its weight cannot
create an order of chivalry if one had not previously existed, nor would it
seem that the Kings of the Two Sicilies have the authority to regulate
matters of the Paterno family succession to anything other than Two Sicilies
titles - unless the argument also claims that the MOC is somehow an award
subordinate to the Two Sicilies crown. Despite the voluminous documentation
I am not satisfied that it establishes the existence of a Balearic order
that survived into the 19th century. The 20th century revival seems a wholly
separate event and I have not noted that the order (from the information I
have seen) in any way continued through the intervening century.
2. The second hurdle to overcome - if the order existed and somehow survived
into the 19th century as a dynastic property - is one of dynastic
succession. The MOC argument apparently gives much weight to the decisions
of a family council apparently held in the mid 19th century the decisions of
which if they had occurred are not accepted as such by senior family
representatives. The other supports seem to be documents from the Kingdom of
Two Sicilies (some of which have been I believe characterized by some as
forgeries) and finally arbitrations between two parties before Italian
courts and other decisions made by Italian courts that have overturned legal
sanctions against someone peddling MOC in Italy. Such weight is given these
documents that much is made of the universal applicability of arbitration
decisions (even though they bind no one except the private parties
involved). Notwithstanding the convoluted succession that has been proposed
and presented as recognized by the family and Italian Courts the question fo
succession in this family is not resolved and and the strongest claim to
arms and titles would be within the senior line of the family. The issue of
the MOC is not resolved by the succession question - if the order has not
existed and not survived then it matters little who might have succeeded to
such a 'grand magistracy'. If there should be sufficient proof that the
order had existed then the question of succession becomes a second barrier
and it has not been overcome except in several specific matters several
Italian courts have addressed themselves to - so for example for the
purposes of ordering the amending of a baptismal certificate to include
various styles as a part of the claimants name. The question of why we
should accept the claimants claims remains open. I would still hope that
someone more knowledgable might comment on several of the specific documents
cited on their pages.
The burden of proof ultimately rests with the claimant - it is not up to us
or anyone to prove MOC is a self-styled order but rather the MOC must prove
that it is what is claims to be and thusfar despite the number of documents
presented on their web-page the two hurdles do not appear to have been
overcome. For example despite the Italian court rulings cited by the MOC the
order apparently continued to appear on the list of self-styled orders
published from time to time by none less than the Italian Foreign Affairs
Ministry - see: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/itbgord.htm
With the documentation heavy approach this group uses I would not be
surprised to see some folks persuaded that this group is legitimate and
accept invitations of membership. I think that the best way to approach the
matter is through a sound analysis of the material presented and notes about
the deficiencies of the evidence and arguments presented. On that basis I am
not thusfar persuaded that this group is other than a *self-styled order of
chivalry*.
Kind regards, George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
>
>Andrew skrev:
>
>
>Really, this kind of argumentation is not helping. If I want to be
>offendend, I can get that from members of the Order that are affronted
>because I have placed them where I have on my website, as illegitimate.
>The recent MOC Nordic site appears to be in response to this. The fact
>that I do not accept either side's "because it is" does not mean that I
>in any way wish to promote or support this order. I just wished for
>some intelligent aid and articulate argumentation.
>
documents did not mean what they purport to state they mean. The court
cases are irreleavtn, not brought under any provision of Italian law which
could in any way apply to formal recognition or otherwise of this so-called
Order, but a procedure which has over the decades been used by a long
cavalcade of false Emperors of Byzantium, princes and would-be kings, etc.You
want us to prove that an Order that never existed, never existed, but please
tell me how one may do this? What is required is contemporary evidence that
in the ancient kingdom of Mallorca such an Order at one time existed, but of
this there is not the slightest trace. In the absence of any evidence that
it existed, then of course any reasonable person would not pretend that it
did. Unfortunately once one enters the smokey world of pseudo Orders it
seems that many people are willing to suspend their ordinary powers of reason.
Much more relevant are the court judgments which sentenced the late 'grand
master' under Italian criminal law.
jonar242
thank you for your answers. The reason I wanted to ventilate MOC is
because a prominent member of the Grand Priory of Terra Nordica have
been questioning if I am suitable for my current work, since MOC feel
that I do not acknowledge the New York Convention on arbitrations
(which MOC mean give immediate effect in every undersigning country to
acknowledge MOC as a genuine order). Ha also stated that he might not
be able to in future hold back individual "knights" of MOC that already
are eager to contact my employers. Needless to say, one gets rattled.
This is a surprisingly non-chivalrous behaviour from an order that
wishes to be recognized as a chivalric. But it seem that when
arguments fail, other measures seem to be taken to reduce criticism and
end discussion, rather that reexamening the facts and alter postions.
Just as you write, other contacts with jurists confirm that a court
decision pertains to those involved and have no immediate effect on
surrounding matters. At best, if Paternò wishes to join higher
institutes of nobiliary law in other countries, he might be entitled to
be entered into a category of justice (if such exists), because that is
what was arbitrated in the first place.
All the best,
Jonas Arnell
George Lucki
news:1133436156.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Guy and Geoge,
thank you for your answers. The reason I wanted to ventilate MOC is
because a prominent member of the Grand Priory of Terra Nordica have
been questioning if I am suitable for my current work, since MOC feel
that I do not acknowledge the New York Convention on arbitrations
(which MOC mean give immediate effect in every undersigning country to
acknowledge MOC as a genuine order). Ha also stated that he might not
be able to in future hold back individual "knights" of MOC that already
are eager to contact my employers. Needless to say, one gets rattled.
This is a surprisingly non-chivalrous behaviour from an order that
wishes to be recognized as a chivalric. But it seem that when
arguments fail, other measures seem to be taken to reduce criticism and
end discussion, rather that reexamening the facts and alter postions.
Just as you write, other contacts with jurists confirm that a court
decision pertains to those involved and have no immediate effect on
surrounding matters. At best, if Paternň wishes to join higher
institutes of nobiliary law in other countries, he might be entitled to
be entered into a category of justice (if such exists), because that is
what was arbitrated in the first place.
All the best,
Jonas Arnell
----------------------------
Jonas,
I find it outrageous that you should be bullied in this way with threats
against your employment. The prominent member of the MOC has surprisingly
thin skin. It is not unusual to question some historical claims even of
unquestionably existing orders. For example the legendary history of the
foundation of the Polish Order of the White Eagle would have it founded in
the 14th century and is based on apocryphal evidence of chains presented by
the monarch, etc. - but of course the order is an 18th century foundation as
current historians will readily acknowledge. The scholarly temperament of
earlier times was not above aggrandizing and even inventing history to fit
with then current sensibilities.
I'm not a lawyer so my view is really a common-sense reading of the matter.
If someone wishes to challenge this view I would be pleased to hear their
argument. Legal decisions don't typically affect scholarly criticism. While
clealry I can't for example slander others or be irresponsible in my
statements (for example denying the holocaust) I can take a critical view of
the claims made by others and even the correctness of legal decisions.
For example I maintain that the so-called revival of the Order of St.
Stanislas by the self-styled prince and self-styled President of Poland
Julius Sokolnicki is without good basis and that the 'order' is not really a
valid continuation of the original Polish or subsequent Russian order. Even
if a Ukrainian President (the former one) accepts such an award and declares
it to have precedence among Ukrainian state awards - it still does not
change the view that the order is not validly a continuation or revival of
the former and now extinct Polish order. Similarly while the Venerable Order
of St. John is a legitimate British order founded in the 19th century and
inspired by the history and spirit of the SMOM - it is not a revival of the
English langue of the SMOM but a wholly separate and new creation whose
legitimacy is based on the acceptance of the British Crown of Sovereignty
over the group.
Despite the documents presented by the MOC I continue to hold my doubts
about the validity of the hisotircal claims made by that group.
Notwithstanding my doubts there is probably nothing to stop the MOC from
regisetring as a private society in your country and having their fancy
uniforms and medals and titles and rituals and nothing to stop them from
experiencing whatever pride or satisfaction they feel as members of that
society. So if they are registered as a society I would have no difficulty
acknowledging that they are legally, in your country, a society of that
name. I could also happily acknowledge that within the society they have
elaborate ranks and wear ruritanian inspired white uniforms and showy
gongs - but that is not the same as saying that I would acknowledge that
they are (except for the purely internal titles they use within the society)
Balearic Knights or nobles or whatever else they may claim to be in the
world outside of the private society of which they are members.
The issue of the Italian rulings seems grossly overstated by the proponents
of the MOC. As I understand every court ruling in a private or civil dispute
is a dispute between the parties and only between the parties. The court
finds 'facts' that help it resolve the dispute. In many cases the facts that
are found are on a balance of probabilities based on the evidence presented
for a particular purpose. The facts that are found are really relevant only
in a particular dispute and not automatically for other purposes. For
example a criminal trial may find on the evidence that OJ Simpson was not
guilty of murder but a civil court may find that he is liable for damages to
the victims heirs for having caused her death. Different standards of proof,
different facts admissible, different purposes, different parties.
In the particular matters adjudicated by Italian Courts you will find that
the decisions relate to specific issues and the courts provide for specific
relief - joining a particular society, changing a name in a baptismal
(civil) record, appealing a conviction for peddling self-styled orders. The
ruling of courts typically have no effect on uninvolved third parties and do
not extend past the specific remedy that the court has provided (and the
facts the court found are merely the basis on which they come to that
decision). The convention referred to seems simply to facilitate the
effectiveness of such remedies in other jurisdictions where they might
apply - for example if the dispute was with a society that had branches in
other lands over membership in that society it might provide the individual
with the opportunity for membership in the other branches (to the extent
that local law did not stand in the way). Some time ago an unhappy former
employee litigated a matter of constructive dismissal. In the legal process
the facts outlined in the decision found me on the facts to be a fair,
caring and considerate employer and found that his claims were without
basis. If I used what I understand the MOC argument to be I should now use
that legal decision in all other potential disputes - so that if another
employee felt aggrieved by actions on my part I could simply reply that as a
matter of law I am a fair employer and this cannot be disputed so quit
complaining and if you don't you are contemptous of the court decision. You
can see how ridiculous that argument would be. If a second employee brought
an action against me their matter would be heard as a fresh one.
Perhaps the best test for the prominent member of the MOC would be to apply
to the local Swedish court for an order requiring to comply with the
decision of the Italian tribunal - the question being comply with what part
of which order in what way? What specific order did the tribunal make that
applies to Jonas Arnell and his web-page?
Kind regards, George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
says...
>
thank you for your answers. The reason I wanted to ventilate MOC is
>because a prominent member of the Grand Priory of Terra Nordica have
>acknowledge the New York Convention on arbitrations (which MOC mean
>give immediate effect in every undersigning country to acknowledge MOC
>as a genuine order). Ha also stated that he might not be able to in
>future hold back individual "knights" of MOC that already are eager to
>contact my employers. Needless to say, one gets rattled.
>
>wishes to be recognized as a chivalric order. But it seem that when
>arguments fail, other measures seem to be taken to reduce criticism and
>
>Just as you write, other contacts with jurists confirm what you write,
>that a court decision pertains to those involved and have no immediate
>higher institutes of nobiliary law in other countries, he might be
>entitled to be entered into a category of justice (if such exists),
>because that is what was arbitrated in the first place.
Dear Jonas DO NOT WORRY, these so-called judgments will never be recorded
anywhere as 'recognition' of the validity of this so-called Order, since
that was not the legal result of the original action in Italy. A foreign
court is never going to give a completely alien interpretation, outside
his jurisdiction anyway. In the face of such empty threats, I would retaliate
by suing them for attempted intimidation and blackmail. Never give in to
these threats; you will find that in the face of resistance they will also
give up.
Guy Stair Sainty
Sweden, the country that in 1976 passed an incredibly foolish law to
prohibit its own citizens from receiving the national Orders, has proved a
haven to an expanding number of pseudo Orders that have even persuaded the
Swedish Military to authorize their use officially, so officers can have
a gong to wear.
Did the socialist levellers ever imagine such an outcome? What it demonstrates
is that Sweden should reverse the 1976 law and then impose a criminal penalty
on any organization that calls itself an Order and gives out badges that mimic
those of genuine Orders.
That these people threatened to undermine you with your employers (particularly
bearing in mind who you work for!), is absolutely disgraceful and I hope you are
able to expose them for their empy threats and if possible pursue them in the
courts.
Jan Böhme
> What is particularly sorry about Jonas' experience is that once again
> Sweden, the country that in 1976 passed an incredibly foolish law to
> prohibit its own citizens from receiving the national Orders, has proved a
> haven to an expanding number of pseudo Orders that have even persuaded the
> Swedish Military to authorize their use officially, so officers can have
> a gong to wear.
> Did the socialist levellers ever imagine such an outcome?
The levellers were not only socialist, but liberals as well. The gong
system was regarded by many liberals with a radical bent as a dusty and
disgraceful relic of the old Oscarian (our equivalent to Victorian)
class society, which was entirely and completely un-modern, and was
destined to go the way of all un-modernity.
> What it demonstrates
> is that Sweden should reverse the 1976 law and then impose a criminal penalty
> on any organization that calls itself an Order and gives out badges that mimic
> those of genuine Orders.
I think there are by now three different kinds of rational arguments
for this.
First, it has been thirty years now, and no other country has followed
suit. Sweden's decision to abolish Orders for its citizens wasn't the
beacon of modernity shining into the future that the legislators no
doubt envisaged, but just a very dated flash in the pan of the 1970:s.
Second, the absence of Orders puts an unnecesary limit on the options
that the government has for dealing with its top civil servants. All
governments need, from time to time, to reward the loyal incompetence.
A nice gong is a very low-cost and low-risk way of doing this. In the
absence of Orders, the loyal incompetence is to a distressing extent
rewarded with another top job. There are essentially no other rewards
around. And this new top job, it is as unlikely to manage well as the
original one.
Furthemore, in the situation where there are two very qualified
candidates fo e given top position, a slighly larger gong than expected
can take a bit of the bitterness out of the loser's defeat, at the same
time as the governmet can signal its appreciation.
But yes, Guy, you are right: A third argument is that, human nature
being what its, various kinds of shady self-style Orders have a much
easier time creeping in and infiltrating a society where there are no
legitimate naional Orders. And Jonas' experience is but yet another
example of the fact that such Orders are not always innocuous
fancy-dress clubs, but that they sometimes are prepared to posture
quite aggressively against enoyne who dares question their legitimity.
Maybe it's actually time for an opinion article in a large Swedish
daily about it. I'll sound out the idea on a couple of Swedish mailing
lists for opinion-makers and such people, that i happen to be a member
of.
Jan Böhme
Guy Stair Sainty
=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?= says...
>
>Guy Stair Sainty skrev:
>
>> What is particularly sorry about Jonas' experience is that once again
>> Sweden, the country that in 1976 passed an incredibly foolish law to
>> prohibit its own citizens from receiving the national Orders, has proved a
>> haven to an expanding number of pseudo Orders that have even persuaded the
>> Swedish Military to authorize their use officially, so officers can have
>> a gong to wear.
>
>> Did the socialist levellers ever imagine such an outcome?
>
>The levellers were not only socialist, but liberals as well. The gong
>system was regarded by many liberals with a radical bent as a dusty and
>disgraceful relic of the old Oscarian (our equivalent to Victorian)
>class society, which was entirely and completely un-modern, and was
>destined to go the way of all un-modernity.
Also as I understand it from a conversation with a Swedish Ambassador recently,
there was a sense that they were given out too automatically, and not for
exceptional merit.
This particular Swedish ambassador was strongly in favour of restoring the
system but also pointed out that it remained a useful tool of Swdish foreign
policy relations as he was able to recommend awards to foreigners who
were always very pleased with the honour.
In the debates on reforming the British Orders it has been argued with some
merit that awards for civil servants should not be automatic, but should be only
given for exceptional service. However that does not mean that the awards of
these Orders should be restricted, just that a wider group of possible
recipients become eligible, as the concept that a particular Order should only
be awarded to public servants and not for outstanding service by members of the
general population is mistaken. The recent report of the British House of
Commons, which was full of inconsistencies and extremely ill-thought out,
proposed the abolition of the Bath and St Michael and St George, and the
expansion (and therefore devaluation) of the Companions of Honour, with the
British Empire Order replaced with the Order of British Excellence.
This would have meant that there would really be only one Order with different
classes (the abolish of the ranks of knight grand cross and knight commander
was also proposed), meaning that someone who had served in different ways could
only be rewarded with a promotion. This means that either one gets far
too many of the first class (as in the Italian order of Merit), or later
services are simply ignored. The Order of British Excellence would in any case
be an inappropriate diplomatic or foreign award, and would be seens as very
inferior when paralleled with more ancient or exclusive foreign awards.
I have argued in my introduction to Burkes World Orders of Knighthood and Merit,
in which this is discussed extensively (along with the Swedish ban),
that the better way in the UK would be to extend the number of grades of both
the Bath and St M & G, and make both Orders available for a wider range of
meritorious services, outside the realm of paid public service.
What I find ridiculous about the Swedish reform is that Swedish citizens can be
rewarded with an Order for service to a foreign state, but not for one to
their own country. Ireland, which is extremely prissy about its status as a
republic and eschews Orders and public honours, ends up giving honorary degrees
from Trinity College or the Freedom of the City of Dublin to which both the
University and the City often object; there is recognition that the state should
offer public awards but are stuck in a pathetic time warp of
post-British rule opposition to the idea. Yet the President does not hesitate to
accept foreign awards and recently she, the prime minister and the then lord
mayor of Dublin (who was voted out a few weeks later) were all given the
(junior line) Constantinian Order with some huge hullabaloo. That Irish
political leaders could accept an award whose legitimacy has been strongly
challenged by the Monarch of a fellow EU state from a prince whose right to do
so is substantially in question (and who is legally a private, untitled citizen
of the French republic), while pompously refusing to countenance the idea that
Ireland should publicly recognize exceptional service by its citizens in a
similar fashion is the height of hypocrisy.
In these times when new citizens find a hard time being assimilated, being able
to recognize outstanding service with an award that has links to centuries
of national history is surely better than the gift of a gold watch or a paper
certificate with no real meaning. Surely no-one serioiusly believes that the
award of an Order today creates some kind of new hierarchy of class? There is
simply no basis for arguing that the children of the recipient of such an honour
are somehow advantaged over the rest of the population. {Actually children of
members of the French Order of the Legion of Honour have a right to
apply for entry to the very good Legion of Honour school, but that seems a small
advantage and I do not know of any other special privileges elsewhere).
The award of a chivalric honour with centuries of history and strong links to
the national saga serves to connect the recipient with those distinguished
citizens who have been honoured similarly in the past. When outstanding service
is rewarded, the Order itself is also honoured along with the other recipients
who thereby have a real connection to the new honoreee. The merit of an award is
augmented considerably by the achievements of those to whom it is given - one of
the reasons that awards for extraordinary bravery are so esteemed, for example,
is precisely because one can survey the list of past recipients and their
courageous acts to get a measure of the standard which has to be met to receive
this award. The same may apply to awards of knighthoods in national Orders of
great antiquity.
I hope that Sweden reverses this ban before the memory of the ancient awsards
and their historic connection becomes too faint. It is worth noting that all
the states which have recovered the independance they forfeited after WWII or
which were libertated from the communist yoke, have abolished the orders that
recalled communist rule, and refounded the Orders that pre-existed or founded
new ones recalling the great figures of their history. Every one of the new
European countries that have been created in the last 12 years or so has
determined that some kind of system of Orders should be instituted. The need to
tie these to the past is seen pretty universally as an essential link -
strangely it is something which Britain, rather contemptuous of its past
(perhaps in a similar way that Sweden was when it chose to ban awards to
citizens), seems ready to jetison (at least if the Commons recommendations are
accepted).
Poland is a good example as a close neighbour to Sweden that has revived the
pre-communist Orders, inclduing most notably the Orders of the White Eagle and
Virtuti Militari, which were 18th century foundations and tied closely to the
time when Poland was a major power and which were awarded by the Polish
government in exile (of which the present government is the successor). It also
awards the Order of Polonia Restituta which was founded to replace St Stanislas
when Poland became independent from Russia. Poles value these awards precisely
because of their history, but I do not think anyone would believe that they
promote undesirable social divisions.
Where I dissent from Jan is his argument that these should just be awards for
top civil servants. I realise that Sweden as a state has a welfare system which
effectively discourages private philanthropy - seen, from the mindset of 1970s
socialism as patronising, etc - but again the rest of the world has moved on
from the view that what the state decides is best. These ancient awards should
be given to reward every kind of exceptional service, particularly encouraging
philanthropic service. They should also as far as possible be removed from
political control. These awards should be given in the name of the King, a
non-political figure, and presented by him in a formal ceremony - this direct
contact between the awardee and the head of state is an important moment that
elevates the nature of the award and distinguishes the recipient. The Nobel
prizes, for example, are presented by the King, but are cash - jolly nice to get
- and a medal, but it is the attention they attract both within and without
Sweden demonstrates that the concept of rewarding outstanding achievement is
viewed almost universally as a good thing. The list of past recipients honours
those of today, just as the catalogue of distinguished citizens who have
received the chivalric honours does so.
mj...@btinternet.com
Guy Stair Sainty schrieb:
> In article <1133474731.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> =?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?= says...
> >
> >Guy Stair Sainty skrev:
> >
> >> What is particularly sorry about Jonas' experience is that once again
> >> Sweden, the country that in 1976 passed an incredibly foolish law to
> >> prohibit its own citizens from receiving the national Orders, has proved a
> >> haven to an expanding number of pseudo Orders that have even persuaded the
> >> Swedish Military to authorize their use officially, so officers can have
> >> a gong to wear.
> >
> >> Did the socialist levellers ever imagine such an outcome?
> >
> >The levellers were not only socialist, but liberals as well. The gong
> >system was regarded by many liberals with a radical bent as a dusty and
> >disgraceful relic of the old Oscarian (our equivalent to Victorian)
> >class society, which was entirely and completely un-modern, and was
> >destined to go the way of all un-modernity.
I used to get a wry laugh at those "modern-minded" folk back in
Australia who objected vociferously to the Imperial Honours System as
being somehow foreign, and yet (thinking of one famous instance as an
example, involving no less than the Soviet Order of Lenin) were quite
happy to receive awards from regimes they considered to be politically
acceptable.
George Lucki
news:dmp6b...@drn.newsguy.com...
> can be
>> the
> pre-communist Orders, inclduing most notably the Orders of the White Eagle
> and
> Virtuti Militari, which were 18th century foundations and tied closely to
> the
> time when Poland was a major power and which were awarded by the Polish
> government in exile (of which the present government is the successor). It
> also
> awards the Order of Polonia Restituta which was founded to replace St
> Stanislas
> when Poland became independent from Russia. Poles value these awards
> precisely
> because of their history, but I do not think anyone would believe that
> they
> promote undesirable social divisions.
A few comments. Poland has, I think done an excellent job of
restoring/rehabilitating its national orders.
The Order of the White Eagle has actually seen generally excllent
appointments of very accomplished individuals who have given greatly to the
nation. The award of this exclusive order given in one grade (grand cross)
is very highly regarded. As this order was not awarded by the communists
during the period 1944-1989 its restoration was straightforward. Even more
so that the governemnt continued one order created by the communist regime -
the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland (in five classes) which serves
primarily as a diplomatic order - a gap in the honours system that had
previously been inadequately filled by the Order of the White Eagle and the
higher grades of Polonia Restituta.
The larger problem was in the continuation of the Orders Virtuti Militari
and Polonia Restituta both of which had been continued by both the
government in exile and the communist regime. The Virtuti Militari which
serves both as the premier valour award (analogous to the Victoria Cross)
and in its highest grades as an award for feats of wartime leadership
contributing to victory has always been held in the highest regard in Poland
and yet it experienced a profound crisis through the award of the grand
cross in 1974 to Leonid Brezniew, I guess for his work as political commisar
behind the front lines of the Soviet occupation of Eatern Europe. This and
other questioanble awards made to those who aided the Soviet occupation of
Poland profaned the order. Symbolic gestures on the part of highly respected
recipients of the order to distance themselves from the communist awards by
making a votive offering of their orders at the shrine in Czestochowa.
Without gestures such as this, the order might have been compromised in the
same way that it would not have been possible to restore the former Order of
St. Stanislas given its broad and indiscriminate awarding by the Russian
Tsars where it was ranked as their lowest order in precedence. The numerous
awards of the Polonis Restituta by the communists has impacted the value of
this order in the eyes of many but again it has been possible to see this
award as a continuation fo the awards of the II Republic and governemnt in
exile and the small changes - the crown on the eagle and the date 1918
instead of 1944 help distinguish the award from its communist counterpart.
Guy is correct that the renewal of these awards does not promote social
divisions and the symbols are meaningful to the nation. Although there have
been several transitions - eg. the White Eagle was a Royal and Papal
foundation, transformed by the Tsars into a Russian award, reestablished as
a republic order, supressed by a communist regime and continued by the
current republic, the roots of the order are seen as a strong foundation for
the current form of the order and its survival is also a symbol of the
continuity and survival of the state itself. There is in this a potential
analogy to the Swedish problem of orders created during a more absolutist
monarchy continuing into a social democratic state.
I think the potential lesson for other states is that it is possible to
restructure a historical order of chivalry to conform to current
constitutional realities and current needs. The award of Swedish orders
could be reinstituted for citizens without threat to the egalitarian
democracy and despite the history of their awards during the Oscarian period
(that does not conform to current sensibilities). What would be useful would
be some rededication of the great Swedish orders in accordance with the
current democratic and egalitarian nature of the Swedish state. Careful
choices of the first awards could set the tone for the public perception of
the award.
Canada for a long time had no national orders and had (with some notable
exceptions) chosen not to make any recommendations to HM regarding the award
of British honours. This self-denial also came from egalitarian notions that
orders were associated with class distinctions and these were incompatible
with Canadian society. The creation of the Order of Canada ultimately in
three classes created the first of the national orders (there are now four
including VOSJ which has an idiosyncratic position within the honour system,
as well as an order of merit within each of the Provinces). The way in which
the awards are made (independent of political influence) and generally sound
choices of recipients have created an award of high stature. In particular
the creation of the third class of the order to recognize exceptional
lifetime service at the local level (the other classes were primarily for
national contributions) has provided a way to honour individuals who might
otherwise not be eligible for the awrd of one of the high orders. I think
the process of discerning recipients might be emulated with advantage. There
are of course problems with the Canadian Honours system - including the
absence of a diplomatic award, but as the system matures I would expect that
the problems will eventually be rectified.
The Swedish Orders have a great tradition and history and could be recast
into modern roles. I have formed a belief that self-denial on the part of a
state of mechanisms to honour its citizens can be as much a reflection fo
national insecurity as the lavish award of baubles by some new and
struggling regimes. Honouring noone and honouring everyone reflects a
discomfort with acknowledging differences in contributions. As a state
matures in its acceptance of its history and its comfort with its own
constitutional order it should seem natural to be able to reward genuine
accomplishment in historically relevant ways without concern that this will
damage the social order. The key is in ensuring that the ways in which
these honours are distributed focuses on genuine achievement. I am not keen
on automatic awards for civil service or any form of employment or any other
meritorious act. There perhaps needs in each case be a formal and
independent nnomination and vetting process.
The last point I would make is that I would not connect the absence of a
state honours system with the proliferation of soi-disant orders. Such
'orders' also flourish in many states including Britain or Poland where
there is a well-established and broadly based honours system at present. The
absence of strong sanction against such things creates the opportunity for
these groups. Even if Sweden were to reestablish an honours system for
citizens many who would not be recipients and some who would be recipients
of national honours would still be attracted to some of these groups for
reasons of their own.
Kind regards, George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
>state honours system with the proliferation of soi-disant orders. Such
>'orders' also flourish in many states including Britain or Poland where
>there is a well-established and broadly based honours system at present. The
>absence of strong sanction against such things creates the opportunity for
>these groups. Even if Sweden were to reestablish an honours system for
>citizens many who would not be recipients and some who would be recipients
>of national honours would still be attracted to some of these groups for
>reasons of their own.
>Kind regards, George Lucki
>
while in the UK and elsewhere the false Orders are a tiny
fringe this is sadly not the case in Sweden.
Leigh Strother-Vien
Amen, brother.
Blessings,
Leigh
George Lucki
absence of strong regulations prohibiting this. It is really a sad
situation.
The strong egalitarian sensibility in Sweden (or in other societies) may
also be a factor in the growth of various self-styled orders - groups that
make people feel 'special'. Then the absence of traditional ways of
recognizing significant contributions makes it more difficult to distinguish
the real from the fantastic awards and the absence of sanctions permits the
fantastic to thrive.
In some ways the Irish situation is even quirkier where the high officers of
state are content and even delighted to accept various awards including
knighthoods from non-reigning princes but deny the citizens of their own
state domestic honours perhaps as being contrary to the republican ideals of
the Irish state. Meanwhile the Irish heraldic office has granted recognition
to a soi-disant Portuguese princess and some other odd dignitaries of their
own mind. Sheesh.
Surely there is a place in any generous society for recognizing emminent
contributions.
George Lucki
hey...@hotmail.com
"Canada for a long time had no national orders and had (with some
notable
exceptions) chosen not to make any recommendations to HM regarding the
award
of British honours."
RHM - Although many would argue that these were Imperial rather than
British honours and that Canada did not therefore need any "national"
Orders.
George Lucki: "This self-denial also came from egalitarian notions that
orders were associated with class distinctions and these were
incompatible
with Canadian society."
RHM - Which led to the foolish decision to institute the Order of
Canada in a single class rather than the five classes initially
proposed by Vincent Massey.
George Lucki: "The creation of the Order of Canada ultimately in three
classes created the first of the national orders (there are now four
including VOSJ which has an idiosyncratic position within the honour
system..."
RHM - Canada has five national Orders -- one must not forget the Royal
Victorian Order (albeit restricted to the lower three classes for
Canadians resident in Canada) to which the appointment of Canadians has
resumed since 1972.
Although no longer regarded as a national Order, Canadians are also
eligible for the Order of Merit. The Order of the Companions of Honour,
whilst not regarded as a Canadian Order (Canada having rejected its
offered quota of 7 appointments), is an Order to which Canadians can be
appointed upon the initiative of the Canadian Prime Minister, the
British Prime Minister or indeed (on at least one occasion) The Queen
herself.
George Lucki: "as well as an order of merit within each of the
Provinces). The way in which
the awards are made (independent of political influence) and generally
sound
choices of recipients have created an award of high stature. In
particular
the creation of the third class of the order to recognize exceptional
lifetime service at the local level (the other classes were primarily
for
national contributions) has provided a way to honour individuals who
might
otherwise not be eligible for the awrd of one of the high orders. I
think
the process of discerning recipients might be emulated with advantage.
There
are of course problems with the Canadian Honours system - including the
absence of a diplomatic award, but as the system matures I would expect
that
the problems will eventually be rectified."
RHM - IMHO the Canadian Honours System is a very poor system to
emulate. The Order of Canada is over stretched and is in desperate need
of restructuring -- ideally into five classes (the creation of the
Meritorious Service Decorations was the government's unsatisfactory
method of attempting to reduce the burden placed upon the Order). The
Order of Merit of the Police Forces is unnecessary and should not have
been established. Its creation highlights the shoddy and haphazard
manner in which the honours system has been allowed to evolve and the
absence of any real plan or structure. The provincial Orders were a
mistake and should never have been anything more than medals of
achievement. The entire Canadian System could do with a complete
overhaul (part of which should include the creation of a single class
Order restricted to 24 to rank ahead of the Order of Canada --
preferably called the Order of Saint Lawrence--a name first proposed in
1866 and then again in 1935, 1951 and (unofficially) in the 1960s).
The New Zealand honours system is far better than that found in Canada
and is one which every one of Her Majesty's realms (excluding the UK)
would do well to emulate.
Rafal H-M
hey...@hotmail.com
hey...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> The New Zealand honours system is far better than that found in Canada
> and is one which every one of Her Majesty's realms (excluding the UK)
> would do well to emulate.
>
> Rafal H-M
Although of course New Zealand's system would benefit greatly from the
restoration of titular honours.
RHM
George Lucki
<hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133576759.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> George Lucki wrote:
> "Canada for a long time had no national orders and had (with some
> notable
> exceptions) chosen not to make any recommendations to HM regarding the
> award
> of British honours."
> RHM - Although many would argue that these were Imperial rather than
> British honours and that Canada did not therefore need any "national"
> Orders.
The point nonetheless is still taht there were significant periods over the
last century where Canada did not make any recommendations to HM for the
conferral of either British or as you wish Imperial honours (except
gallantry awards) and had no system of national honours.
> George Lucki: "This self-denial also came from egalitarian notions that
> orders were associated with class distinctions and these were
> incompatible with Canadian society."
> RHM - Which led to the foolish decision to institute the Order of
> Canada in a single class rather than the five classes initially
> proposed by Vincent Massey.
Agreed, the first version was undatisfactory - the problem was not with the
single class of the Order but rather the way in which lesser honours were
developed. The initial version would have met your preference for a top tier
exclusive order. The lesser award was awkwardly termed a medal of service of
the order of Canada and staisfied no one. The transformation of the order
into three tiers and the trandormation fo the medal of service into the
officer class addressed this concern. The other issue initially was the
inclusion of a bravery medal into the structure of the order. The creation
of seperate decorations for bravery and valour addressed this.
>
> George Lucki: "The creation of the Order of Canada ultimately in three
> classes created the first of the national orders (there are now four
> including VOSJ which has an idiosyncratic position within the honour
> system..."
> RHM - Canada has five national Orders -- one must not forget the Royal
> Victorian Order (albeit restricted to the lower three classes for
> Canadians resident in Canada) to which the appointment of Canadians has
> resumed since 1972.
> Although no longer regarded as a national Order, Canadians are also
> eligible for the Order of Merit. The Order of the Companions of Honour,
> whilst not regarded as a Canadian Order (Canada having rejected its
> offered quota of 7 appointments), is an Order to which Canadians can be
> appointed upon the initiative of the Canadian Prime Minister, the
> British Prime Minister or indeed (on at least one occasion) The Queen
> herself.
I understand your point - but I did not include the Royal Victorian Order as
one of the national orders although it is within the system of Canadian
honours - making the distinction that this award is within the personal gift
of the soverign for services to her. We will disagree on this matter -
although we both share a monarchist sentiment we do look at the Canadian
monarchy in somewhat different terms.
> George Lucki: "as well as an order of merit within each of the
> Provinces). The way in which the awards are made (independent of
> political influence) and generally
> sound choices of recipients have created an award of high stature. In
> particular the creation of the third class of the order to recognize
> exceptional
> lifetime service at the local level (the other classes were primarily
> for national contributions) has provided a way to honour individuals who
> might otherwise not be eligible for the awrd of one of the high orders. I
> think the process of discerning recipients might be emulated with
> advantage.
> There are of course problems with the Canadian Honours system - including
> the
> absence of a diplomatic award, but as the system matures I would expect
> that the problems will eventually be rectified."
> RHM - IMHO the Canadian Honours System is a very poor system to
> emulate. The Order of Canada is over stretched and is in desperate need
> of restructuring -- ideally into five classes (the creation of the
> Meritorious Service Decorations was the government's unsatisfactory
> method of attempting to reduce the burden placed upon the Order).
I would agree that the meritorious service decorations need to be
restructured - and in particular the peculiar "Caring Canadian Award" needs
be included within the scheme of meritorious services. There is likely a
place for a junior order (an Order of Merit) - and I would agree with you
about the need to take a look at the place of the Order of Merit of the
Police Forces - and my personal preference would be for an Order of Merit
with seperate Military, Police and Civil divisions (the latter also creating
opportunites to reward non-uniformed public service although much more
broadly focused to include government and community service).
I think if you look at the points I made there are two things particularly
worthy of emulation as far as Canadian Honours - the first is the way in
which they conform to the sensibilities of an egalitarian society (Sweden,
Ireland and Switzerland could take note) and the second is the non-political
way of discerning potential recipients of the Order of Canada.
The
> Order of Merit of the Police Forces is unnecessary and should not have
> been established. Its creation highlights the shoddy and haphazard
> manner in which the honours system has been allowed to evolve and the
> absence of any real plan or structure. The provincial Orders were a
> mistake and should never have been anything more than medals of
> achievement. The entire Canadian System could do with a complete
> overhaul (part of which should include the creation of a single class
> Order restricted to 24 to rank ahead of the Order of Canada --
> preferably called the Order of Saint Lawrence--a name first proposed in
> 1866 and then again in 1935, 1951 and (unofficially) in the 1960s).
I would agree with the haphazard developemnt of the Canadian honours
system - and for historical/political reasons it could not be otherwise.
Canada has matured to the point where this could be reconsidered.
I disagree with you with respect to the development of provincial honours
and perhaps this reflects our different perspectives on the Canadian
federation. For example I cannot conceive of a satisfactory way in which the
Canadian Crown could satisfy the place of L'Ordre national du Quebec.
Services to the several provinces are distinct from service to the nation
and the authority of the provincial crowns is in different areas and it
would be appropriate to see the further development of provincial awards
(medals) in areas such as municipal, educational or social service. In
addiiton to being Canadians - Quebeecois are Quebecois and such national
identities need be recognized.
As far as the Order of St. Lawrence - its time has passed at least as far as
the name goes. I could not see it gaining acceptance as the premier order
despite the hisotrical importance of the St. Lawrence River and Seaway. Its
current associations are purely regional (Central Canada) and its allusion
to a European bishop/saint would not satisfy the test of multicultural
acceptability. Such a premier order might be possible were it to allude to a
value or virtue and if ditinct criteria could be developed that would
distinguish it from the highest class of the Order of Canada - for example
for outstanding contributions to nation building. If I might suggest the
simplest symbolism might be the three maple leaves conjoined on a single
sprig or a name such as the Order of the Confederation - although you might
have other worthy suggestions.
>
> The New Zealand honours system is far better than that found in Canada
> and is one which every one of Her Majesty's realms (excluding the UK)
> would do well to emulate.
>
With no criticism of a their approach the NZ system would not fit Canada's
necessarily loose federal structure nor Canadian multicultural
sensibilities.
George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>
>As far as the Order of St. Lawrence - its time has passed at least as far as
>the name goes. I could not see it gaining acceptance as the premier order
>despite the hisotrical importance of the St. Lawrence River and Seaway. Its
>current associations are purely regional (Central Canada) and its allusion
>to a European bishop/saint would not satisfy the test of multicultural
>acceptability.
Oh my goodness, are you serious? Do you think the name of the river should be
changed in case some anti-Christian sailor is offended passing along it? How
about Saint Louis, should the city fathers change its name? And San Francisco,
San Antonio, Santa Barbara, et al?
George Lucki
No, I don't think the name of the river should be changed. That would be
silly. I have not advocated changing the name of anything or any place. My
remarks have a specific context and it is not simply a question of
'poliitical correctness' or one that has anything to do with revising the
cultural history of Canada.
Rafal suggested Order of St. Lawrence as the potential name of a premier
Canadian Order to rank ahead of the current Order of Canada. The name was
previously suggested by the late Vincent Massey a former Governor General
for a Canadian Order that never saw the light of day. I don't think it was a
bad name but it isn't a good enough name and has some obstacles to overcome.
Given the role of the St. Lawrence River for settlement, exploration and
commerce it was still a reasonable name to consider for a national order
prior to the establishment of the Order of Canada. For 2005 it would not be
a good enough name for a prospective exclusive order to rank ahead of the
Order of Canada. In my mind the premier order of the land would need a
symbolism that would speak to all Canadians (perhaps sovereigntists
excepted - no national order is likely to appeal to these folks). That is
why I had suggested an alternative to the one proposed by Rafal that would
be based perhaps on a virtue or value strongly held by Canadians or on a
symbol or event that could hold its own against the proud name of the Order
of Canada. My owbn suggestion was for an Order of Confederation for
contributions to 'nation-building' in a range of fields whetehr cultural,
statesmanship, philanthropy, etc. The sprig of three conjoined maple leaves
from the arms of Canada could be a good symbol to place on the badge of such
an order - representing the unity and diversity of Canada - with a motto
along the lines perhaps "we grow together" in Latin.
Kind regards, George Lucki
jonar242
troublesome. The current system has two degrees:
a) the Professor title
b) medals
It is so obvious that something more is requiered, because the
government has handed out the professor title to persons whose merits
are other than academic and medals simply does not cut it completely.
The most troublesome aspect of the situation is that the opinion on
this matter follow party line, roughly splitting left-wing parties and
right-wing parties. Perhaps we have to wait until another government is
elected, then things might happen. But since the left wing Social
Democrats have been in government 64 years of the last 73, this is a
tough challenge for the opposition. People know very well what they get
but not what the opposition might have to offer.The long period of
Social Democrats in the governing position perhaps also forms a reason
why the egalitarian mindset is so predominant in general in Sweden.
The Order of St Lazarus and the Order of the Temple was specifically
approved to Swedish military uniform in the regulation from 1996.
However, the Royal Court was outraged because they were not informed
about this decision. So since the regulations were reworked in 2003,
those two orders do no longer appear, but an obscure reference to
"international" orders. One small step...
/Jonas
hey...@hotmail.com
> <hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133576759.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > George Lucki wrote:
> > "Canada for a long time had no national orders and had (with some
> > notable
> > exceptions) chosen not to make any recommendations to HM regarding the
> > award
> > of British honours."
>
> > orders were associated with class distinctions and these were
> > incompatible with Canadian society."
> > RHM - Which led to the foolish decision to institute the Order of
> > Canada in a single class rather than the five classes initially
> > proposed by Vincent Massey.
>
> Agreed, the first version was undatisfactory - the problem was not with the
> single class of the Order but rather the way in which lesser honours were
> developed. The initial version would have met your preference for a top tier
> exclusive order. The lesser award was awkwardly termed a medal of service of
> the order of Canada and staisfied no one. The transformation of the order
> into three tiers and the trandormation fo the medal of service into the
> officer class addressed this concern.
Not really. Even after the three classes were established the Order
remained (and remains) inadequate for the purpose of honouring all
those deserving of some form of senior award. This became evident from
the outset -- the original statutory limitations for the various
classes had to be increased and it was eventually decided that
Meritorious Services Decorations needed to be established to further
ease pressure and fill a gap on the lower rung that the Order was
unable to fill. The Meritorious Service Decorations were based upon the
Canada Medal, which was originally intended to accompany a five class
Canadian Order. Today the Order of Canada continues to suffer from the
government's failure to restructure it into five classes -- which would
have transformed the senior class of "Companion" into a middle class.
The number of Companions is currently restricted to 165 -- which means
there can be more Companions of the Order of Canada than members of the
Garter, Thistle, Merit and Companions of Honour combined! Canada
requires an honour that distinguishes the truly outstanding from the
very accomplished.
The amateurish approach to honours that has been displayed by the
Canadian government was nowhere more obvious than in the ludicrous
decision in 1998 that resulted in a change to the order of precedence
such that all three levels of the Order of Canada now rank above all
Canadian honours excluding the Victoria Cross and Cross of Valour.
Consequently a Commander of the Order of Military Merit (a senior
Canadian general for example) now ranks below a Member of the Order of
Canada (a local charity fundraiser).
I agree that the non-partisan selection committee is excellent and I
have long argued that it should be emulated elsewhere.
>>In
> > particular the creation of the third class of the order to recognize
> > exceptional
> > lifetime service at the local level (the other classes were primarily
> > for national contributions) has provided a way to honour individuals who
> > might otherwise not be eligible for the awrd of one of the high orders.
In this respect the CM is no different from the MBE. Indeed in many
respects the Order of Canada closely resembles the Order of the British
Empire. However again, there is a problem with an award that places
Canada's most outstanding a mere two classes above those who have
performed exceptionally at the local level.
I
> > think the process of discerning recipients might be emulated with
> > advantage.
> > There are of course problems with the Canadian Honours system - including
> > the
> > absence of a diplomatic award, but as the system matures I would expect
> > that the problems will eventually be rectified."
Alas this again merely highilghts the lack of foresight of those who
instituted, administered and continue to adminster our honours stystem.
> > RHM - IMHO the Canadian Honours System is a very poor system to
> > emulate. The Order of Canada is over stretched and is in desperate need
> > of restructuring -- ideally into five classes (the creation of the
> > Meritorious Service Decorations was the government's unsatisfactory
> > method of attempting to reduce the burden placed upon the Order).
>
> I would agree that the meritorious service decorations need to be
> restructured - and in particular the peculiar "Caring Canadian Award" needs
> be included within the scheme of meritorious services.
IMHO this unimaginative and frankly rather embarassing award should be
abandoned altogether and replaced with something that honours those in
the voluntary sector without sounding like an award spononsored by a
television station.
There is likely a
> place for a junior order (an Order of Merit) - and I would agree with you
> about the need to take a look at the place of the Order of Merit of the
> Police Forces - and my personal preference would be for an Order of Merit
> with seperate Military, Police and Civil divisions
I agree with a military and police division.
(the latter also creating
> opportunites to reward non-uniformed public service although much more
> broadly focused to include government and community service).
> I think if you look at the points I made there are two things particularly
> worthy of emulation as far as Canadian Honours - the first is the way in
> which they conform to the sensibilities of an egalitarian society (Sweden,
> Ireland and Switzerland could take note) and the second is the non-political
> way of discerning potential recipients of the Order of Canada.
I have never disagreed with your second point.
>
> The
> > Order of Merit of the Police Forces is unnecessary and should not have
> > been established. Its creation highlights the shoddy and haphazard
> > manner in which the honours system has been allowed to evolve and the
> > absence of any real plan or structure. The provincial Orders were a
> > mistake and should never have been anything more than medals of
> > achievement. The entire Canadian System could do with a complete
> > overhaul (part of which should include the creation of a single class
> > Order restricted to 24 to rank ahead of the Order of Canada --
> > preferably called the Order of Saint Lawrence--a name first proposed in
> > 1866 and then again in 1935, 1951 and (unofficially) in the 1960s).
>
> I would agree with the haphazard developemnt of the Canadian honours
> system - and for historical/political reasons it could not be otherwise.
On the contrary it could very easily have been otherwise and had the
conservatives been in power we might very well have seen the
institution of a far more agreeable system.
> Canada has matured to the point where this could be reconsidered.
Unfortunately, knowing the attitudes of the relevant offices, I
sincerely doubt it.
> I disagree with you with respect to the development of provincial honours
> and perhaps this reflects our different perspectives on the Canadian
> federation. For example I cannot conceive of a satisfactory way in which the
> Canadian Crown could satisfy the place of L'Ordre national du Quebec.
> Services to the several provinces are distinct from service to the nation
> and the authority of the provincial crowns is in different areas....
The so-called "Provincial Orders" are nothing more than over-inflated
medals and really cannot be regarded as "Orders" in any true sense of
the term. The Queen is not the Sovereign of the various provincial
"Orders" (whereas she is Sovereign of the national Orders). All the
provincial honours and awards in Canada have been created by acts of
legislatures. No provincial order was created by an order-in-council of
a provincial lieutenant-governor (although the Saskatchewn Award of
Merit--precursor to the Order of Merit was created this way). I don't
see any legal impediment to doing this, but I suspect that provincial
governments felt that their honours would have more heft if they were
the result of legislation rather than a purely executive or
administrative act. But right there they lose any sense of being the
result of the will of the Crown. Certainly, if one holds a very strict
understanding of the Sovereign as fons honorum, then honours
established by a legislature, even though in theory this means the
Sovereign in Parliament, are at least tainted. Regardless of what I
think of the Canadian honours system as a whole, I have to admit that
it was created by the Sovereign of Canada directly. But the Crown in a
provincial legislature is a legal fiction, a very pleasant one indeed,
but hardly one likely to convince anybody (certainly the provinces do
not present their honours systems in this way) that a provincial honour
or award is a "token of the Sovereign's favour" or that it comes in any
way from the Sovereign.
I do not have much objection to the establishment of provincial medals
honouring local achievement however I do object to the establishment of
provincial orders (and don't mention their ghastly insignia!) and I
very much regret the 1991 decision of the federal government to
recognise these awards and accord them a place in the order of
precedence. However, the fact that the federal government was
traditionally very reluctant to grant provincial honours official
status certainly suggests that my concerns were held by others as well.
The silliness of provincial Orders can be demonstrated with the
following example: if the Ontario legislature enacted legislation
establishing titular honours and the lieutenant governor invested a
person as a Knight Commander of the Order of Ontario, would this title
be recognised internationally?
> As far as the Order of St. Lawrence - its time has passed at least as far as
> the name goes.
I agree that the current political climate is not favourable to this
name and certainly I would be most suprised were it ever used -- as I
said in my original post, a new single class Order would "preferably"
be called the Order of St. Lawrence, but I am under no illusions as to
the unlikelihood of this ever becoming reality.
I could not see it gaining acceptance as the premier order
> despite the hisotrical importance of the St. Lawrence River and Seaway. Its
> current associations are purely regional (Central Canada) and its allusion
> to a European bishop/saint would not satisfy the test of multicultural
> acceptability. Such a premier order might be possible were it to allude to a
> value or virtue and if ditinct criteria could be developed that would
> distinguish it from the highest class of the Order of Canada - for example
> for outstanding contributions to nation building. If I might suggest the
> simplest symbolism might be the three maple leaves conjoined on a single
> sprig or a name such as the Order of the Confederation - although you might
> have other worthy suggestions.
The name you suggest has some merit although I would prefer a name
which conjures up romantic notions of Canada (be they historical or
natural).
As for the maple leaves -- no! no! no! Enough with the leaves! The
ubiquitous maple leaf must be the world's most over-used national
symbol. The Canadian habit of plastering maple leaves over everything
from the McDonalds golden arch to personal coats of arms to the logos
of various national institutions has become something of a joke.
In terms of national honours we find the maple leaf prominently
displayed on virtually every one:
Orders of Canada, Military Merit and Merit of the Poliec Forces, Cross
of Valour, Star of Courage, Medal of Bravery, Star of Military Valour,
Medal of Military Valour, Meritorious Service Cross, Meritorious
Service Medal, etc. etc.
It's time to find another symbol!
>
> >
> > The New Zealand honours system is far better than that found in Canada
> > and is one which every one of Her Majesty's realms (excluding the UK)
> > would do well to emulate.
> >
> With no criticism of a their approach the NZ system would not fit Canada's
> necessarily loose federal structure nor Canadian multicultural
> sensibilities.
I disagree. Canada could learn much from NZ -- New Zealand's system of
honours comprises the single class Order of New Zealand (restricted to
twenty), the five class New Zealand Order of Merit, and the single
class Queen's Service Order (in two divisions and with a medal).
Importantly, members of the Royal Family are classed as "extra" rather
than "honorary" appointments and citizens of those countries of which
HM The Queen is sovereign are eligible for ordinary membership--these
are two distinctions which Canada has regrettably failed to implement
(and which resulted in the unfortunate appointment of HM Queen
Elizabeth the Queen Mother, a former Queen consort and mother of the
current sovereign, as an "honorary" Companion of the Order of Canada).
Kind regards,
Rafal H-M
tres...@gmail.com
> changed in case some anti-Christian sailor is
> offended passing along it?
Now, now- don't go giving any ideas to Mr. Makepeace....
George Lucki
news:1133673322.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> George Lucki wrote:
>> <hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133576759.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Agreed. There is a place for a higher level very exclusive award for truly
outstanding contributions to the nation.
>
> The amateurish approach to honours that has been displayed by the
> Canadian government was nowhere more obvious than in the ludicrous
> decision in 1998 that resulted in a change to the order of precedence
> such that all three levels of the Order of Canada now rank above all
> Canadian honours excluding the Victoria Cross and Cross of Valour.
> Consequently a Commander of the Order of Military Merit (a senior
> Canadian general for example) now ranks below a Member of the Order of
> Canada (a local charity fundraiser).
I think this change underscores the desire to position the Order of Canada
as the nation's premier order. I would emphasize that there have been more
than 50 appointments to the Order of Canada for outstanding and
distinguished military and police service. Among those appointed to the
first class of the Order of Canada have been five Chiefs of Defense Staff
while others in that position or distinguished generals have received
appointments in the second class of Officer. My own feeling is that military
service has been chronically under-represented in awards of the Order of
Canada. I think this is one of the factors that led to the creation of a
newer Order of Military Merit which creation actually contributed to the
continued under-representation of members of the Canadian Forces in the
Order of Canada. This, rather than the Order of Precedence is the problem
that continues to demand resolution. Even in this Year of the Veteran there
was the opportunity to recognize more contributions made by those in
military service.
>> > I think the process of discerning recipients might be emulated with
>> > advantage.
>> > There are of course problems with the Canadian Honours system -
>> > including
>> > the
>> > absence of a diplomatic award, but as the system matures I would expect
>> > that the problems will eventually be rectified."
>
> Alas this again merely highilghts the lack of foresight of those who
> instituted, administered and continue to adminster our honours stystem.
>
Not necessarily lack of foresight but rather some discomfort with the
traditional giving and receiving of orders as diplomatic gifts or
recognition.
>>
>> The
>> > Order of Merit of the Police Forces is unnecessary and should not have
>> > been established. Its creation highlights the shoddy and haphazard
>> > manner in which the honours system has been allowed to evolve and the
>> > absence of any real plan or structure. The provincial Orders were a
>> > mistake and should never have been anything more than medals of
>> > achievement. The entire Canadian System could do with a complete
>> > overhaul (part of which should include the creation of a single class
>> > Order restricted to 24 to rank ahead of the Order of Canada --
>> > preferably called the Order of Saint Lawrence--a name first proposed in
>> > 1866 and then again in 1935, 1951 and (unofficially) in the 1960s).
>>
>> I would agree with the haphazard developemnt of the Canadian honours
>> system - and for historical/political reasons it could not be otherwise.
>
> On the contrary it could very easily have been otherwise and had the
> conservatives been in power we might very well have seen the
> institution of a far more agreeable system.
>
And yet the several Conservative governments did not institute the more
agreeable system.
>> Canada has matured to the point where this could be reconsidered.
>
> Unfortunately, knowing the attitudes of the relevant offices, I
> sincerely doubt it.
>
The attitudes of these relevant offices may be out of step with popular
sentiment. The decision to implement the Order of Canada was predicted to be
controversial and was not. There has been in fact no discernible political
controversy in the honours created to date. The creation of an order of
knighthood - now that would be controversial.
>> I disagree with you with respect to the development of provincial honours
>> and perhaps this reflects our different perspectives on the Canadian
>> federation. For example I cannot conceive of a satisfactory way in which
>> the
>> Canadian Crown could satisfy the place of L'Ordre national du Quebec.
>> Services to the several provinces are distinct from service to the nation
>> and the authority of the provincial crowns is in different areas....
>
> The so-called "Provincial Orders" are nothing more than over-inflated
> medals and really cannot be regarded as "Orders" in any true sense of
> the term. The Queen is not the Sovereign of the various provincial
> "Orders" (whereas she is Sovereign of the national Orders). All the
> provincial honours and awards in Canada have been created by acts of
> legislatures. No provincial order was created by an order-in-council of
> a provincial lieutenant-governor (although the Saskatchewn Award of
> Merit--precursor to the Order of Merit was created this way). I don't
> see any legal impediment to doing this, but I suspect that provincial
> governments felt that their honours would have more heft if they were
> the result of legislation rather than a purely executive or
> administrative act. But right there they lose any sense of being the
> result of the will of the Crown. Certainly, if one holds a very strict
> understanding of the Sovereign as fons honorum, then honours
> established by a legislature, even though in theory this means the
> Sovereign in Parliament, are at least tainted.
I would respectfully disagree. The mechanism of an Order in Council would be
an act of the Lieutenant-Governor on the advice of the elected members of
the Executive Council. The Royal Assent to legislation is an act of the
Lieutenant Governor on the advice of the elected members of the Executive
Council subsequent to the passage of legislation of by the Legislative
Assembly. It *is* always the will of the Crown that legislation lawfully
adopted by legislatures be implemented. That is a clear constitutional
convention. The passage of legislation does nothing to taint the creation of
a decoration or order or to diminish the expression of the Sovereign's will
to create such an order. The fact that the legislation and
regulations/statutes does not establish that the Queen is the Sovereign is
unfortunate and reflects the still inadequate understanding of the nature of
honours within our political leadership and a replication of ommissions as
most provinces adopted similar frameworks for both their legislation and the
insignia of their provincial orders of merit.
> Regardless of what I
> think of the Canadian honours system as a whole, I have to admit that
> it was created by the Sovereign of Canada directly. But the Crown in a
> provincial legislature is a legal fiction, a very pleasant one indeed,
> but hardly one likely to convince anybody (certainly the provinces do
> not present their honours systems in this way) that a provincial honour
> or award is a "token of the Sovereign's favour" or that it comes in any
> way from the Sovereign.
>
Not a the crown of a sovereign state but a crown nonetheless - albeit one
that is in some ways dependent on the federal crown. Certainly much more
than a pleasant legal ficiton.
> I do not have much objection to the establishment of provincial medals
> honouring local achievement however I do object to the establishment of
> provincial orders (and don't mention their ghastly insignia!) and I
> very much regret the 1991 decision of the federal government to
> recognise these awards and accord them a place in the order of
> precedence. However, the fact that the federal government was
> traditionally very reluctant to grant provincial honours official
> status certainly suggests that my concerns were held by others as well.
> The silliness of provincial Orders can be demonstrated with the
> following example: if the Ontario legislature enacted legislation
> establishing titular honours and the lieutenant governor invested a
> person as a Knight Commander of the Order of Ontario, would this title
> be recognised internationally?
I'll mention their 'ghastly insignia'. De gustibus...
The insignia for the most part feature stylized provincial flowers and
arms.
I don't know that the federal governemnt was the 'traditionally very
reluctant' to recognize the status of provincial honours. After all in 1991
the first of the provincial orders to request federal recognition was -
L'Ordre national du Quebec just past its fifth anniversary. The capacity of
the provinces to create their own honours was recognized by the federal
government much earlier. These awards were awards of the Province rather
than the federal government and federal recognition would not necessarily be
sought. Alberta - often at odds with the federal governemnt had established
the Alberta Order of Excellence in the 1970's and saw no reason to approach
the federal crown for any approval or recognition. The 1991 decision to
include provincial orders in the national order of precedence was an example
of federal-provincial accomodation and a positive development.
As far as international recognition - it is rather unlikely that Ontario
will establish the rank Knight Commander of the Order of Ontario but Quebec
has already established the rank (titre) Chevalier de l'Ordre national du
Québec. The Order is conferred in either the honorary rank of Chevalier or
Grand Officier to emminent foreigners (non-residents of Quebec) including
heads of state (French Presidents) and the heads of international
organizations (eg, ICAO). I presume there is no difficulty in the
recognition of the order in the states (primarily France) upon whose
citizens the order has been conferred. I would expect that Canadian
diplomats would confirm in response to questions that these are orders
within the Canadian order of precedence.
Such a premier order might be possible were it to allude to a
>> value or virtue and if ditinct criteria could be developed that would
>> distinguish it from the highest class of the Order of Canada - for
>> example
>> for outstanding contributions to nation building. If I might suggest the
>> simplest symbolism might be the three maple leaves conjoined on a single
>> sprig or a name such as the Order of the Confederation - although you
>> might
>> have other worthy suggestions.
>
> The name you suggest has some merit although I would prefer a name
> which conjures up romantic notions of Canada (be they historical or
> natural).
>
Any ideas? It is actually not easy to conjour up appropriate natioanl
symbols.The beaver is the animal symbol of Canada but I am not predisposed
to a rodent as the symbol to be used on what would be the premier Canadian
order. The words of the national anthem make reference to the "true north
strong and free" and this does have a romantic appeal - so how about the
Order of the True North (the motto would need be different as fortis et
liber has already been taken as the motto of Alberta) and except that the
words of the anthem are different in the other national language. It is not
easy.
> As for the maple leaves -- no! no! no! Enough with the leaves! The
> ubiquitous maple leaf must be the world's most over-used national
> symbol. The Canadian habit of plastering maple leaves over everything
> from the McDonalds golden arch to personal coats of arms to the logos
> of various national institutions has become something of a joke.
>
> In terms of national honours we find the maple leaf prominently
> displayed on virtually every one:
> Orders of Canada, Military Merit and Merit of the Poliec Forces, Cross
> of Valour, Star of Courage, Medal of Bravery, Star of Military Valour,
> Medal of Military Valour, Meritorious Service Cross, Meritorious
> Service Medal, etc. etc.
>
> It's time to find another symbol!
>
Agreed. What would you suggest?
>>
>> >
>> > The New Zealand honours system is far better than that found in Canada
>> > and is one which every one of Her Majesty's realms (excluding the UK)
>> > would do well to emulate.
>> >
>> With no criticism of a their approach the NZ system would not fit
>> Canada's
>> necessarily loose federal structure nor Canadian multicultural
>> sensibilities.
>
> I disagree. Canada could learn much from NZ -- New Zealand's system of
> honours comprises the single class Order of New Zealand (restricted to
> twenty), the five class New Zealand Order of Merit, and the single
> class Queen's Service Order (in two divisions and with a medal).
> Importantly, members of the Royal Family are classed as "extra" rather
> than "honorary" appointments and citizens of those countries of which
> HM The Queen is sovereign are eligible for ordinary membership--these
> are two distinctions which Canada has regrettably failed to implement
> (and which resulted in the unfortunate appointment of HM Queen
> Elizabeth the Queen Mother, a former Queen consort and mother of the
> current sovereign, as an "honorary" Companion of the Order of Canada).
>
There are important distinctions. While as I understand Canadians can vote
in UK elections but only Canadian citizens vote in Canadian elections. There
is a lack of symmetry in some of these matters. UK and other commonwealth
citizens would as non-Canadian citizens be classed as honorary or foreign
members. The Queen is the Sovereign of the Order but other appointments
would in this scheme would necessarily be 'honorary'. There is merit to the
category of extra members but I would expect that in Canada the conferral of
the Order of Canada on members of the Royal Family other than the monarch
who is automatically the Sovereign of the order would only occur in
exceptional circumstances and the honorary category would apply. With the
exception of the Sovereign I amm not clear that other members of the Royal
Family are per se Canadian citizen, I should also note that there have been
a total of only 5 honorary appointments to the Order of Canada in total.
Kind regards,\
George Lucki
Andrew Chaplin
> Oh my goodness, are you serious? Do you think the name of the river
should be
> changed in case some anti-Christian sailor is offended passing along
it? How
> about Saint Louis, should the city fathers change its name? And San
Francisco,
> San Antonio, Santa Barbara, et al?
In our drive to be the most liberal of countries, anything that smacks
in the slightest of a Christian influence or origins cannot now make
it into anything official. The CF, now that it has Muslim clergy in
the Chaplains Branch and is looking for a way to involve native North
Americans in delivering "spiritual services" or whatever to aboriginal
members, is considering abandoning the badge the Maltese cross and
motto of "IN HOC SIGNO VINCES" of the branch badge. (Sorry, Rafal,
but, whatever they choose, there will probably be a wreath of maple
leaves around it.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
hey...@hotmail.com
> > Canadian government was nowhere more obvious than in the ludicrous
> > decision in 1998 that resulted in a change to the order of precedence
> > such that all three levels of the Order of Canada now rank above all
> > Canadian honours excluding the Victoria Cross and Cross of Valour.
> > Consequently a Commander of the Order of Military Merit (a senior
> > Canadian general for example) now ranks below a Member of the Order of
> > Canada (a local charity fundraiser).
>
> I think this change underscores the desire to position the Order of Canada
> as the nation's premier order.
Yes, this was the flawed reasoning however it lacks any common sense.
To rank a CM above a CMM is akin to ranking a CMG above a GBE or a CB
above a GCVO. It is simply silly.
I would emphasize that there have been more
> than 50 appointments to the Order of Canada for outstanding and
> distinguished military and police service. Among those appointed to the
> first class of the Order of Canada have been five Chiefs of Defense Staff
> while others in that position or distinguished generals have received
> appointments in the second class of Officer.
This does not alter the fact that an award of the CM to a person who
has performed exemplary work as a local charity fundraiser ranks ahead
of an award of the CMM to a person who has served the nation at the
highest level for several decades. Furthermore, not all recipients of
the CMM or OMM have received comparable membership in the Order of
Canada; and neither should they -- otherwise what is the point of
having two Orders if membership of one automatically results in
membership of the other?
My own feeling is that military
> service has been chronically under-represented in awards of the Order of
> Canada.
With some important exceptions, I do not believe that the Order of
Canada should be used to recognise military service. One of the
problems with the Order of Canada is the attempt to make it all
encompassing and be all things to all people. The Order of Military
Merit serves the needs of the military and I see no need for
replication. Whilst I do not believe it to be necessary, the only way
in which I would accept increased military representation in the Order
of Canada (not that my acceptance matters!) would be through the
creation of a military division (perhaps with crossed swords in the
angles of the snowflake). However again I see no reason for this.
> >> > I think the process of discerning recipients might be emulated with
> >> > advantage.
> >> > There are of course problems with the Canadian Honours system -
> >> > including
> >> > the
> >> > absence of a diplomatic award, but as the system matures I would expect
> >> > that the problems will eventually be rectified."
> >
> > Alas this again merely highilghts the lack of foresight of those who
> > instituted, administered and continue to adminster our honours stystem.
> >
>
> Not necessarily lack of foresight but rather some discomfort with the
> traditional giving and receiving of orders as diplomatic gifts or
> recognition.
Whilst discomfort with the concept of an "elitist" honours system
certainly existed, I cannot see how anyone can deny the bewildering
lack of foresight that marred the institution of the Order of Canada in
1967. A mere five years after its creation the single class was
expanded to three classes, the bravery decoration was abandoned in
favour of three decorations (the Star of Courage, Cross of Valour and
Medal of Bravery) and the Order of Military Merit was instituted. If
this does not suggest lack of foresight I do not know what does;
particularly when one considers that those who advocated for the
institution of a more extensive honours system were ignored.
The increase in the statutory limitation of the classes of the Order of
Canada, the creation of new honours in 1984 and 1991 and the
institution of a new Order in 2001 provides further evidence of the
"make it up as we go along" policy that has predominated for the last
thirty years.
>
> >>
> >> The
> >> > Order of Merit of the Police Forces is unnecessary and should not have
> >> > been established. Its creation highlights the shoddy and haphazard
> >> > manner in which the honours system has been allowed to evolve and the
> >> > absence of any real plan or structure. The provincial Orders were a
> >> > mistake and should never have been anything more than medals of
> >> > achievement. The entire Canadian System could do with a complete
> >> > overhaul (part of which should include the creation of a single class
> >> > Order restricted to 24 to rank ahead of the Order of Canada --
> >> > preferably called the Order of Saint Lawrence--a name first proposed in
> >> > 1866 and then again in 1935, 1951 and (unofficially) in the 1960s).
> >>
> >> I would agree with the haphazard developemnt of the Canadian honours
> >> system - and for historical/political reasons it could not be otherwise.
> >
> > On the contrary it could very easily have been otherwise and had the
> > conservatives been in power we might very well have seen the
> > institution of a far more agreeable system.
> >
>
> And yet the several Conservative governments did not institute the more
> agreeable system.
Several Conservative governments? Excluding the government of Joe
Clark (which only lasted a few months) there have only been two
Conservative governments (in direct succession from 1984-1993) since
the establishment of the Order of Canada. The Tories were out of power
from 1963-1979 and 1980-1984, the critical periods during which the
Canadian honours system was established and developed -- it is to this
period that I refer. The (neo) Conservative government that was elected
in 1984 was a far cry from the traditonal conservative party of earlier
years and did not have much interest in honours.
FWIW, the conservative government of RB Bennet (1930-1935) abandoned
the principle laid out in the Nickle Resolution and resumed the
practice of submitting recommendations for honours to the Sovereign.
The Tories were then out of power for twenty years and did not resume
office until 1957-1963; however there was not much appetite for a
homegrown national honours system within the staunchy traditional
conservative party at this time and certainly Diefenbaker, the most
vocal opponent of the Maple Leaf flag, was not the one to institute it.
I respectfully disagree.
I do not hold the modern view of the "provincial crown", a view which
has now become very popular among political scientists who care at all
about the matter. But it must be conceded that it was an interpretation
of the division of legislative power that was arrived at very slowly,
very reluctantly on the part of those who opposed it, and with a great
deal of opposition. I still maintain that the 1892 Maritime Bank case
simply establishes that a provincial lieutenant-governor is a
functional not personal representative of the Sovereign because he or
she carries out those executive functions which would belong to the
Sovereign but somehow now belong to a province once the constitution
has removed certain legislative responsibilities from the Parliament of
Canada and assigned them to the legislatures of the provinces. I shall
change my view only when provincial lieutenant-governors are appointed
by the Queen, not by the Governor-General of Canada. It is quite clear
in the Constitution Act that lieutenant-governors, not the Queen, are
part of the provincial legislatures. I think this view of the "federal
(their word, not mine; if I can't use "Dominion", I would use
"national") crown" and the "provincial crown" has become popular in
direct proportion to the degree to which people have ceased to care
that the Queen has been progressively driven out of actual
participation in Canadian political (by which I mean "civic", not party
political) and constitutional life. Since she hardly does anything at
the national level any more, compared to what she did at the beginning
of her reign, and has been reduced to a merely symbolic "crown", it's
logical for people to interpret her same actively non-present but
symbolic role in a province as a real "provincial crown".
To tie this back to the issue of Provincial Orders, the core of the
difficulty lies in the relationship of a Canadian province to the Crown
(as defined in the Interpretation Act, for example, to get away from
all the popular talk now about the "provincial Crown"). To illustrate
the problem we can pose the following questions: Can a province advise
the Queen to grant her (as I regard them) honours? The answer is
clearly no. Can a province advise the Queen to create distinctive
honours for that province? The answer is again clearly no. And this
arises from the fact that a province has no link to the real Crown, no
matter how loyal it may be. A provincial premier can no more advise the
Sovereign than a mayor of a city can. In the absence of any direct link
to the Sovereign it is impossible to regard provincial Orders as a
"token of the Sovereign's favour" and consequently I fail to see how
they can be regarded as Orders in the true sense.
>
> > Regardless of what I
> > think of the Canadian honours system as a whole, I have to admit that
> > it was created by the Sovereign of Canada directly. But the Crown in a
> > provincial legislature is a legal fiction, a very pleasant one indeed,
> > but hardly one likely to convince anybody (certainly the provinces do
> > not present their honours systems in this way) that a provincial honour
> > or award is a "token of the Sovereign's favour" or that it comes in any
> > way from the Sovereign.
> >
>
> Not a the crown of a sovereign state but a crown nonetheless - albeit one
> that is in some ways dependent on the federal crown. Certainly much more
> than a pleasant legal ficiton.
I disagree. Vide supra.
>
>
> > I do not have much objection to the establishment of provincial medals
> > honouring local achievement however I do object to the establishment of
> > provincial orders (and don't mention their ghastly insignia!) and I
> > very much regret the 1991 decision of the federal government to
> > recognise these awards and accord them a place in the order of
> > precedence. However, the fact that the federal government was
> > traditionally very reluctant to grant provincial honours official
> > status certainly suggests that my concerns were held by others as well.
> > The silliness of provincial Orders can be demonstrated with the
> > following example: if the Ontario legislature enacted legislation
> > establishing titular honours and the lieutenant governor invested a
> > person as a Knight Commander of the Order of Ontario, would this title
> > be recognised internationally?
>
> I'll mention their 'ghastly insignia'. De gustibus...
> The insignia for the most part feature stylized provincial flowers and
> arms.
Yes, I know. This does not make their insignia any less ghastly! The
Orders of Ontario and New Brunswick and particularly ugly.
Whilst I am ranting, let me also say that I find it utterly ludicrous
that members of the Order of Manitoba are entitled to append the
post-nominals "O.M." to their name. These nominals suggest membership
of the extremely prestigious Order of Merit (quite an elevation!) for
which Canadians are also eligible. Certainly a member of the Order of
Manitoba travelling in the UK might receive a much greater reception on
his travels than he might have expected.... MOM, O.Mb or O.Man would
have been far more suitable and the failure to remedy this again
demonstrates a problem with the administraton of honours in Canada.
> I don't know that the federal governemnt was the 'traditionally very
> reluctant' to recognize the status of provincial honours.
Yes it was. Provincial honours actually date back several decades
prior to the 1980s/1990s. Quebec established its first Order in 1925
and as early as1938 the federal deputy minister of justice expressed
concern that provinces might establish their own systems of honours and
warned against according them any legitimacy. The federal government
was opposed to official recognition of provincial honours for several
decades.
The 1991 decision to
> include provincial orders in the national order of precedence was an example
> of federal-provincial accomodation and a positive development.
This lamentable decision showed the willingness of the government to
abandon a long-standing policy, based upon a sound understanding of
national honours, in an attempt to appease the provinces. I was never a
fan of appeasement!
> As far as international recognition - it is rather unlikely that Ontario
> will establish the rank Knight Commander of the Order of Ontario but Quebec
> has already established the rank (titre) Chevalier de l'Ordre national du
> Québec. The Order is conferred in either the honorary rank of Chevalier or
> Grand Officier to emminent foreigners (non-residents of Quebec) including
> heads of state (French Presidents) and the heads of international
> organizations (eg, ICAO). I presume there is no difficulty in the
> recognition of the order in the states (primarily France) upon whose
> citizens the order has been conferred.
A Chevalier and a Knight Commander are very different. The rank of
chevalier is traditionally the lowest class of an Order and does not
entitle the receipient to the style of "Sir" (a Quebec chevalier is
never styled "Sir XXXX"). It cannot be regarded as the equivalent of
the higher class of "knight commander" and indeed cannot be compared
with knighthoods in general.
I maintain that were the Ontario legislature to enact legislation
establishing a titular honour I can not envisage a plausible scenario
whereby the use of such a title on the international stage would be
regarded as legitimate, let alone equivalent to the knighthoods
conferred in the UK and until fairly recently in Australia and New
Zealand.
We must also ask whether the Ontario lieutenant-governor has the right
to bestow the accolade. In the absence of a direct connection to the
Sovereign, and accordingly the lack of any claim to be a fons honorum,
I do not see how such a right can exist. Consequently although it is
possible for the Ontario Legislature to confer a title upon someone,
the inability of the lieutenant-governor to confer the accolade as the
Sovereign's representative further erodes the claim that Provincial
Orders are real Orders.
I would expect that Canadian
> diplomats would confirm in response to questions that these are orders
> within the Canadian order of precedence.
>
> Such a premier order might be possible were it to allude to a
> >> value or virtue and if ditinct criteria could be developed that would
> >> distinguish it from the highest class of the Order of Canada - for
> >> example
> >> for outstanding contributions to nation building. If I might suggest the
> >> simplest symbolism might be the three maple leaves conjoined on a single
> >> sprig or a name such as the Order of the Confederation - although you
> >> might
> >> have other worthy suggestions.
> >
> > The name you suggest has some merit although I would prefer a name
> > which conjures up romantic notions of Canada (be they historical or
> > natural).
> >
> Any ideas? It is actually not easy to conjour up appropriate natioanl
> symbols.
I like "Order of the Polar/North Star" however Sweden has already
claimed this. "Order of the Great Dominion" appeals to me (but I
suspect to few others). Names are difficult. The best option would be
to rename the Order of Canada as the Canadian Order of Merit and create
a new single class Order of Canada. I would also be happy with an
appropriate name drawn from one of the languages of the native peoples.
> > As for the maple leaves -- no! no! no! Enough with the leaves! The
> > ubiquitous maple leaf must be the world's most over-used national
> > symbol. The Canadian habit of plastering maple leaves over everything
> > from the McDonalds golden arch to personal coats of arms to the logos
> > of various national institutions has become something of a joke.
> >
> > In terms of national honours we find the maple leaf prominently
> > displayed on virtually every one:
> > Orders of Canada, Military Merit and Merit of the Poliec Forces, Cross
> > of Valour, Star of Courage, Medal of Bravery, Star of Military Valour,
> > Medal of Military Valour, Meritorious Service Cross, Meritorious
> > Service Medal, etc. etc.
> >
> > It's time to find another symbol!
> >
>
> Agreed. What would you suggest?
I think a Narwhal rampant (the "sea unicorn" of old) would be rather
nice.
> >
> > I disagree. Canada could learn much from NZ -- New Zealand's system of
> > honours comprises the single class Order of New Zealand (restricted to
> > twenty), the five class New Zealand Order of Merit, and the single
> > class Queen's Service Order (in two divisions and with a medal).
> > Importantly, members of the Royal Family are classed as "extra" rather
> > than "honorary" appointments and citizens of those countries of which
> > HM The Queen is sovereign are eligible for ordinary membership--these
> > are two distinctions which Canada has regrettably failed to implement
> > (and which resulted in the unfortunate appointment of HM Queen
> > Elizabeth the Queen Mother, a former Queen consort and mother of the
> > current sovereign, as an "honorary" Companion of the Order of Canada).
> >
> There are important distinctions. While as I understand Canadians can vote
> in UK elections but only Canadian citizens vote in Canadian elections.
I do not see this as an important distinction or particularly relevant.
To vote in kiwi elections one must be a permanent resident irrespective
of whether or not one is a commonwealth or UK citizen.
There
> is a lack of symmetry in some of these matters. UK and other commonwealth
> citizens would as non-Canadian citizens be classed as honorary or foreign
> members.
Again, with the exception of the elections cited supra, I believe that
non-kiwi citizens have the same status in kiwi law as non-canadian
citizens have in canadian law. This has not prevented the NZ honours
system from recognising citizens of those realms over which HM is
sovereign and I see no reason preventing the Canadian honours system
from implementing a similar rule. If NZ is willing to honour
Australians and Canadians as "ordinary" members on the grounds that we
share the same monarch, I do not see why Canada cannot reciprocate.
There is no reason to assume that such a rule would have any impact
upon Canadian law in general.
>The Queen is the Sovereign of the Order but other appointments
> would in this scheme would necessarily be 'honorary'.
I see no reason to claim this as necessary.
There is merit to the
> category of extra members but I would expect that in Canada the conferral of
> the Order of Canada on members of the Royal Family other than the monarch
> who is automatically the Sovereign of the order would only occur in
> exceptional circumstances and the honorary category would apply.
This is the way it works however it is highly regrettable and
completely unnecessary. It would bring honour upon the Order of Canada
were the Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh or Princess Royal to wear
the insignia on their medal bars as they do currently as extra
companions of the Queen's Service Order of NZ. The Prince of Wales is
also an AK in the Order of Australia (in fact I believe he may even
take precedence over others in this Order).
With the
> exception of the Sovereign I amm not clear that other members of the Royal
> Family are per se Canadian citizen,
Members of the Royal Family are not Canadian citizens but, AFAIK,
neither are they Australian or NZ citizens yet neither of these
countries have classed them as "honorary" members of their Orders.
Kind regards,
Rafal HM
hey...@hotmail.com
Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> "Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
> news:dmt3e...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> > Oh my goodness, are you serious? Do you think the name of the river
> should be
> > changed in case some anti-Christian sailor is offended passing along
> it? How
> > about Saint Louis, should the city fathers change its name? And San
> Francisco,
> > San Antonio, Santa Barbara, et al?
>
> In our drive to be the most liberal of countries, anything that smacks
> in the slightest of a Christian influence or origins cannot now make
> it into anything official. The CF, now that it has Muslim clergy in
> the Chaplains Branch and is looking for a way to involve native North
> Americans in delivering "spiritual services" or whatever to aboriginal
> members, is considering abandoning the badge the Maltese cross and
> motto of "IN HOC SIGNO VINCES" of the branch badge. (Sorry, Rafal,
> but, whatever they choose, there will probably be a wreath of maple
> leaves around it.)
You're quite right of course. I long ago reconciled myself to the fact
that the maple leaf will be found *somewhere* on virtually every
Canadian decoration.
RHM
George Lucki
<hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133730216.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> as the nation's premier order.
To rank a CM above a CMM is akin to ranking a CMG above a GBE or a CB
above a GCVO. It is simply silly.
GL> But it in this regard it is not like the order of wear for British
orders where the higher grade of any order is worn ahead of a lower grade of
even a higher order. The intention is that all the grades of the Order of
Canada rank ahead of the other national orders. Just because this is
different than the British practice does not make it silly. Those with a CMM
are eligible for the higher award of a CM, OC or CC. The CMM is simply a
lower level award than any award of the Order of Canada. I do understand
that you disagree with this situation and would wish the Order of Military
Merit and Order of Merit of the Police Forces to rank relatively higher so
that higher levels of award within these orders ranks ahead of the lower
grades of Canada's premier order.
I would emphasize that there have been more
> than 50 appointments to the Order of Canada for outstanding and
> distinguished military and police service. Among those appointed to the
> first class of the Order of Canada have been five Chiefs of Defense Staff
> while others in that position or distinguished generals have received
> appointments in the second class of Officer.
RHM> This does not alter the fact that an award of the CM to a person who
has performed exemplary work as a local charity fundraiser ranks ahead
of an award of the CMM to a person who has served the nation at the
highest level for several decades. Furthermore, not all recipients of
the CMM or OMM have received comparable membership in the Order of
Canada; and neither should they -- otherwise what is the point of
having two Orders if membership of one automatically results in
membership of the other?
GL> I'm not advocating automatic appointment of CMMs or OMs to the the Order
of Canada either. Even the lowest grade of the Order of Canada is for a
lifetime of distinguished services to the nation or the local community and
I think you may be inadvertently diminishing the contributions of many CMs.
I would hope that worthy military leaders might continue from time to time
to be appointed to the Order of Canada.
My own feeling is that military
> service has been chronically under-represented in awards of the Order of
> Canada.
RHM> With some important exceptions, I do not believe that the Order of
Canada should be used to recognise military service. One of the
problems with the Order of Canada is the attempt to make it all
encompassing and be all things to all people. The Order of Military
Merit serves the needs of the military and I see no need for
replication. Whilst I do not believe it to be necessary, the only way
in which I would accept increased military representation in the Order
of Canada (not that my acceptance matters!) would be through the
creation of a military division (perhaps with crossed swords in the
angles of the snowflake). However again I see no reason for this.
GL> Agreed. The award of the Order of Canada should be made to military
officers when their contributions fulfill the statuatory criteria of the
order. I think a number of members of the military who would have otherwise
been eligible may have been overlooked with nominations being made instead
to the Order of MM.
> Not necessarily lack of foresight but rather some discomfort with the
> traditional giving and receiving of orders as diplomatic gifts or
> recognition.
RHM > Whilst discomfort with the concept of an "elitist" honours system
certainly existed, I cannot see how anyone can deny the bewildering
lack of foresight that marred the institution of the Order of Canada in
1967. A mere five years after its creation the single class was
expanded to three classes, the bravery decoration was abandoned in
favour of three decorations (the Star of Courage, Cross of Valour and
Medal of Bravery) and the Order of Military Merit was instituted. If
this does not suggest lack of foresight I do not know what does;
particularly when one considers that those who advocated for the
institution of a more extensive honours system were ignored.
The increase in the statutory limitation of the classes of the Order of
Canada, the creation of new honours in 1984 and 1991 and the
institution of a new Order in 2001 provides further evidence of the
"make it up as we go along" policy that has predominated for the last
thirty years.
GL > Prior to the Order of Canada the Canada Medal had been created and
*never awarded* such was the discomfort with honours. I believe the
intention was to proceed in small non-controversial steps - believing that
to do more might risk politcal controversy. As it turns out there is far
less controversy and far greater acceptance of national honours.
> >> I would agree with the haphazard developemnt of the Canadian honours
> >> system - and for historical/political reasons it could not be
> >> otherwise.
> >
> > On the contrary it could very easily have been otherwise and had the
> > conservatives been in power we might very well have seen the
> > institution of a far more agreeable system.
> >
>
> And yet the several Conservative governments did not institute the more
> agreeable system.
RHM> Several Conservative governments? Excluding the government of Joe
Clark (which only lasted a few months) there have only been two
Conservative governments (in direct succession from 1984-1993) since
the establishment of the Order of Canada. The Tories were out of power
from 1963-1979 and 1980-1984, the critical periods during which the
Canadian honours system was established and developed -- it is to this
period that I refer. The (neo) Conservative government that was elected
in 1984 was a far cry from the traditonal conservative party of earlier
years and did not have much interest in honours.
FWIW, the conservative government of RB Bennet (1930-1935) abandoned
the principle laid out in the Nickle Resolution and resumed the
practice of submitting recommendations for honours to the Sovereign.
The Tories were then out of power for twenty years and did not resume
office until 1957-1963; however there was not much appetite for a
homegrown national honours system within the staunchy traditional
conservative party at this time and certainly Diefenbaker, the most
vocal opponent of the Maple Leaf flag, was not the one to institute it.
GL> The Rt. Hon. Vincent Massey was Governor General from 1952-1959. From
1957-1963 there were successive Conservative governments of John Diefenbaker
including one with a then record majority in the Commons. Yet the
Conservative governments of the day did not implement a national honours
system and did not make use of the British/Imperial system either. It was
the Liberal Pearson governments that in fact created the national orders.
Having a chance briefly in 1979-1980 the Conservatives again did not improve
the honours system an its was again the Trudeau liberals. The Mulroney
conservatives did facilitate the creation of the heraldic authority but
again did not improve the honours system except to include the Provincial
orders within the order of wear. The newest of teh national orders was again
created under a Liberal government. Over the past forty some odd years it
has been the Liberals alone who have created Canada's national orders.
RHM > I respectfully disagree.
I do not hold the modern view of the "provincial crown", a view which
has now become very popular among political scientists who care at all
about the matter. But it must be conceded that it was an interpretation
of the division of legislative power that was arrived at very slowly,
very reluctantly on the part of those who opposed it, and with a great
deal of opposition. I still maintain that the 1892 Maritime Bank case
simply establishes that a provincial lieutenant-governor is a
functional not personal representative of the Sovereign because he or
she carries out those executive functions which would belong to the
Sovereign but somehow now belong to a province once the constitution
has removed certain legislative responsibilities from the Parliament of
Canada and assigned them to the legislatures of the provinces.
GL> Before there was a Canada there were distinct colonies. It was the
several provinces that agreed to the creation of a federal governemnt and
the ceding of powers to it and the retention of others - it was not the
Constitution Act 1867 that removed powerrs form the Parliament of Canada and
assigned them to the provinces. (I recognize that Canada after Confederation
used the name of the two previously united provinces of Upper and Lower
Canada but Canada's creation dates from the seperate accession fo these
provinces and two others into a new constitutional union). Canada is a
federal state and witht he exception of the newer provinces created by
statute and carved from the northwest territory of Canada they had a prior
distinct existence. They entered Confederation dividing powers with a
federal government but maintaining their powers within areas of their
continuing jurisidiction (a limited sovereignty). The powers of the
provinces include the creation of courts and the appointment of judges to
provincial courts who dispense justice in the name of the Queen in the right
of that particular province. The constitutional view of the relationship
between the federal and provincial governments is evolving and it would not
be reasonable to hold only to a late 19th century centralist view. The
current legal and constitutional perspective is clear bout the existence of
a federal and provincial crowns. Australia also has a federal structure
where the the governors of the states are directly appointed by the
Sovereign. In Canada the appointment process has been delegated to HM
personal representative for Canada the Governor General. These are simply
different mechanisms to accomplish the same goal. The Provincial governors
although appointed by the GG in Council are nonetheless the Queen's personal
representatives in their respective provinces and carry out their duties in
the name of the provincial crown. There was an early notion that the Lt.
Gov. was a supervisory agent of the federal governemnt but of course this
has been set aside as the provinces have asserted their own sovereignty in
the areas assigned them by the constitution. Whether you may prefer a more
centralist view of the Canadian constitutional order or not the reality is
that there is a provincial crown (linked to the Canadaian Crown but
present). The most recent constitutional act was the the result of the
Supreme Court reference around the seperation of provinces - the federal
Clarity Act although maintaining that there was no right of separation
actually outlined the conditions under which the federal government would
negotiate separation (a return and/or transfer of full sovereignty) with a
province. Of course the high bar established by the federal governemnt
unilaterally would not necessarily hold up politically should there be a
clear will to separate on the aprt of a province but it clarifies what many
already acknowledged and that was that separation was a constitutionally
viable option for a province.
RHM> I shall
change my view only when provincial lieutenant-governors are appointed
by the Queen, not by the Governor-General of Canada. It is quite clear
in the Constitution Act that lieutenant-governors, not the Queen, are
part of the provincial legislatures. I think this view of the "federal
(their word, not mine; if I can't use "Dominion", I would use
"national") crown" and the "provincial crown" has become popular in
direct proportion to the degree to which people have ceased to care
that the Queen has been progressively driven out of actual
participation in Canadian political (by which I mean "civic", not party
political) and constitutional life. Since she hardly does anything at
the national level any more, compared to what she did at the beginning
of her reign, and has been reduced to a merely symbolic "crown", it's
logical for people to interpret her same actively non-present but
symbolic role in a province as a real "provincial crown".
GL> I would not project that sentiment backwards but rather see the
legislative assemblies as outgrowths of executive councils modified by
representative and responsible governemtn in their evolutions and not yet
(and perhaps never) full parliaments in the British sense. I agree that the
evolution of the Crown you describe has occurred toward an increasingly
symbolic role and the changes in the role of the GG and in the role of the
Prime Minister has muddied executive authority in Canada. The absence of a
cogent national debate on this has left us with ad hoc and perhaps poorly
thought out changes in constitutional conventions that do require some
formalization (after careful consideration) else we risk losing some of the
important benefits of the monarch's role into a vacuum filled by a Prime
Minister who while being head of government increasingly and through an
appointed GG arbitrarily wields the real power that is assigned to the head
of state.
The appointment proces of Lieutenant governors is unlikely to change but the
test you apply is not the best one under the circumstances.
RHM > To tie this back to the issue of Provincial Orders, the core of the
difficulty lies in the relationship of a Canadian province to the Crown
(as defined in the Interpretation Act, for example, to get away from
all the popular talk now about the "provincial Crown"). To illustrate
the problem we can pose the following questions: Can a province advise
the Queen to grant her (as I regard them) honours? The answer is
clearly no. Can a province advise the Queen to create distinctive
honours for that province? The answer is again clearly no. And this
arises from the fact that a province has no link to the real Crown, no
matter how loyal it may be. A provincial premier can no more advise the
Sovereign than a mayor of a city can. In the absence of any direct link
to the Sovereign it is impossible to regard provincial Orders as a
"token of the Sovereign's favour" and consequently I fail to see how
they can be regarded as Orders in the true sense.
This is the strongest argument you have made and you have addressed the
limitation of the provincial crown's completeness. It is linked to the
federal crown and so in order ot accomplish those specific tasks the
Lieutenant Governor would advise HM through the GG (whom the Queen has
constitutionally delegated this task).
I'm not clear what you are referencing in the Interpretation Act which is
simply federal legislation of a non-constituional nature about the
relationship of a Canadian province to the federal Crown. Can you direct me
to the section that deals with this relationship. It does propose
adefinition of the roles of the Lieutenant Governor and Governor General but
quite properly does not address itself to the definition of the provincial
crown. Rafal, it is enough to read Supreme Court decisions to see that the
notions of the seperate existence of provincial and federal crowns is well
established in Canadian law and that the process of discerning the
respective powers and jurisdiction of these crowns in a linked federal state
occurs through court decisions, constitutional acts, federal-provincial
treaties and charters and in the evolving constitutional conventions.
Returning to the questions you posed - my answer would be yes - and that the
correct process in these cases would be by statute (as has been done) that
receives Royal Assent. The process is not likely to involve HM directly only
her representative the Lt. Gov.
> I'll mention their 'ghastly insignia'. De gustibus...
> The insignia for the most part feature stylized provincial flowers and
> arms.
RHM > Yes, I know. This does not make their insignia any less ghastly! The
Orders of Ontario and New Brunswick and particularly ugly.
GL > I rather like the pitcher plant used by New Brunswick, but the
Newfoundland and Labrador one is my least favoured.
RHM> Whilst I am ranting, let me also say that I find it utterly ludicrous
that members of the Order of Manitoba are entitled to append the
post-nominals "O.M." to their name. These nominals suggest membership
of the extremely prestigious Order of Merit (quite an elevation!) for
which Canadians are also eligible. Certainly a member of the Order of
Manitoba travelling in the UK might receive a much greater reception on
his travels than he might have expected.... MOM, O.Mb or O.Man would
have been far more suitable and the failure to remedy this again
demonstrates a problem with the administraton of honours in Canada.
GL > Since 1972 awards of the Order of Merit are treated as Commonwealth
Awards and are worn after all Canadian orders, decorations and medals.
Awards of the OM or CH made prior to 1972 ranked ahead of the CC. While
Canadians may be eligible for a range of British awards these are no longer
treated as Canadian orders. The RVO is the exception being neither Canadian
nor Commonwealth but remaining in the personal gift of the Sovereign and
also within the Canadian order of wear. That said I fully agrre with you
that a different acronym like O.Man. would have been preferred. The
confusion with the Order of Merit is possible and could have easily been
avoided.
> I don't know that the federal governemnt was the 'traditionally very
> reluctant' to recognize the status of provincial honours.
RHM > Yes it was. Provincial honours actually date back several decades
prior to the 1980s/1990s. Quebec established its first Order in 1925
and as early as1938 the federal deputy minister of justice expressed
concern that provinces might establish their own systems of honours and
warned against according them any legitimacy. The federal government
was opposed to official recognition of provincial honours for several
decades.
GL > That would be an Order of Agricultural Merit or something along those
lines. The position you describe by the rather centralist governemnt of the
day is not surprising. It is also not surprising that the governemnt
correctly recognized even at that time that the provinces might create
honours systems.
On the flip side I would be very surprised if provinces might have sought
federal recognition of their awards unless they were certain to receive it
and they would not have seen federal 'accordance of legitimacy' as being at
all necessary for what are provincial rather than national honours. The
Quebec award you refer to arose at a time of Canadian 'self-denial' around
honours but in more recent times the several provinces having started to
establish provincial honours did request and inevitably were granted
recognition of the provincial orders and other medals within the federal
order of wear. It could not be otherwise. As well it would be inappropriate
to somehow incorporate these awards into the federal or national honours as
they are the awards of the provinces themselves (I won't revisit teh issue
of provincial vs. federal crowns).
The 1991 decision to
> include provincial orders in the national order of precedence was an
> example
> of federal-provincial accomodation and a positive development.
RHM > This lamentable decision showed the willingness of the government to
abandon a long-standing policy, based upon a sound understanding of
national honours, in an attempt to appease the provinces. I was never a
fan of appeasement!
GL > This has little to do with appeasement. Behind some of these differing
positions are, I expect, different views of the ideal constitutional order
in Canada - something that is a perennially recurring debvate among
Canadians.
> As far as international recognition - it is rather unlikely that Ontario
> will establish the rank Knight Commander of the Order of Ontario but
> Quebec
> has already established the rank (titre) Chevalier de l'Ordre national du
> Québec. The Order is conferred in either the honorary rank of Chevalier
> or
> Grand Officier to emminent foreigners (non-residents of Quebec) including
> heads of state (French Presidents) and the heads of international
> organizations (eg, ICAO). I presume there is no difficulty in the
> recognition of the order in the states (primarily France) upon whose
> citizens the order has been conferred.
RHM >A Chevalier and a Knight Commander are very different. The rank of
chevalier is traditionally the lowest class of an Order and does not
entitle the receipient to the style of "Sir" (a Quebec chevalier is
never styled "Sir XXXX"). It cannot be regarded as the equivalent of
the higher class of "knight commander" and indeed cannot be compared
with knighthoods in general.
I maintain that were the Ontario legislature to enact legislation
establishing a titular honour I can not envisage a plausible scenario
whereby the use of such a title on the international stage would be
regarded as legitimate, let alone equivalent to the knighthoods
conferred in the UK and until fairly recently in Australia and New
Zealand.
GL > An award made by Ontario would certainly be legitimate but peculiar and
certainly IMHO ill-advised. Similarly if any democratic state without a
previous tradition of knighthoods started awarding these it would seem
unusual in this day and age. An award of provincial knighthood as opposed to
the simple lofty title of a grade of an order would be unprecedented in
Canada (also slightly silly in my mind) and I can't imagine a plausible
scenario under which it would occur. But I see your point regarding the
distinction you were making and would point out that should a Canadian
receive the award of a Knight Commander of the Bath that award would be in
the order of wear would follow the Alberta Centennial Medal. In Canada it
would be a non-Canadian award of no domestic precedence although
highly-regarded internationally. If by some odd alignment of the stars
knighthoods awarded by Ontario would not likely rate very highly - perhaps
in the range of a knighthood awarded by a very small state such as Antigua
and Barbuda (I believe the local GG does confer the accolade).
> Such a premier order might be possible were it to allude to a
> >> value or virtue and if ditinct criteria could be developed that would
> >> distinguish it from the highest class of the Order of Canada - for
> >> example
> >> for outstanding contributions to nation building. If I might suggest
> >> the
> >> simplest symbolism might be the three maple leaves conjoined on a
> >> single
> >> sprig or a name such as the Order of the Confederation - although you
> >> might
> >> have other worthy suggestions.
> >
> > The name you suggest has some merit although I would prefer a name
> > which conjures up romantic notions of Canada (be they historical or
> > natural).
> >
> Any ideas? It is actually not easy to conjour up appropriate natioanl
> symbols.
RHM > I like "Order of the Polar/North Star" however Sweden has already
claimed this.
GL > So has the Republic of Mongolia (as well as the previous People's
Republic)
RHM> "Order of the Great Dominion" appeals to me (but I
suspect to few others). Names are difficult. The best option would be
to rename the Order of Canada as the Canadian Order of Merit and create
a new single class Order of Canada. I would also be happy with an
appropriate name drawn from one of the languages of the native peoples.
GL > The problem becomes - which Aboriginal language?
> > In terms of national honours we find the maple leaf prominently
> > displayed on virtually every one:
> > Orders of Canada, Military Merit and Merit of the Poliec Forces, Cross
> > of Valour, Star of Courage, Medal of Bravery, Star of Military Valour,
> > Medal of Military Valour, Meritorious Service Cross, Meritorious
> > Service Medal, etc. etc.
> >
> > It's time to find another symbol!
> >
>
> Agreed. What would you suggest?
RHM > I think a Narwhal rampant (the "sea unicorn" of old) would be rather
nice.
GL > I also like narwhals. (I have trouble imagining rampant :) ). Polar
bears are also terrific, as are ookpiks, but I fear we'll simply have more
maple leaves.
There
> is a lack of symmetry in some of these matters. UK and other commonwealth
> citizens would as non-Canadian citizens be classed as honorary or foreign
> members.
RHM > Again, with the exception of the elections cited supra, I believe that
non-kiwi citizens have the same status in kiwi law as non-canadian
citizens have in canadian law. This has not prevented the NZ honours
system from recognising citizens of those realms over which HM is
sovereign and I see no reason preventing the Canadian honours system
from implementing a similar rule. If NZ is willing to honour
Australians and Canadians as "ordinary" members on the grounds that we
share the same monarch, I do not see why Canada cannot reciprocate.
There is no reason to assume that such a rule would have any impact
upon Canadian law in general.
GL > That is true. I would nonetheless see this as a departure from Canadian
practice to distinguish only between citizen and non-citizens and between
permanent residents and others. There is to my knowledge no distinction
between non-Canadians as to whether they are citizens of Commonwealth
countries or citizens of Moldova. I suppose that Canada like many countries
could open its awards to non-citizens as ordinary as opposed to honorary
awards. I would not have a difficulty with this - the orders would need then
not imply any obligation of loyalty to the Sovereign of Canada. There so
many non-Canadians that Canada should and oculd recognize for their
contributions to Canada or support of our interests.
There is merit to the
> category of extra members but I would expect that in Canada the conferral
> of
> the Order of Canada on members of the Royal Family other than the monarch
> who is automatically the Sovereign of the order would only occur in
> exceptional circumstances and the honorary category would apply.
RHM > This is the way it works however it is highly regrettable and
completely unnecessary. It would bring honour upon the Order of Canada
were the Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh or Princess Royal to wear
the insignia on their medal bars as they do currently as extra
companions of the Queen's Service Order of NZ. The Prince of Wales is
also an AK in the Order of Australia (in fact I believe he may even
take precedence over others in this Order).
GL > I agree with you here (whether tehse be classed as extra or honrary
appointments) and it would help emphasize the connections of the Royal
Family with Canada.
I do appreciate your thoughtful and critical response to my perspectives.
We've covered a fair bit of ground here relative to Canadian honours.
Kind regards,
George Lucki
Guy Stair Sainty
hey...@hotmail.com says...
>certainly existed, I cannot see how anyone can deny the bewildering
>lack of foresight that marred the institution of the Order of Canada in
>1967. A mere five years after its creation the single class was
>expanded to three classes, the bravery decoration was abandoned in
>favour of three decorations (the Star of Courage, Cross of Valour and
>Medal of Bravery) and the Order of Military Merit was instituted. If
>this does not suggest lack of foresight I do not know what does;
>particularly when one considers that those who advocated for the
>institution of a more extensive honours system were ignored.
This chaos could easily have been avoided, which is why the report of the
House of Commons General Administration committee has to be viewed with
considerably concern. The recommendations followed almost entirely the
arguments of the abolitionists and those who would like to sweep away the
whole system but reluctantly accept there must be a minimal honours system.
The recommended system would be completely inadequate and leave so many
inconconsistencies that I have no doubt at all it would be quickly followed
with more changes.
The problem is that those who have issued the clarion call for reform and change
are not really motivated by a desire to see a fairer or more efficient system of
national honours, but instead want to undermine and oppose anything
which has as its reference Britain's historical past, the monarchy, or any claim
that Britain may have (or have had) to greatness. The reforms in the former
Dominions were often dominated by a desire to make a total break with the
British system, perceived as bad merely because its origns lay in British
history; for the reformers this mant changing everything and throwing out the
good along with what did need to be changed.
George Lucki
>>certainly existed, I cannot see how anyone can deny the bewildering
>>lack of foresight that marred the institution of the Order of Canada in
>>1967. A mere five years after its creation the single class was
>>expanded to three classes, the bravery decoration was abandoned in
>>favour of three decorations (the Star of Courage, Cross of Valour and
>>Medal of Bravery) and the Order of Military Merit was instituted. If
>>this does not suggest lack of foresight I do not know what does;
>>particularly when one considers that those who advocated for the
>>institution of a more extensive honours system were ignored.
In Canada the problem arose with the desire to establsih an honours system
de novo after more than 40 years without an honours system in practice - as
for most of that time there was an official policy of Canada's 'self-denial'
of honours. The creation of new national honours proceeded ever so slowly
fearful of a political backlash that did not happen and further incremental
changes were made in the same cautious way. There was of course no backlash.
The only backlash to have been feared in more recent times would have been
over who had been honoured (and from those whose nose was out of joint
having not been honoured). The non-political process of advising on awards
addressed that. The biggest obstacles were really within
government/political circles.
>
> This chaos could easily have been avoided, which is why the report of the
> House of Commons General Administration committee has to be viewed with
> considerably concern. The recommendations followed almost entirely the
> arguments of the abolitionists and those who would like to sweep away the
> whole system but reluctantly accept there must be a minimal honours
> system.
The motivations of those seeking a restructuring of honours needs be
considered. Is it a question of 'modernization' or the periodic reform of
awards that necessarily occurs from time to time or is it an opportunity to
negatively impact one of the important roles of the sovereign in honouring
the achievements of UK citizens? The Canadian experience has been that the
initially proposed minimal honours system was insufficient to the needs of
the society and a balances system is still evolving. This is not a bad thing
for Canada - but in the UK the situation is different and it would mean
abolishing existing awards - rather than evolving the numbers of
appointments, the source of nominations, etc.
>
> The recommended system would be completely inadequate and leave so many
> inconconsistencies that I have no doubt at all it would be quickly
> followed
> with more changes.
Yes. The proposed system would certainly be experienced as inadequate. In
the proposed restructuring of the Order of the British Empire into an Order
of British Excellence the scope of those honoured suggested to me that what
was needed was a refocusing of the criteria for the award of the exsisting
orders and the creation of a new Decoration of British Excellence to
recognize a range of meritorious contributions in various fields of
endaevour while reducing the overall number of awards made in the lower
ranks of the OBE.
IMHO opinion the Bath and StM&StG do need reform and criteria that do not
make them merely civil service awards but rather ones of service to the
promotion of the interests and effective functioning of the state and
(whether through civil service, scholarship or through business)
domestically for the Bath or furthering international cooperation and
British interests abroad for the StM&stG. The problem with these orders has
been correctly highligted to be that it defines to whom the award goes as
opposed to the reasons for which the award is made. I am not proposing to
exclude civil servants but rather altering the criteria that create a
disproportionate number of civil service awards in the UK Honours list
relative to the contributions made by the civil service overall.
>
> The problem is that those who have issued the clarion call for reform and
> change
> are not really motivated by a desire to see a fairer or more efficient
> system of
> national honours, but instead want to undermine and oppose anything
> which has as its reference Britain's historical past, the monarchy, or any
> claim
> that Britain may have (or have had) to greatness. The reforms in the
> former
> Dominions were often dominated by a desire to make a total break with the
> British system, perceived as bad merely because its origns lay in British
> history; for the reformers this mant changing everything and throwing out
> the
> good along with what did need to be changed.
>
There is considerable truth to this but I think you may find a range of
motivations for change in the UK - but likely to a greater extent among
citizens the response that they don't have any strong feelings about the
need for a change. The process of creating an honours list needed
consideration as there was likely concern about transparency in the process
(avoidance of cronyism, etc.) and there is of course likely a desire to see
honours going to those seen as deserving in local communities as well - and
this has been being accomplished through the appointments to the Order of
the British Empire (but which might instead be accomplished by reducing the
number of MBEs and the creation of a civil decoration of 'British
Excellence'
In terms of the reform of honours in the former Dominions there is
undoubtedly some sentiment (greater in some places than in others) to make a
break a with the British system but I think the greater motivation is to
create a new indigenous or national system fully incorporating elements of
national heritage and domestic sensibilities. I can appreciate Canada and
other Commonwealth countries choosing to go their own way but it seems
unfortunate to seek the UK proposing to turn its back on its own heritage
and traditions.
George Lucki
George Lucki
> hey...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>George Lucki wrote:
>>> <hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>Whilst discomfort with the concept of an "elitist" honours system
>>certainly existed, I cannot see how anyone can deny the bewildering
>>lack of foresight that marred the institution of the Order of Canada in
>>1967. A mere five years after its creation the single class was
>>expanded to three classes, the bravery decoration was abandoned in
>>favour of three decorations (the Star of Courage, Cross of Valour and
>>Medal of Bravery) and the Order of Military Merit was instituted. If
>>this does not suggest lack of foresight I do not know what does;
>>particularly when one considers that those who advocated for the
>>institution of a more extensive honours system were ignored.
>
> This chaos could easily have been avoided, which is why the report of the
> House of Commons General Administration committee has to be viewed with
> considerably concern. The recommendations followed almost entirely the
> arguments of the abolitionists and those who would like to sweep away the
> whole system but reluctantly accept there must be a minimal honours
> system.
>
> The recommended system would be completely inadequate and leave so many
> inconconsistencies that I have no doubt at all it would be quickly
> followed
> with more changes.
I just went on the PM's web-site and noted that each of the semi-annual
honours lists contain 1350 names - or 2700 people annually receive honours.
If the population of the UK 60,000,000 and the average life expectancy is 78
years we can make the following calculations. Each year 0.000045 of the
population is honoured and a person has a statistical 1/22000 likelihood of
being honoured in a given year. Assuming that each personlives a
statistical 78 years then over time in the whole population we would see
some 1/284 people having received some honour (with the vast majority
receiving these in the lowest grades.)
George Lucki
George Lucki
news:1133730216.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
George Lucki wrote:
> <hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > The amateurish approach to honours that has been displayed by the
> > Canadian government was nowhere more obvious than in the ludicrous
> > decision in 1998 that resulted in a change to the order of precedence
> > such that all three levels of the Order of Canada now rank above all
> > Canadian honours excluding the Victoria Cross and Cross of Valour.
> > Consequently a Commander of the Order of Military Merit (a senior
> > Canadian general for example) now ranks below a Member of the Order of
> > Canada (a local charity fundraiser).
McCreery's book on Canadian Honours (Appendix III) has a table of
equivalencies between Canadian and British (pre Order of Canada honours) -
so that a CC (Companion of the Order of Canada) is ranked as equivalent to
the Grand Cross of the Orders of Chivalry or the single class chivalric
orders and the OC (Officer of the Order of Canada) ranked with the rank of
Knight Commander of any of the British Orders. The same applies to the
equivalencies between the CMM and OMM and the military dividions of the
British Orders except that the second grade of the OMM is ranked with the
Companion class of British Orders (as is the CM).
I am unclear if there is an official source for this or if this is the
author's own effort but it does highlight the differences between the
Canadian and British systems - apples and oranges. Such difficulties in
aligning the honours systems of different nations is not unusual and the
foreign 'equivalents' may not align well with the domestic order of
precedence. I think this illustrates some of the issues that have been
arising in my discussion with Rafal. The British order of precedence does
not line up well with the Canadian one and does not necessarily need to be
clearly aligned.
George Lucki
Dave Boven
George Lucki wrote:
> I just went on the PM's web-site and noted that each of the semi-annual
> honours lists contain 1350 names - or 2700 people annually receive honours.
> If the population of the UK 60,000,000 and the average life expectancy is 78
> years we can make the following calculations. Each year 0.000045 of the
> population is honoured and a person has a statistical 1/22000 likelihood of
> being honoured in a given year. Assuming that each personlives a
> statistical 78 years then over time in the whole population we would see
> some 1/284 people having received some honour (with the vast majority
> receiving these in the lowest grades.)
> George Lucki
Are some of those 2700 names/year promotions within Orders? If they
are, then the percentage of the population that receives honors might
be smaller.
--dave--
George Lucki
news:1133857394....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
the most general illustration.
George
hey...@hotmail.com
> <hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133730216.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> George Lucki wrote:
> > <hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > I think this change underscores the desire to position the Order of Canada
> > as the nation's premier order.
> RHM >Yes, this was the flawed reasoning however it lacks any common sense.
> To rank a CM above a CMM is akin to ranking a CMG above a GBE or a CB
> above a GCVO. It is simply silly.
>
> GL> But it in this regard it is not like the order of wear for British
> orders where the higher grade of any order is worn ahead of a lower grade of
> even a higher order. The intention is that all the grades of the Order of
> Canada rank ahead of the other national orders. Just because this is
> different than the British practice does not make it silly.
George, are you sure you are not on the Chancellery payroll?! ;) I've
discussed this point with many people over the years and you are the
first person outside the Chancellery to have supported the change.
Clearly we will not agree and so there is little point continuing to
debate this particular subject however the last point I will make is
that the decision to alter the order of precedence is even more bizarre
considering that the order of wear for the various classes of the Order
of Military Merit, Order of Merit of the Police Forces and Royal
Victorian Order still follows the traditional/correct form.
Those with a CMM
> are eligible for the higher award of a CM, OC or CC. The CMM is simply a
> lower level award than any award of the Order of Canada.
And herein lies the problem -- to me this flies in the face of common
sense. To rank a CM above a CMM devalues the Order of Military Merit
unnecessarily.
>
>
> My own feeling is that military
> > service has been chronically under-represented in awards of the Order of
> > Canada.
> RHM> With some important exceptions, I do not believe that the Order of
> Canada should be used to recognise military service. One of the
> problems with the Order of Canada is the attempt to make it all
> encompassing and be all things to all people. The Order of Military
> Merit serves the needs of the military and I see no need for
> replication. Whilst I do not believe it to be necessary, the only way
> in which I would accept increased military representation in the Order
> of Canada (not that my acceptance matters!) would be through the
> creation of a military division (perhaps with crossed swords in the
> angles of the snowflake). However again I see no reason for this.
>
> GL> Agreed. The award of the Order of Canada should be made to military
> officers when their contributions fulfill the statuatory criteria of the
> order. I think a number of members of the military who would have otherwise
> been eligible may have been overlooked with nominations being made instead
> to the Order of MM.
And this is exactly how it should be. The Order of Canada should not be
the Valhalla to which all hopefuls aspire -- regarding their lowly (but
hard won) CMM or CVO as a stepping stone to an allegedly more worthy
(but rather more easily obtained) "CM".
If you re-read my post you will see that I have dealt with much of
this. Again, the period to which I refer is the period post-1967. Quite
rightly the Conservative goverments of 1957-1963 did not believe there
was any need for the institution of a national system of honours. They
were not in the business of creating artificial national symbols and,
even though they did not use it (which is to be regretted), they would
not have wanted to be seen as dismantlers of the Dominion-Commonwealth
honours system established by RB Bennett. Once the Liberals had
launched the Order of Canada (ignoring the advice of conservatives such
as Massey -- who advocated for the sort of multi-tiered Order that was
later instituted) the Tories were out of office for almost two decades
and were therefore unable to tamper with it. The brief government of
1979-1980 cannot be taken seriously as an opportunity for change as it
was far too short and there were a great many more pressing issues with
which to deal. By the time of the 1984 government the Conservative
party's High Tories had all but gone -- replaced with Neo Cons.
> RHM > I respectfully disagree.
> I do not hold the modern view of the "provincial crown", a view which
> has now become very popular among political scientists who care at all
> about the matter. But it must be conceded that it was an interpretation
> of the division of legislative power that was arrived at very slowly,
> very reluctantly on the part of those who opposed it, and with a great
> deal of opposition. I still maintain that the 1892 Maritime Bank case
> simply establishes that a provincial lieutenant-governor is a
> functional not personal representative of the Sovereign because he or
> she carries out those executive functions which would belong to the
> Sovereign but somehow now belong to a province once the constitution
> has removed certain legislative responsibilities from the Parliament of
> Canada and assigned them to the legislatures of the provinces.
>
> GL> Before there was a Canada there were distinct colonies. It was the
> several provinces that agreed to the creation of a federal governemnt and
> the ceding of powers to it and the retention of others - it was not the
> Constitution Act 1867 that removed powerrs form the Parliament of Canada and
> assigned them to the provinces.
The colonies were not sovereign entities but were united under and
governed by the same indivisible Crown; the notion of an Ontario Crown
or Manitoba Crown (or indeed, post-confederation, a Canadian Crown) was
non-existent.
> In Canada the appointment process has been delegated to HM
> personal representative for Canada the Governor General. These are simply
> different mechanisms to accomplish the same goal. The Provincial governors
> although appointed by the GG in Council are nonetheless the Queen's personal
> representatives in their respective provinces and carry out their duties in
> the name of the provincial crown.
This is indeed a popular opinion however it is not one to which I
subscribe. There are certain fundamental principles which have been
overlooked, or ignored, by many (but thankfully not all) political
scientists and members of the judiciary. Much of the confusion results
from a failure to draw a distinction between the existence of a
provincial crown and the development of provincial rights. I appreciate
and understand the points you have eloquently made (for my sins I
studied Canadian history for several years and constitutional law for
several more) and I do not deny that they have strengthened the
position of the provinces within confederation; however none of the
jurisprudence you have cited has altered the central constitutional
provisions that structure the core relationship between provinces and
the Crown.
To accept the existence of a provincial crown I would need to be shown
clear evidence of the establishment of a direct connection to the
Sovereign and the elimination of the Governor General's authority over
lieutenant governors.
There can be no provincial crown whilst provincial legislation can be
disallowed by the lieutenant governor of a province under instruction
from the Governor General; there be no provincial crown whilst the
lieutenant govenor is appointed by the Governor General and not the
Sovereign; there can be no provincial crown whilst the premier of a
province is unable to directly advise the Sovereign; and there can be
no provincial crown until the Constitution Act has been amended to
incorporate The Queen in to the provincial legislatures (I would also
remind that The Queen is not Sovereign of the so-called Provincial
Orders -- thus providing another example of the lack of a direct link).
I appreciate that the likelihood of a modern Governor General
instructing a lieutenant governor to disallow provincial legislation is
close to nil, however, even if restrained by convention, the power
exists and, exercised or not, cannot be denied (112 provincial laws
have been disallowed since Confederation--the last occuring in 1943).
>
> > I'll mention their 'ghastly insignia'. De gustibus...
> > The insignia for the most part feature stylized provincial flowers and
> > arms.
> RHM > Yes, I know. This does not make their insignia any less ghastly! The
> Orders of Ontario and New Brunswick and particularly ugly.
>
> GL > I rather like the pitcher plant used by New Brunswick, but the
> Newfoundland and Labrador one is my least favoured.
>
> RHM> Whilst I am ranting, let me also say that I find it utterly ludicrous
> that members of the Order of Manitoba are entitled to append the
> post-nominals "O.M." to their name. These nominals suggest membership
> of the extremely prestigious Order of Merit (quite an elevation!) for
> which Canadians are also eligible. Certainly a member of the Order of
> Manitoba travelling in the UK might receive a much greater reception on
> his travels than he might have expected.... MOM, O.Mb or O.Man would
> have been far more suitable and the failure to remedy this again
> demonstrates a problem with the administraton of honours in Canada.
>
> GL > Since 1972 awards of the Order of Merit are treated as Commonwealth
> Awards and are worn after all Canadian orders, decorations and medals.
> Awards of the OM or CH made prior to 1972 ranked ahead of the CC. While
> Canadians may be eligible for a range of British awards these are no longer
> treated as Canadian orders. The RVO is the exception being neither Canadian
> nor Commonwealth but remaining in the personal gift of the Sovereign and
> also within the Canadian order of wear.
Yes, I know. Nevertheless the Order of Merit is recognised in Canada
and continues to be accorded a position in the order of wear under
section 5 of the Canadian Orders, Decorations and Medals Directive,
1998 (P.C. 1998-591 of 2 April, 1998). Thus we have two "Orders" with
the same post-nominals listed in the same directive!
That said I fully agrre with you
> that a different acronym like O.Man. would have been preferred. The
> confusion with the Order of Merit is possible and could have easily been
> avoided.
I'm glad we finally agree! :)
>
> > I don't know that the federal governemnt was the 'traditionally very
> > reluctant' to recognize the status of provincial honours.
> RHM > Yes it was. Provincial honours actually date back several decades
> prior to the 1980s/1990s. Quebec established its first Order in 1925
> and as early as1938 the federal deputy minister of justice expressed
> concern that provinces might establish their own systems of honours and
> warned against according them any legitimacy. The federal government
> was opposed to official recognition of provincial honours for several
> decades.
>
> GL > That would be an Order of Agricultural Merit or something along those
> lines. The position you describe by the rather centralist governemnt of the
> day is not surprising.
My point was simply that the federal government was traditionally very
reluctant to recognise the status of provincial honours (and indeed I
know that elements within the federal government are *still*
uncomfortable with the fact that recognition was granted).
It is also not surprising that the governemnt
> correctly recognized even at that time that the provinces might create
> honours systems.
> On the flip side I would be very surprised if provinces might have sought
> federal recognition of their awards unless they were certain to receive it
> and they would not have seen federal 'accordance of legitimacy' as being at
> all necessary for what are provincial rather than national honours. The
> Quebec award you refer to arose at a time of Canadian 'self-denial' around
> honours but in more recent times the several provinces having started to
> establish provincial honours did request and inevitably were granted
> recognition of the provincial orders and other medals within the federal
> order of wear. It could not be otherwise. As well it would be inappropriate
> to somehow incorporate these awards into the federal or national honours as
> they are the awards of the provinces themselves (I won't revisit teh issue
> of provincial vs. federal crowns).
But they *have* been incorporated into the national honours system. The
decision to recognise the provincial Orders resulted in their inclusion
in the directive I referenced earlier. They can be found listed under
this heading:
"1. The sequence for wearing the insignia of Canadian orders,
decorations and medals, and the post-nominal letters associated with
the orders, decorations and medals, are the following:
Victoria Cross (V.C.)
Cross of Valour (C.V.)
NATIONAL ORDERS
PROVINCIAL ORDERS"
Thus they are clearly now regarded as Canadian orders--albeit awarded
by the provinces--and have a set position in the national honours
system.
RHM >A Chevalier and a Knight Commander are very different. The rank
of
> chevalier is traditionally the lowest class of an Order and does not
> entitle the receipient to the style of "Sir" (a Quebec chevalier is
> never styled "Sir XXXX"). It cannot be regarded as the equivalent of
> the higher class of "knight commander" and indeed cannot be compared
> with knighthoods in general.
> I maintain that were the Ontario legislature to enact legislation
> establishing a titular honour I can not envisage a plausible scenario
> whereby the use of such a title on the international stage would be
> regarded as legitimate, let alone equivalent to the knighthoods
> conferred in the UK and until fairly recently in Australia and New
> Zealand.
>
> GL > An award made by Ontario would certainly be legitimate but peculiar and
> certainly IMHO ill-advised. Similarly if any democratic state without a
> previous tradition of knighthoods started awarding these it would seem
> unusual in this day and age. An award of provincial knighthood as opposed to
> the simple lofty title of a grade of an order would be unprecedented in
> Canada (also slightly silly in my mind) and I can't imagine a plausible
> scenario under which it would occur.
I agree; however I raise this unlikely scenario in order to illustrate
my broader argument--namely that provincial Orders are not real Orders.
But I see your point regarding the
> distinction you were making and would point out that should a Canadian
> receive the award of a Knight Commander of the Bath that award would be in
> the order of wear would follow the Alberta Centennial Medal. In Canada it
> would be a non-Canadian award of no domestic precedence although
> highly-regarded internationally. If by some odd alignment of the stars
> knighthoods awarded by Ontario would not likely rate very highly - perhaps
> in the range of a knighthood awarded by a very small state such as Antigua
> and Barbuda (I believe the local GG does confer the accolade).
This brings us to another important test. We must ask whether a
provincial lieutenant-governor has the right to bestow the accolade. To
quote from my last post: "In the absence of a direct connection to the
Sovereign, and accordingly the lack of any claim to be a fons honorum,
I do not see how such a right can exist. Consequently although it is
possible for the Ontario Legislature to confer a title upon someone,
the inability of the lieutenant-governor to confer the accolade as the
Sovereign's representative further erodes the claim that Provincial
Orders are real Orders."
In Canada, honours are a "token of the Sovereign's favour" however the
Queen is not Sovereign of the provincial orders, the lieutenant govenor
is not appointed by the Sovereign and I do not believe a lieutenant
governor has the right to bestow the accolade. I therefore fail to see
how one can possibly regard them as true Orders.
Thank you for a spirited debate.
RHM
hey...@hotmail.com
individual and elevations within an Order.
RHM
hey...@hotmail.com
Chris McCreery is a good friend of mine and I therefore took the
liberty of sending him a copy of your message so that he could answer
your query regarding Appendix III. He took the opportunity to comment
further on this matter and I paste his response below.
You will note that he also regards the decision to group all classes of
the Order of Canada together as "silly" (his words and mine) and
disagrees with the concept of ranking a CMM below a CM. In fact now
that I turn to the back of his book on the Canadian Honours System I
see that he has devoted a paragraph to this very subject:
"The 1998 decision to place the three levels of the Order of Canada
ahead of all other Canadian awards...flies in the face of common sense.
That a Member of the Order of Canada who has rendered exemplary service
of a primarily local...nature should rank ahead of a former chief of
the defence staff who was appointed a Commander of the Order of
Military Merit for thirty-five years of service at the national and
international level is silly. One reason cited for this recent move was
that it would ensure that all Canadians are aware of the Order of
Canada's importance. Yet one would hardly expect that the average
Canadian could explain the order of precedence for honours... Numerous
members of the Order of Canada have expressed their disatisfaction with
this decision...One member of the Order demanded: 'How can you rank my
CM along the lines of Gerhardt Herzberg's CC? He won the Nobel Prize,
for heaven's sake, my service was much more specific and modest'.
Without question the Order of Canada should return to its pre-1998
position in the Canadian Order of Precedence." (Christopher McCreery,
The Canadian Honours System, 2004, p. 356)
Chris McCreery's response to your query regarding Appendix III in his
book is pasted below (with his permission):
"Hi Rafal:
Appendix three is my own creation; I looked at each award and came up
with the "rough" equivalent in the British system. I ignored the
Chancellery's current ranking of the Order of Canada and looked at
the criteria and recipients.
In the case of the CC, it is a bit far fetched to compare it with the
KG and KT, however in our "supposedly egalitarian" honours system
this is the closest equivalent in the UK system.
I do not think that it is far fetched to make an OC equivalent to a
Knight Commander of any of the British Orders. The types of services
rendered are generally the same (and less open to political
manipulation on this side of the pond, but we have had a few who are
clearly there for political reasons), regardless of whether or not the
award is accompanied with an accolade.
As for the Order of Military Merit, as you know at the OMM level,
almost all the awards go to Colonels/Captains(N); so this is not much
different than a CB or CBE. The CMM level goes to Generals and Admirals
(brig/Commodore up) and is equivalent to a GCB, KCB, GBE, KBE, etc.
With fewer gradations in our system (ie NCMs are included in the Order
of Military Merit and I doubt you will find many Sergeants with a CB)
you have to lump the Gs and Ks together to some degree when doing a
Canada/UK comparison. The systems are not so foreign to each other that
a loose comparison is impossible. Even when you take population size
into account we still award fewer of our CMM level than the UK does of
the G and K levels; the same is true of the other levels as well.
Thus the chart is based on Criteria and Caliber of Recipients and not
some secret list devised by the Chancellery (or me!).
Of course, the three levels of the OC should NEVER have been lumped
into one group at the head of the Canadian honours system. This was an
attempt by the Advisory Council and PCO/PMO to make the Order look more
important, yet the result has been many Members of the Order of Canada
can't quite understand why they are suddenly elevated above a CMM or
CVO, and the national/international service that recipients of those
distinctions have usually rendered. There are a few people who now rank
their CMs ahead of a CMM, which is just silly.
Feel free to post this if you want.
Chris"
Regards,
RHM
cj.b...@virgin.net
hey...@hotmail.com wrote:
> George Lucki wrote:
>
> As for the Order of Military Merit, as you know at the OMM level,
> almost all the awards go to Colonels/Captains(N); so this is not much
> different than a CB or CBE. The CMM level goes to Generals and Admirals
> (brig/Commodore up) and is equivalent to a GCB, KCB, GBE, KBE, etc.
> With fewer gradations in our system (ie NCMs are included in the Order
> of Military Merit and I doubt you will find many Sergeants with a CB)
> you have to lump the Gs and Ks together to some degree when doing a
> Canada/UK comparison. The systems are not so foreign to each other that
> a loose comparison is impossible. Even when you take population size
> into account we still award fewer of our CMM level than the UK does of
> the G and K levels; the same is true of the other levels as well.
>
I am sorry, but there is a profound misunderstanding here of both the
British AND the Canadian systems.
To begin with, the minimum rank for the award of the CB and CBE are not
the same at all. Although the statutes allow for the CB to be awarded
to field officers (i.e. the equivalent to Major) and above, actually
awards are usually to the equivalent of Major General and above.
Nowadays, very few Major Generals receive it. The CBE is awarded to
Colonels and above, but then only rarely. The usual rank is Brigadier,
but again very few receive it now. The CMM is usually first awarded at
this level. Indeed, that was its purpose. To replace the CBE level of
award previously conferred on Brigadiers and above in the Canadian
service.
The military KCB and KBE are usually awarded at the equivalent to
Lieutenant-General and above. The GCB to the equivalent of full
General. As far as I can see there is no equivalent award made in
Canada at the latter level. Historically, the closest has been the CC
to certain Chiefs of the Defence Staff and one or two other
distinguished generals, but in the latter cases probably more for other
services.
Warrant Officers and equivalents in the Canadian forces often receive
the MMM, the equivalent of the MBE, not the CMM. Again, this was simply
the equivalent of the MBE, which was frequently awarded to that level
of soldier in the British system. Consequently, it should be far from
surprising that Warrant Officers in the British service do not receive
the CB!
The creation of the Order of Military Merit was largely based on a
replacement of the CBE, OBE, and MBE, as previously awarded to the
military services in Canada.
I am afraid that there seems to have been quite a lot of
misunderstanding on this subject posted so far, but without commenting
on every single one through quotation, I offer the following
observations and comments.
It is not true to say that Canada had no system of honours between 1919
and 1968. What Canada did not do was participate in the bi-annual Prime
Ministers' submission of honours to the Sovereign. Quite apart from
the short revival of this practice in 1933-1934, the system was fully
utilised for the duration of the Second World War, though without the
award of the titular degrees.
British honours always continued to be awarded right through to 1968
for military services. Apart form WW2 already mentioned, services
during the Korean War and the Congo were also recognised by use of
British awards. Other awards for military services were also made
outside these periods, though usually in the lower classes of the Order
of the British Empire and in smaller numbers. British bravery and
gallantry decorations continued to be awarded to Canadians, on the
recommendation of Canadian ministers, throughout the period. Special
honours such as the CH, OM and Royal Victorian Chain were also awarded
throughout the period. Finally, the Order of St John of Jerusalem
functioned as a non-titular substitute and was awarded on a continuous
annual basis from the early 1930s onwards. A close examination of
actual awards to Canadians shows this very clearly. To some extant, the
same continues today. The same practice pertained in South Africa,
where the bi-annual Prime Ministers' submission of honours had also
ceased after 1925.
As regards the provincial orders and decorations, it isn't correct to
say that their creation in anyway negates or impedes the observance of
the Sovereign as "font of honour". There is no stipulation anywhere
as to what method of creation or appointment is required for the
fulfilment of that principle. Legislation approved by a Lieutenant
Governor as Crown Representative, is a perfectly legitimate means. Even
if someone argued that that representation goes via the Canadian GG,
that is perfectly acceptable.
The "font of honour" concept goes beyond the realm of orders and
decorations. Indeed, it is the legal concept through which judicial and
some other appointments derive their authority from the Crown. The
principle isn't breached simply because legislation has been
promulgated in respect of such appointments, from time to time.
The creation of provincial orders in Canada is not very different from
the creation of certain orders and decorations in parts of the former
British Empire, in previous periods. The creation of the Orders of
British India and (Indian) Order of Merit in 1837 were both given
effect not by direct warrants issued by the Sovereign, but by the
Governor-General of India. The Order of British India, much like
several Canadian provincial orders, used the symbol of the crown in its
insignia. The Crown had not yet assumed direct rule there, the HEIC
still being responsible for the administration of the country. However,
the Governor-General was a Crown appointee. Later decorations, such as
the three Burmese decorations and the Indian title badges, were
similarly created locally, though long after the Crown had assumed
direct control of affairs.
There are one or two other similar examples from territories outside
India. Without going into too much detail: the Uganda Star of 1899; the
North Borneo Bravery Cross; the Certificates of Honour; the various
Medals for Chiefs; the Ceylon, Hong Kong, and Lagos Diamond Jubilee
Medals of 1897; the Ceylon, Hong Kong and Natal Coronation Medals of
1902; the Ceylon, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Malta, Mauritius, Seychelles and
South Africa Police Medals.
With regard to the Royal Victorian Order and its continued award in
Canada, I am afraid that the idea that it the order somehow not British
but one belonging to the Crown, is quite wrong. That may be how it is
"sold" in Canada, but there is virtually no difference between the
RVO, the Royal Victorian Chain and the Order of Merit, in terms of
creation or award. They are all equally British decorations, all
equally awarded by the Sovereign at her own desecration, and so they
have been since their creation. The Orders of the Garter and Thistle
are not any different, though being orders of chivalry, their statutes
require certain formal procedures for nomination or election, which put
them apart from the other decorations mentioned.
Having said all this, there is no getting away from the fact that the
Canadian system of precedence for wear and use of post-nominals is
bizarre. Quite apart from the very lowest grade of the Order of Canada
coming before the higher classes of other orders, there is the weird
difference in precedence based on whether or not the award dates from
before or after 1972. This does not simply apply to the relative
precedence between British and indigenous Canadian decorations, but
bizarrely also for Canadian decorations themselves. Quite a dog's
breakfast crying out for reform.
Christopher Buyers
George Lucki
<hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133916065....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> George Lucki wrote:
>> <hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133730216.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> orders where the higher grade of any order is worn ahead of a lower grade
>> of
>> even a higher order. The intention is that all the grades of the Order of
>> Canada rank ahead of the other national orders. Just because this is
>> different than the British practice does not make it silly.
>
> George, are you sure you are not on the Chancellery payroll?! ;) I've
> discussed this point with many people over the years and you are the
> first person outside the Chancellery to have supported the change.
No. Not on the payroll. But, maybe to oversimplify - over the course of time
there have been various changes and revisions made to the status of numerous
orders reflecting the intentions of the Sovereign or government to revalue
or devalue certain honours or rewards. I do not believe that there is any
one *best* way in which to develop the precedence of honours and so I am
content that the intention being to raise the stature of the Order of Canada
was successfully accomplished. I am not troubled with the current lofty
place of the CMM while you are troubled that it has been devalued into 4th
posiiton.
>> GL> Agreed. The award of the Order of Canada should be made to military
>> officers when their contributions fulfill the statuatory criteria of the
>> order. I think a number of members of the military who would have
>> otherwise
>> been eligible may have been overlooked with nominations being made
>> instead
>> to the Order of MM.
>
> And this is exactly how it should be. The Order of Canada should not be
> the Valhalla to which all hopefuls aspire -- regarding their lowly (but
> hard won) CMM or CVO as a stepping stone to an allegedly more worthy
> (but rather more easily obtained) "CM".
As with any award I think we might wonder (especially in the lower levels)
about why some were honoured and others passed over and it allows the
comment - if he received the award then it can't be too high a bar, but
overall the awards reflect a lifetime of exemplary and distinguished
service. I disagree that the Order of Military Merit is harder to obtain.
Let's look at the numbers.
Fully 1/10 of 1% of the Canadian Forces are eligible to receive this order
each year in any of the three levels. The GG's website indicates 110 awards
were made in 1997 (presuming a Forces total strength of 110,000 regular and
reserve).
At the same time only a maximum of 220 awards in all levels can be made to
the Order of Canada - and there are more than 20,000,000 adult Canadians.
From this we could also note that the maximum 15 appointments in the
Companion level will more rarely be made as there is a cap of 165 living
members. The 5 foreign appointments per year are also not taken advantage
of.
>
> The colonies were not sovereign entities but were united under and
> governed by the same indivisible Crown; the notion of an Ontario Crown
> or Manitoba Crown (or indeed, post-confederation, a Canadian Crown) was
> non-existent.
>
Yes. But, don't take a static view. They were on the road to responsible
government and the evolution of the institutions of domestic rule and so the
constitutional position of the Crown was and continues to be an evolving
one. The constitutional development of the Canadian Crown continued after
Confederation and so did that of the provinces. The evolution of the
Provincial Crown did not cease with Confederation but continues within the
framework of the compact undertaken by the several provinces.
>> In Canada the appointment process has been delegated to HM
>> personal representative for Canada the Governor General. These are simply
>> different mechanisms to accomplish the same goal. The Provincial
>> governors
>> although appointed by the GG in Council are nonetheless the Queen's
>> personal
>> representatives in their respective provinces and carry out their duties
>> in
>> the name of the provincial crown.
>
> This is indeed a popular opinion however it is not one to which I
> subscribe. There are certain fundamental principles which have been
> overlooked, or ignored, by many (but thankfully not all) political
> scientists and members of the judiciary. Much of the confusion results
> from a failure to draw a distinction between the existence of a
> provincial crown and the development of provincial rights.
The evolution fo provincial responsibilities (not rights) is a reflection fo
constitutional maturity and the changing role of government. As Health,
Education and Social Welfare form a larger share of government
responsibilities in a modern state the order of governemnt responsible for
these areas gains greater significance. In Canada these have (quite
reasonably) remained provincial responsibilities and are a s9ource of much
of the tension between federal and provincial authorities.
I appreciate
> and understand the points you have eloquently made (for my sins I
> studied Canadian history for several years and constitutional law for
> several more) and I do not deny that they have strengthened the
> position of the provinces within confederation; however none of the
> jurisprudence you have cited has altered the central constitutional
> provisions that structure the core relationship between provinces and
> the Crown.
Maybe a bit. :) The fathers of Confederation might have difficulty
recognizing the constitutional order that has evolved within the framework
they set out.
Some of the important constitutional conventions that have evolved have no
written form and have not been tested through the courts. The 'treaty
making' power of first-ministers conferences would be one such example.
> To accept the existence of a provincial crown I would need to be shown
> clear evidence of the establishment of a direct connection to the
> Sovereign and the elimination of the Governor General's authority over
> lieutenant governors.
I am not persuaded that direct is the only possible mechanism. Your point is
a good one and that might be one test to employ but not the only one and the
failure to meet that specific test does not negate the existence of a
provincial crown - a notion well recognized in Canadian law.
>
> There can be no provincial crown whilst provincial legislation can be
> disallowed by the lieutenant governor of a province under instruction
> from the Governor General; there be no provincial crown whilst the
> lieutenant govenor is appointed by the Governor General and not the
> Sovereign; there can be no provincial crown whilst the premier of a
> province is unable to directly advise the Sovereign; and there can be
> no provincial crown until the Constitution Act has been amended to
> incorporate The Queen in to the provincial legislatures (I would also
> remind that The Queen is not Sovereign of the so-called Provincial
> Orders -- thus providing another example of the lack of a direct link).
The strongest of these arguments is the power to disallow legislation and
this too is a part of the constitutional framework that the provinces have
entered into as was the provision that the Queen could disallow acts
assented to be the Governor General. The convention since that time would be
that unless a provincial act was within the exclusive scope of the federal
government I could not imagine the federal governemnt disallowing any
provincial act nor can I imagine the Queen having disallowed a GG's act.
Such actions if they had occurred since World War II (or eearlier for the
federal government) would likely have created a constitutional crisis. So in
practice it is not a power that can be exercised. Don't you love British
style constituions - part written, part specified by specific otherwise
non-constitutional acts or by court decisions and part known 'just cause'.
The general consensus view is that provincial crowns exist. The position you
take is an interesting one but not well accepted by the current legal
authorities. Things are also evolving away from the view you would take.
>
> I appreciate that the likelihood of a modern Governor General
> instructing a lieutenant governor to disallow provincial legislation is
> close to nil, however, even if restrained by convention, the power
> exists and, exercised or not, cannot be denied (112 provincial laws
> have been disallowed since Confederation--the last occuring in 1943).
That was then. The modern 'power' is there only to be left unused or
unusable.
> Yes, I know. Nevertheless the Order of Merit is recognised in Canada
> and continues to be accorded a position in the order of wear under
> section 5 of the Canadian Orders, Decorations and Medals Directive,
> 1998 (P.C. 1998-591 of 2 April, 1998). Thus we have two "Orders" with
> the same post-nominals listed in the same directive!
That's unfortunate. I'll add and two very different orders of precedence
depending on whether the award was made prior to 1972 or after!
Gen. de Chastelain recently was made a Companion of Honour for his work in
Northern Ireland. His CH being post-1972 would rate lower than his Canadian
Forces Decoration in the Order of Wear the CH being 'Commonwealth' while the
CVO being recognized as quasi-Canadian as it is awarded typically for
services to the Canadian croen.
> That said I fully agrre with you
>> that a different acronym like O.Man. would have been preferred. The
>> confusion with the Order of Merit is possible and could have easily been
>> avoided.
> I'm glad we finally agree! :)
It happens even among the best of friends. :)
> My point was simply that the federal government was traditionally very
> reluctant to recognise the status of provincial honours (and indeed I
> know that elements within the federal government are *still*
> uncomfortable with the fact that recognition was granted).
Yes. There are. There are many folks within the Ottawa establishment who
would be more content with a more unitary state. I fully expect that there
is a natural tension in any federal state as to where to draw the line
between local or in this case provincial autonomies and the role of the
federal governemnt. I expect some of this discomfort will continue. I do not
expect that this could prevent similar recognitions of perogative power in
the future if they were to occur (for example to stretch things a bit - the
establishment likely by statute of a mechanism for the Lt. Gov. to exercise
a right to pardon those convicted of provincial offenses).
> But they *have* been incorporated into the national honours system. The
> decision to recognise the provincial Orders resulted in their inclusion
> in the directive I referenced earlier. They can be found listed under
> this heading:
The reference on the GG's web-page under provincial orders is: "Although
Provincial Orders are not part of the Canadian Honours System, the following
have their place in the Canadian Order of Precedence of Orders, Decorations
and Medals." I believe this is a correct view - as provincial orders they
are part of each province's honours system and not the Canadian Honours
System. It is that blasted notion of distinct federal and provincial crowns.
> "1. The sequence for wearing the insignia of Canadian orders,
> decorations and medals, and the post-nominal letters associated with
> the orders, decorations and medals, are the following:
>
> Victoria Cross (V.C.)
> Cross of Valour (C.V.)
>
> NATIONAL ORDERS
>
> PROVINCIAL ORDERS"
>
> Thus they are clearly now regarded as Canadian orders--albeit awarded
> by the provinces--and have a set position in the national honours
> system.
> This brings us to another important test. We must ask whether a
> provincial lieutenant-governor has the right to bestow the accolade. To
> quote from my last post: "In the absence of a direct connection to the
> Sovereign, and accordingly the lack of any claim to be a fons honorum,
> I do not see how such a right can exist. Consequently although it is
> possible for the Ontario Legislature to confer a title upon someone,
> the inability of the lieutenant-governor to confer the accolade as the
> Sovereign's representative further erodes the claim that Provincial
> Orders are real Orders."
I don't know whether the Lt.Gov. can confer the accolade. For that matter I
don't know whether the GG can either. I guess it depends on the advice they
get from their elected folks and whether if that advice is given it is
constitutional - my own thought is that it would be and that the equality
provisions of the Charter are not offended by titular honours, but you never
know. Canada's Charter and the European Human Rights legislation creates law
that has not yet even been imagined. I don't think that the capacity to
confer the accolade of knighthood or a title of honour is the defining test
for the existence of a Crown or the definition of someone as a personal
representative of HM. There are crowns that have no power to ennoble (Norway
comes to mind). Just because the UK Crown has that power does not mean the
Canadian crown does. Constitutionally that power may have already slipped
away in the Canadian context. If you were to ask me the question do I think
the UK Crown has the power to ennoble Canadians I would say yes.The same
constitutional question posed relative to the Canadian crown would garner
the answer - maybe or maybe not, but in pratice it must not.
> In Canada, honours are a "token of the Sovereign's favour" however the
> Queen is not Sovereign of the provincial orders, the lieutenant govenor
> is not appointed by the Sovereign and I do not believe a lieutenant
> governor has the right to bestow the accolade. I therefore fail to see
> how one can possibly regard them as true Orders.
The Queen should be the sovereign of the Provincial Orders and although the
legislation does not mention this it cannot be otherwise. I believe this was
a question of ignorance on the part of those who drafted the legislation
and/or the absence of good advice. I think we should write the LtGov's and
Premiers and draw this to their attention. Let's discuss this off list.
Kind regards, George
George Lucki
news:1133949671....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> hey...@hotmail.com wrote:
I'll reply only
to Christopher in this post.
>> Chris McCreery > As for the Order of Military Merit, as you know at the
>> OMM level,
>> almost all the awards go to Colonels/Captains(N); so this is not much
>> different than a CB or CBE. The CMM level goes to Generals and Admirals
>> (brig/Commodore up) and is equivalent to a GCB, KCB, GBE, KBE, etc.
>> With fewer gradations in our system (ie NCMs are included in the Order
>> of Military Merit and I doubt you will find many Sergeants with a CB)
>> you have to lump the Gs and Ks together to some degree when doing a
>> Canada/UK comparison. The systems are not so foreign to each other that
>> a loose comparison is impossible. Even when you take population size
>> into account we still award fewer of our CMM level than the UK does of
>> the G and K levels; the same is true of the other levels as well.
>>
> I am sorry, but there is a profound misunderstanding here of both the
> British AND the Canadian systems.
Actually Chris McCreery *wrote the book* on Canadian decorations and a fine
book it is. As with any author's views - there is room for disagreement but
it is unfair to suggest that McCreery profoundly misunderstands the Canadian
system.
> To begin with, the minimum rank for the award of the CB and CBE are not
> the same at all. Although the statutes allow for the CB to be awarded
> to field officers (i.e. the equivalent to Major) and above, actually
> awards are usually to the equivalent of Major General and above.
> Nowadays, very few Major Generals receive it. The CBE is awarded to
> Colonels and above, but then only rarely. The usual rank is Brigadier,
> but again very few receive it now. The CMM is usually first awarded at
> this level. Indeed, that was its purpose. To replace the CBE level of
> award previously conferred on Brigadiers and above in the Canadian
> service.
Was its purpose really to replace the CBE,OBE,MBE or to create a seperate
military merit order in Canada?
> I am afraid that there seems to have been quite a lot of
> misunderstanding on this subject posted so far, but without commenting
> on every single one through quotation, I offer the following
> observations and comments.
>
> It is not true to say that Canada had no system of honours between 1919
> and 1968. What Canada did not do was participate in the bi-annual Prime
> Ministers' submission of honours to the Sovereign. Quite apart from
> the short revival of this practice in 1933-1934, the system was fully
> utilised for the duration of the Second World War, though without the
> award of the titular degrees.
No misunderstanding here. Canada had for much of this period chosen not to
recommend people for honours. The creation of the Canada Medal and then not
awarding it was another part of the policy of denial. Had Canada an access
to the Honours System if it chose - of course. I think Rafal and I are both
in agreement here.
> As regards the provincial orders and decorations, it isn't correct to
> say that their creation in anyway negates or impedes the observance of
> the Sovereign as "font of honour". There is no stipulation anywhere
> as to what method of creation or appointment is required for the
> fulfilment of that principle. Legislation approved by a Lieutenant
> Governor as Crown Representative, is a perfectly legitimate means. Even
> if someone argued that that representation goes via the Canadian GG,
> that is perfectly acceptable.
Agreed.
> With regard to the Royal Victorian Order and its continued award in
> Canada, I am afraid that the idea that it the order somehow not British
> but one belonging to the Crown, is quite wrong. That may be how it is
> "sold" in Canada, but there is virtually no difference between the
> RVO, the Royal Victorian Chain and the Order of Merit, in terms of
> creation or award. They are all equally British decorations, all
> equally awarded by the Sovereign at her own desecration, and so they
> have been since their creation. The Orders of the Garter and Thistle
> are not any different, though being orders of chivalry, their statutes
> require certain formal procedures for nomination or election, which put
> them apart from the other decorations mentioned.
I would suggest that the RVO *is* and order of chivalry and is in the gift
of the Sovereign and does not require the advice of the Prime Minister. In
this regard it is more similar to the more senior orders of the Garter and
Thistle than it is to the Bath which is given on the advice of the PM. The
OM is different in that it confers no knightly rank (vs. the KCVO and GCVO).
For Canada the difference between the orders and awards in the Queen's
personal gift would have been this - for the Bath and Brit Empire the
Canadian PM might simply not put forward a list to communicate his desire
that none be awarded for service to the Canadian crown. For the others it
requires that the PM convey in more general terms his advice as to whether
the Queen may properly (constitutionally) exercise this perogative of honour
that is solely hers in respect to Canadians. By resolution of teh Commons
teh elected representatives conveyed what has been since interpreted as this
message.
> Having said all this, there is no getting away from the fact that the
> Canadian system of precedence for wear and use of post-nominals is
> bizarre. Quite apart from the very lowest grade of the Order of Canada
> coming before the higher classes of other orders, there is the weird
> difference in precedence based on whether or not the award dates from
> before or after 1972. This does not simply apply to the relative
> precedence between British and indigenous Canadian decorations, but
> bizarrely also for Canadian decorations themselves. Quite a dog's
> breakfast crying out for reform.
>
Rafal would be in agreement with you here. I agree that the maintenance of
the pre-1972 order is awkward and wonder if this wasn't an accomodation to
former recipients. But it is not odd for a governemnt to choose to revalue
its premier order. If you make the case as you have that the CMM is more
like a CB then the ranking provided by Chris McCreery would generally fit in
terms of equivalenices and the higher classes of the Order of Canada grades
would be the ones that corresponded to Gs and Ks.
Kind regards, George Lucki
George Lucki
<hey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133917408.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Please thank him.
> You will note that he also regards the decision to group all classes of
> the Order of Canada together as "silly" (his words and mine) and
> disagrees with the concept of ranking a CMM below a CM. In fact now
> that I turn to the back of his book on the Canadian Honours System I
> see that he has devoted a paragraph to this very subject:
>
> "The 1998 decision to place the three levels of the Order of Canada
> ahead of all other Canadian awards...flies in the face of common sense.
> That a Member of the Order of Canada who has rendered exemplary service
> of a primarily local...nature should rank ahead of a former chief of
> the defence staff who was appointed a Commander of the Order of
> Military Merit for thirty-five years of service at the national and
> international level is silly. One reason cited for this recent move was
> that it would ensure that all Canadians are aware of the Order of
> Canada's importance. Yet one would hardly expect that the average
> Canadian could explain the order of precedence for honours... Numerous
> members of the Order of Canada have expressed their disatisfaction with
> this decision...One member of the Order demanded: 'How can you rank my
> CM along the lines of Gerhardt Herzberg's CC? He won the Nobel Prize,
> for heaven's sake, my service was much more specific and modest'.
> Without question the Order of Canada should return to its pre-1998
> position in the Canadian Order of Precedence." (Christopher McCreery,
> The Canadian Honours System, 2004, p. 356)
With respect, I think Chris has put forward an expression of his personal
preferences. For the reasons expressed in a seperate post I maintain a
cogent argument can be made in favour of the present approach.
> Appendix three is my own creation; I looked at each award and came up
> with the "rough" equivalent in the British system. I ignored the
> Chancellery's current ranking of the Order of Canada and looked at
> the criteria and recipients.
Thanks. That helps me understand the context.
> In the case of the CC, it is a bit far fetched to compare it with the
> KG and KT, however in our "supposedly egalitarian" honours system
> this is the closest equivalent in the UK system.
Rafal, you and I would probably agree that there is a place for a yet more
senior Canadian order.
> I do not think that it is far fetched to make an OC equivalent to a
> Knight Commander of any of the British Orders. The types of services
> rendered are generally the same (and less open to political
> manipulation on this side of the pond, but we have had a few who are
> clearly there for political reasons), regardless of whether or not the
> award is accompanied with an accolade.
Agreed.
> As for the Order of Military Merit, as you know at the OMM level,
> almost all the awards go to Colonels/Captains(N); so this is not much
> different than a CB or CBE. The CMM level goes to Generals and Admirals
> (brig/Commodore up) and is equivalent to a GCB, KCB, GBE, KBE, etc.
> With fewer gradations in our system (ie NCMs are included in the Order
> of Military Merit and I doubt you will find many Sergeants with a CB)
> you have to lump the Gs and Ks together to some degree when doing a
> Canada/UK comparison. The systems are not so foreign to each other that
> a loose comparison is impossible. Even when you take population size
> into account we still award fewer of our CMM level than the UK does of
> the G and K levels; the same is true of the other levels as well.
This is where I might quibble and suggest that the CMM is perhaps somewhere
between the KBE, KCB and CB,CBE. The only award that clearly fits on the KC
and includes the GC level are the OC and CC.
This is perhaps the disagreement arises as to the rankings between the CM
and CMM in that there is some apparent overlap present. The disparity is not
so great that it creates an unreasonable disparity and those few senior
generals whose services might in Britain lead to a GC or KC... can be
appointed to the OC or CC rank.
> Of course, the three levels of the OC should NEVER have been lumped
> into one group at the head of the Canadian honours system. This was an
> attempt by the Advisory Council and PCO/PMO to make the Order look more
> important, yet the result has been many Members of the Order of Canada
> can't quite understand why they are suddenly elevated above a CMM or
> CVO, and the national/international service that recipients of those
> distinctions have usually rendered. There are a few people who now rank
> their CMs ahead of a CMM, which is just silly.
>
Is that the issue? If it is one of feeling overvalued (or perhaps likely
undervalued - the CMM or CVO who wonders why their international service is
lower in the pecking order of honours than the CM someone else received. :)
then that is a different matter. By altering the order of precedence the
Order of Canada was not just made to look more important - its precedence
was actually raised. The challenge over the longer term will be for the
Advisory Council to ensure that new appointments are commensurate with the
standing of the award. Nothing silly here. What I am hearing are the
concerns of individuals who feel uncomfortable with the honour bestowed -
that they are undeserving (or perhaps on the flip side underrecognized).
Kind regards, George Lucki
cj.b...@virgin.net
George Lucki wrote:
> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:1133949671....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > hey...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I'll reply only
> to Christopher in this post.
> >> Chris McCreery > As for the Order of Military Merit, as you know at the
> >> OMM level,
> >> almost all the awards go to Colonels/Captains(N); so this is not much
> >> different than a CB or CBE. The CMM level goes to Generals and Admirals
> >> (brig/Commodore up) and is equivalent to a GCB, KCB, GBE, KBE, etc.
> >> With fewer gradations in our system (ie NCMs are included in the Order
> >> of Military Merit and I doubt you will find many Sergeants with a CB)
> >> you have to lump the Gs and Ks together to some degree when doing a
> >> Canada/UK comparison. The systems are not so foreign to each other that
> >> a loose comparison is impossible. Even when you take population size
> >> into account we still award fewer of our CMM level than the UK does of
> >> the G and K levels; the same is true of the other levels as well.
> >>
> > I am sorry, but there is a profound misunderstanding here of both the
> > British AND the Canadian systems.
>
> Actually Chris McCreery *wrote the book* on Canadian decorations and a fine
> book it is. As with any author's views - there is room for disagreement but
> it is unfair to suggest that McCreery profoundly misunderstands the Canadian
> system.
I wasn't concerned about his book as a whole or his general
understanding of the subject and was concerned with this particular
passage, that is why quoted this passage. As is clear from my posting,
he completely missunderstands the criteria and level of awards for the
military services, both Canadian and British.
> > To begin with, the minimum rank for the award of the CB and CBE are not
> > the same at all. Although the statutes allow for the CB to be awarded
> > to field officers (i.e. the equivalent to Major) and above, actually
> > awards are usually to the equivalent of Major General and above.
> > Nowadays, very few Major Generals receive it. The CBE is awarded to
> > Colonels and above, but then only rarely. The usual rank is Brigadier,
> > but again very few receive it now. The CMM is usually first awarded at
> > this level. Indeed, that was its purpose. To replace the CBE level of
> > award previously conferred on Brigadiers and above in the Canadian
> > service.
>
> Was its purpose really to replace the CBE,OBE,MBE or to create a seperate
> military merit order in Canada?
Clearly it was to replace. There was never any question in 1972, as far
as I can see, of the two systems operating side by side.
> > I am afraid that there seems to have been quite a lot of
> > misunderstanding on this subject posted so far, but without commenting
> > on every single one through quotation, I offer the following
> > observations and comments.
> >
> > It is not true to say that Canada had no system of honours between 1919
> > and 1968. What Canada did not do was participate in the bi-annual Prime
> > Ministers' submission of honours to the Sovereign. Quite apart from
> > the short revival of this practice in 1933-1934, the system was fully
> > utilised for the duration of the Second World War, though without the
> > award of the titular degrees.
>
> No misunderstanding here. Canada had for much of this period chosen not to
> recommend people for honours. The creation of the Canada Medal and then not
> awarding it was another part of the policy of denial. Had Canada an access
> to the Honours System if it chose - of course. I think Rafal and I are both
> in agreement here.
The point I was making was it did choose to use the British System
right up to 1968. What it chose not do do was participate in the the
bi-annual Prime Ministers' submission of honours to the Sovereign.
There is a difference.
>
> > As regards the provincial orders and decorations, it isn't correct to
> > say that their creation in anyway negates or impedes the observance of
> > the Sovereign as "font of honour". There is no stipulation anywhere
> > as to what method of creation or appointment is required for the
> > fulfilment of that principle. Legislation approved by a Lieutenant
> > Governor as Crown Representative, is a perfectly legitimate means. Even
> > if someone argued that that representation goes via the Canadian GG,
> > that is perfectly acceptable.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > With regard to the Royal Victorian Order and its continued award in
> > Canada, I am afraid that the idea that it the order somehow not British
> > but one belonging to the Crown, is quite wrong. That may be how it is
> > "sold" in Canada, but there is virtually no difference between the
> > RVO, the Royal Victorian Chain and the Order of Merit, in terms of
> > creation or award. They are all equally British decorations, all
> > equally awarded by the Sovereign at her own desecration, and so they
> > have been since their creation. The Orders of the Garter and Thistle
> > are not any different, though being orders of chivalry, their statutes
> > require certain formal procedures for nomination or election, which put
> > them apart from the other decorations mentioned.
>
> I would suggest that the RVO *is* and order of chivalry and is in the gift
> of the Sovereign and does not require the advice of the Prime Minister.
No, strictly speaking it isn't an order of chivalry. It may be called
an order of knighthood, which it is, but that isn't quite the same
thing.
> In this regard it is more similar to the more senior orders of the Garter and
> Thistle than it is to the Bath which is given on the advice of the PM.
It isn't an order of chivalry like the Thistle and Gartly, partly
because it has classes. It falls into the category of orders of merit.
But as I say, it can be termed an order of knighhood.
> The
> OM is different in that it confers no knightly rank (vs. the KCVO and GCVO).
But the CVO, LVO, MVO and the Royal Victorian Medals do not confer any
knightly rank. These are what Canada accepts, so what is the difference
with the OM, exactly? I cannot see it myself.
> For Canada the difference between the orders and awards in the Queen's
> personal gift would have been this - for the Bath and Brit Empire the
> Canadian PM might simply not put forward a list to communicate his desire
> that none be awarded for service to the Canadian crown. For the others it
> requires that the PM convey in more general terms his advice as to whether
> the Queen may properly (constitutionally) exercise this perogative of honour
> that is solely hers in respect to Canadians. By resolution of teh Commons
> teh elected representatives conveyed what has been since interpreted as this
> message.
All well and good. But I say again, there is essentially no difference
in this regard between the OM and the non titular awards of the Royal
Victorian Order.
> > Having said all this, there is no getting away from the fact that the
> > Canadian system of precedence for wear and use of post-nominals is
> > bizarre. Quite apart from the very lowest grade of the Order of Canada
> > coming before the higher classes of other orders, there is the weird
> > difference in precedence based on whether or not the award dates from
> > before or after 1972. This does not simply apply to the relative
> > precedence between British and indigenous Canadian decorations, but
> > bizarrely also for Canadian decorations themselves. Quite a dog's
> > breakfast crying out for reform.
> >
>
> Rafal would be in agreement with you here. I agree that the maintenance of
> the pre-1972 order is awkward and wonder if this wasn't an accomodation to
> former recipients. But it is not odd for a governemnt to choose to revalue
> its premier order.
I have no problem with that, but why choose some grades of one's own
premier order to be worn two different ways depending on which date it
happened to be awarded? It is particularly odd given that before 1972
they were awarded much more sparingly than after.
> If you make the case as you have that the CMM is more
> like a CB then the ranking provided by Chris McCreery would generally fit in
> terms of equivalenices and the higher classes of the Order of Canada grades
> would be the ones that corresponded to Gs and Ks.
>
Actually, I thought I was making the case that the CMM was more an
equivalent to the CBE, on which the defence forces based their
recommendations at the time. The CMM was and continues to be awarded to
the ranks of Commodore/Brigadier-General and above, the CBE used to be
awarded in the Canadian forces to the ranks of Comodore/Brigadier/Air
Commodore and above.
In regard to the higher grades, I would suggest that due to the
examples of the award of the CC to several former Chiefs of the Defence
staff, it is somewhat loosely equivalent to the GCB. On the civilian
front, since the CC goes with the rations to Governors-General, former
Prime Ministers and Chief Justices, it is somewhat loosely equivalent
to the GCMG, as awarded in Canada in former times.
Guy Stair Sainty
cj.b...@virgin.net says...
>
>
>George Lucki wrote:
>> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:1133949671....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > hey...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I'll reply only
>> to Christopher in this post.
>> >> Chris McCreery > As for the Order of Military Merit, as you know at the
>> Thistle than it is to the Bath which is given on the advice of the PM.
>
>because it has classes. It falls into the category of orders of merit.
>But as I say, it can be termed an order of knighhood.
So an Order with classes cannot be an Order of Chivalry? How do you
differentiate chivalry and knighthood in French (one of the official
Canadian languages)? [I am not suggesting that the Order of Canada is
an Order of Chivalry or Knighthood, but I contest you assertion that
having classes precludes an Order from being an Order of Chivalry]
You might consider how one would define the Order of Malta, the Order of
Charles III as it existed in the 18th century, the Order of Saint George
of Bavaria, the Order of Saint Stephen of Tuscany, etc, if you do not
consider them Orders of Chivalry.
cj.b...@virgin.net
your life.
This is what I said. It isn't an order of chivalry LIKE the Thistle and
Garter, PARTLY
cj.b...@virgin.net
I should have also added, a good authority to consider on Canadian
awards and the award of British orders and decorations in Canada, are
the several publications by Commander John Blatherwick. They give a
very good idea of before and after 1968.
Christopher Buyers
George Lucki
news:1134024923.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > To begin with, the minimum rank for the award of the CB and CBE are not
>> > the same at all. Although the statutes allow for the CB to be awarded
>> > to field officers (i.e. the equivalent to Major) and above, actually
>> > awards are usually to the equivalent of Major General and above.
>> > Nowadays, very few Major Generals receive it. The CBE is awarded to
>> > Colonels and above, but then only rarely. The usual rank is Brigadier,
>> > but again very few receive it now. The CMM is usually first awarded at
>> > this level. Indeed, that was its purpose. To replace the CBE level of
>> > award previously conferred on Brigadiers and above in the Canadian
>> > service.
>>
>> Was its purpose really to replace the CBE,OBE,MBE or to create a seperate
>> military merit order in Canada?
>
> Clearly it was to replace. There was never any question in 1972, as far
> as I can see, of the two systems operating side by side.
Christopher, You are unfortunately mistaken. Except for the period of the
Korean War there has been no time in the last sixty years where Canadian
military officers have been eligible for the award to the Order of the
British Empire except for awards for bravery. This was by way of Canadian
government policy. There was no question of the 'two systems operating side
by side' in 1972 as the other system had already long been set aside. It is
not the case that the CMM was intended to replace the CBE. During WWII the
government created the Canada Medal an odd decoration (never awarded - but
that is a separate story) as a single award for most military and civilian
purposes. This idea of one award for merit (civilian and military) carried
over into the original idea of the Order of Canada. After the establishment
of the Order it became clear that a one size fits all does not work and
there was further expansion of that order and the creation of a seperate
order of military merit - as the Order of Canada did not address the needs
of the military to reward services. The CMM was not intended to replace
anything but was a de novo creaqtion in the post-Order of Canada orders
system. There is no British award that is its clear equivalent. It is worth
looking at the history of Canadian awards before making assumptions.
>> > With regard to the Royal Victorian Order and its continued award in
>> > Canada, I am afraid that the idea that it the order somehow not British
>> > but one belonging to the Crown, is quite wrong. That may be how it is
>> > "sold" in Canada, but there is virtually no difference between the
>> > RVO, the Royal Victorian Chain and the Order of Merit, in terms of
>> > creation or award. They are all equally British decorations, all
>> > equally awarded by the Sovereign at her own desecration, and so they
>> > have been since their creation. The Orders of the Garter and Thistle
>> > are not any different, though being orders of chivalry, their statutes
>> > require certain formal procedures for nomination or election, which put
>> > them apart from the other decorations mentioned.
>>
>> I would suggest that the RVO *is* and order of chivalry and is in the
>> gift
>> of the Sovereign and does not require the advice of the Prime Minister.
>
> No, strictly speaking it isn't an order of chivalry. It may be called
> an order of knighthood, which it is, but that isn't quite the same
> thing.
I think we need to clarify some of the terms order of chivalry, knighthood
and merit. Otherwise there is the potential for idiosyncratic defintions as
above.
If I recall both the internet sites of the Cabinet Ceremonial Office and the
British Monarchy in the UK refer to the RVO as an order of chivalry. Of
course over the course of history the structure, purpose and objectives of
orders created at different times has changed. This is a seperate
discussion. I would caution that if you intend to use idiosyncratic
categories that you take care to define them and explain why your
perspective may be at odds with that of the consensus view (including that
of those who are responsible for honours).
>
>> In this regard it is more similar to the more senior orders of the Garter
>> and
>> Thistle than it is to the Bath which is given on the advice of the PM.
>
> It isn't an order of chivalry like the Thistle and Gartly, partly
> because it has classes. It falls into the category of orders of merit.
> But as I say, it can be termed an order of knighhood.
>
Whether an order has classes or not is absolutely irrelevant. Some chivalric
orders through history have had classes others have not! You may wish to
reconsider such a statement.
>> The
>> OM is different in that it confers no knightly rank (vs. the KCVO and
>> GCVO).
>
Yes. What about the SMOM which has classes of knights - is it not a
chivalric order?
> But the CVO, LVO, MVO and the Royal Victorian Medals do not confer any
> knightly rank. These are what Canada accepts, so what is the difference
> with the OM, exactly? I cannot see it myself.
The OM may be conferred to Canadians as an award of HM in right of the UK
for merit and would be considered a Commonwealth decoration. Canadian policy
is broader than simply a self-denial of titular honours. The exception made
for the RVO is that it is for conferred for personal services to the Crown
and solely in the gift of the Crown - so it may be conferred by HM for
personal services to her in her capacity as Queen of Canada or for services
to her vice-regal representatives. Canada declines all other awards of merit
or chivalric orders of the UK crown as it has its own Canadian system of
honours emanating from the Canadian crown. Canada prefers that its citizens
also not receive awards of other heads of state (including Commonwealth
states) that are not merit awards and this would include those that come
with titular titles and those that do not. I hope that clarifies the
difference.
>> For Canada the difference between the orders and awards in the Queen's
>> personal gift would have been this - for the Bath and Brit Empire the
>> Canadian PM might simply not put forward a list to communicate his desire
>> that none be awarded for service to the Canadian crown. For the others it
>> requires that the PM convey in more general terms his advice as to
>> whether
>> the Queen may properly (constitutionally) exercise this perogative of
>> honour
>> that is solely hers in respect to Canadians. By resolution of teh Commons
>> teh elected representatives conveyed what has been since interpreted as
>> this
>> message.
>
> All well and good. But I say again, there is essentially no difference
> in this regard between the OM and the non titular awards of the Royal
> Victorian Order.
But there is as you will see above.
>> Rafal would be in agreement with you here. I agree that the maintenance
>> of
>> the pre-1972 order is awkward and wonder if this wasn't an accomodation
>> to
>> former recipients. But it is not odd for a governemnt to choose to
>> revalue
>> its premier order.
>
> I have no problem with that, but why choose some grades of one's own
> premier order to be worn two different ways depending on which date it
> happened to be awarded? It is particularly odd given that before 1972
> they were awarded much more sparingly than after.
Please re-check your understanding of this. There is no difference in the
precedence of the Order of Canada whether it was awarded pre or post 1972.
The 1998 Order in Council revalued the precedence fo the lower grades of
this order for all recipients. The only difference is how Commonwealth
awards are treated - 1972 is simply the line drawn for when whatever British
awards were made being intermingled within the Canadian order of wear and
when they become included among Commonwealth orders and decorations. This
is an accomodation for the former recipients of British honours before the
present policy was enacted.
> In regard to the higher grades, I would suggest that due to the
> examples of the award of the CC to several former Chiefs of the Defence
> staff, it is somewhat loosely equivalent to the GCB. On the civilian
> front, since the CC goes with the rations to Governors-General, former
> Prime Ministers and Chief Justices, it is somewhat loosely equivalent
> to the GCMG, as awarded in Canada in former times.
>
I don't think you really know the Canadian Honours system. The CC does not
go to the Governor General with the rations. The GG is also ex-officio the
Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and
Commander of the Orders of Military Merit and Merit of the Police Forces and
Prior of the VOSJ. On the installation of the Governor General she is
invested with the Collars of the three prinicpal orders and the collar of
the Canadian Heraldic Authority.
In its award to Prime Ministers and Chief Justices I would draw the
equivalancy not to the GCMG awarded in former times to distinguished foreign
or colonial leaders as those awards were made to those in Imperial service
rather than to the heads of goverment and judiciary of a fully independent
state, but the awards made in the UK to their own Prime Ministers and Chief
Justices - this would place the CC higher in the pecking order - Garter,
Peerage, etc. The UK has awards that go beyond the conferral of orders of
chivalry or merit. The CC is after all the single premier award of the
Canadian Crown and should be equated to the premier awards of other states.
(that notwithstanding I think that there is still room to honour the most
distinguished of the 165 Companions with a higher level award).
Kind regards, George Lucki
cj.b...@virgin.net
George Lucki wrote:
> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:1134024923.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> > To begin with, the minimum rank for the award of the CB and CBE are not
> >> > the same at all. Although the statutes allow for the CB to be awarded
> >> > to field officers (i.e. the equivalent to Major) and above, actually
> >> > awards are usually to the equivalent of Major General and above.
> >> > Nowadays, very few Major Generals receive it. The CBE is awarded to
> >> > Colonels and above, but then only rarely. The usual rank is Brigadier,
> >> > but again very few receive it now. The CMM is usually first awarded at
> >> > this level. Indeed, that was its purpose. To replace the CBE level of
> >> > award previously conferred on Brigadiers and above in the Canadian
> >> > service.
> >>
> >> Was its purpose really to replace the CBE,OBE,MBE or to create a seperate
> >> military merit order in Canada?
> >
> > Clearly it was to replace. There was never any question in 1972, as far
> > as I can see, of the two systems operating side by side.
>
> Christopher, You are unfortunately mistaken. Except for the period of the
> Korean War there has been no time in the last sixty years where Canadian
> military officers have been eligible for the award to the Order of the
> British Empire except for awards for bravery.
Apart from Korea, awards were also made to those who served in the
Congo operations in 1964. They may well have been gazetted as "for
gallantry" with the oak leaves decoration, but that does not exactly
prove that Canadians were not eligible for British orders or
decorations.
Canadians have always been eligible and still are, but as I said,
Canadian ministers have not been disposed to make the regular bi-annual
submissions after 1946. Even today, you will still see the occasional
appointment of Canadian officers in the London Gazette, in the ranks of
OBE or MBE. Usually, they are officers who have been on secondment with
British or other Commonwealth forces. Similarly, small numbers of civil
awards are also made, often to people resident in Canada, for services
to Anglo-Canadian relations, services to veteran's affairs, etc.
> This was by way of Canadian
> government policy. There was no question of the 'two systems operating side
> by side' in 1972 as the other system had already long been set aside.
Isn't that exactly what I said?
> It is
> not the case that the CMM was intended to replace the CBE. During WWII the
> government created the Canada Medal an odd decoration (never awarded - but
> that is a separate story) as a single award for most military and civilian
> purposes.
I do not quite know what the Canada Medal has to do with orders,
whether it was awarded or not, whether it is peculiar or not.
Canada fully utilised the British orders, decorations and medals
throughout WW2. Even the bi-annual PM's list was revived for civilian
appointments, mainly to the Orders of St Michael and St George and the
Order of the British Empire. Once that decision had been taken, the
Canada Medal was superfluous.
> This idea of one award for merit (civilian and military) carried
> over into the original idea of the Order of Canada. After the establishment
> of the Order it became clear that a one size fits all does not work and
> there was further expansion of that order and the creation of a seperate
> order of military merit - as the Order of Canada did not address the needs
> of the military to reward services. The CMM was not intended to replace
> anything but was a de novo creaqtion in the post-Order of Canada orders
> system. There is no British award that is its clear equivalent. It is worth
> looking at the history of Canadian awards before making assumptions.
Actually, it isn't too difficult to make comparisons. All one has to do
is compare who received what under the old system, and who received
what after.
> >> > With regard to the Royal Victorian Order and its continued award in
> >> > Canada, I am afraid that the idea that it the order somehow not British
> >> > but one belonging to the Crown, is quite wrong. That may be how it is
> >> > "sold" in Canada, but there is virtually no difference between the
> >> > RVO, the Royal Victorian Chain and the Order of Merit, in terms of
> >> > creation or award. They are all equally British decorations, all
> >> > equally awarded by the Sovereign at her own desecration, and so they
> >> > have been since their creation. The Orders of the Garter and Thistle
> >> > are not any different, though being orders of chivalry, their statutes
> >> > require certain formal procedures for nomination or election, which put
> >> > them apart from the other decorations mentioned.
> >>
> >> I would suggest that the RVO *is* and order of chivalry and is in the
> >> gift
> >> of the Sovereign and does not require the advice of the Prime Minister.
> >
> > No, strictly speaking it isn't an order of chivalry. It may be called
> > an order of knighthood, which it is, but that isn't quite the same
> > thing.
>
> I think we need to clarify some of the terms order of chivalry, knighthood
> and merit. Otherwise there is the potential for idiosyncratic defintions as
> above.
> If I recall both the internet sites of the Cabinet Ceremonial Office and the
> British Monarchy in the UK refer to the RVO as an order of chivalry. Of
> course over the course of history the structure, purpose and objectives of
> orders created at different times has changed.
The body responsible for orders in the United Kingdom is the Central
Chancery of the Orders of Knigthood.
> This is a seperate
> discussion. I would caution that if you intend to use idiosyncratic
> categories that you take care to define them and explain why your
> perspective may be at odds with that of the consensus view (including that
> of those who are responsible for honours).
I suggest that before you go about cautioning others, you consult the
"idiosyncratic categorising" of authorities such as Paul
Hieronymussen for a good explanation of what are orders of chivalry and
what are orders of merit.
> >
> >> In this regard it is more similar to the more senior orders of the Garter
> >> and
> >> Thistle than it is to the Bath which is given on the advice of the PM.
> >
> > It isn't an order of chivalry like the Thistle and Gartly, partly
> > because it has classes. It falls into the category of orders of merit.
> > But as I say, it can be termed an order of knighthood.
> >
>
> Whether an order has classes or not is absolutely irrelevant. Some chivalric
> orders through history have had classes others have not! You may wish to
> reconsider such a statement.
I am not discussing the generality of orders of chivalry and merit, I
was comparing the RVO to the Orders of the Garter and Thistle. Perhaps
you could show me how these two orders are divided into classes
comprising a Grand Cross, Knight Commander, Commander, Officer and
Member grades?
>
> >> The
> >> OM is different in that it confers no knightly rank (vs. the KCVO and
> >> GCVO).
> >
>
> Yes. What about the SMOM which has classes of knights - is it not a
> chivalric order?
Of course it is a religious chivalric order. The Royal Victorian Order
is an order of merit.
> > But the CVO, LVO, MVO and the Royal Victorian Medals do not confer any
> > knightly rank. These are what Canada accepts, so what is the difference
> > with the OM, exactly? I cannot see it myself.
>
> The OM may be conferred to Canadians as an award of HM in right of the UK
> for merit and would be considered a Commonwealth decoration. Canadian policy
> is broader than simply a self-denial of titular honours. The exception made
> for the RVO is that it is for conferred for personal services to the Crown
> and solely in the gift of the Crown - so it may be conferred by HM for
> personal services to her in her capacity as Queen of Canada or for services
> to her vice-regal representatives. Canada declines all other awards of merit
> or chivalric orders of the UK crown as it has its own Canadian system of
> honours emanating from the Canadian crown.
But the RVO (and Royal Victorian Chain) does not emanate from the
Canadian Crown. The Order is a British order, there is no getting away
from that fact.
> Canada prefers that its citizens
> also not receive awards of other heads of state (including Commonwealth
> states) that are not merit awards and this would include those that come
> with titular titles and those that do not. I hope that clarifies the
> difference.
Sorry, I have lost your line of argument. Is the RVO an order of merit
or chivalry?
> >> For Canada the difference between the orders and awards in the Queen's
> >> personal gift would have been this - for the Bath and Brit Empire the
> >> Canadian PM might simply not put forward a list to communicate his desire
> >> that none be awarded for service to the Canadian crown. For the others it
> >> requires that the PM convey in more general terms his advice as to
> >> whether
> >> the Queen may properly (constitutionally) exercise this perogative of
> >> honour
> >> that is solely hers in respect to Canadians. By resolution of teh Commons
> >> teh elected representatives conveyed what has been since interpreted as
> >> this
> >> message.
> >
> > All well and good. But I say again, there is essentially no difference
> > in this regard between the OM and the non titular awards of the Royal
> > Victorian Order.
>
> But there is as you will see above.
>
No I don't see the difference at all, though I do admit that you seem
to have refined your line of argument somewhat.
>
> >> Rafal would be in agreement with you here. I agree that the maintenance
> >> of
> >> the pre-1972 order is awkward and wonder if this wasn't an accomodation
> >> to
> >> former recipients. But it is not odd for a governemnt to choose to
> >> revalue
> >> its premier order.
> >
> > I have no problem with that, but why choose some grades of one's own
> > premier order to be worn two different ways depending on which date it
> > happened to be awarded? It is particularly odd given that before 1972
> > they were awarded much more sparingly than after.
>
> Please re-check your understanding of this. There is no difference in the
> precedence of the Order of Canada whether it was awarded pre or post 1972.
> The 1998 Order in Council revalued the precedence fo the lower grades of
> this order for all recipients. The only difference is how Commonwealth
> awards are treated - 1972 is simply the line drawn for when whatever British
> awards were made being intermingled within the Canadian order of wear and
> when they become included among Commonwealth orders and decorations. This
> is an accomodation for the former recipients of British honours before the
> present policy was enacted.
Sorry, I understood that the old precedence for the CC, CMM, OC, CB,
CMG, CVO, CBE, DSO, OMM, LVO, OBE, ISO, CM, MMM, MVO, MBE, etc.
continued for those who had received their British honours before 1972.
Are you saying that it is now CC, OC, CM, CMM, CB, CMG, CVO, CBE, DSO,
OMM, LVO, OBE, ISO, MMM, MVO, MBE, etc
> > In regard to the higher grades, I would suggest that due to the
> > examples of the award of the CC to several former Chiefs of the Defence
> > staff, it is somewhat loosely equivalent to the GCB. On the civilian
> > front, since the CC goes with the rations to Governors-General, former
> > Prime Ministers and Chief Justices, it is somewhat loosely equivalent
> > to the GCMG, as awarded in Canada in former times.
> >
>
> I don't think you really know the Canadian Honours system. The CC does not
> go to the Governor General with the rations. The GG is also ex-officio the
> Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and
> Commander of the Orders of Military Merit and Merit of the Police Forces and
> Prior of the VOSJ. On the installation of the Governor General she is
> invested with the Collars of the three prinicpal orders and the collar of
> the Canadian Heraldic Authority.
If that isn't 'going with the rations', I do not know what is.
The membership of these orders goes with the job. They are not awarded
for merit, and they are retained after leaving office.
> In its award to Prime Ministers and Chief Justices I would draw the
> equivalancy not to the GCMG awarded in former times to distinguished foreign
> or colonial leaders as those awards were made to those in Imperial service
> rather than to the heads of goverment and judiciary of a fully independent
> state, but the awards made in the UK to their own Prime Ministers and Chief
> Justices - this would place the CC higher in the pecking order - Garter, Peerage, etc.
I suggest you look at your own history and the awards made by your own
governments, in respect of the GCMG. Indeed, you can look across all
the dominions for that. Awards in the dominions, were always a matter
for dominion ministers, not the British government or British
ministers. Canadian Prime Ministers and Chief Justices, were never in
"Imperial Service", as far as I know. The closest to that perhaps
may be the two Canadian Premiers who went on to serve as British
governors in the West Indies, but that is a different story.
> The UK has awards that go beyond the conferral of orders of
> chivalry or merit. The CC is after all the single premier award of the
> Canadian Crown and should be equated to the premier awards of other states.
> (that notwithstanding I think that there is still room to honour the most
> distinguished of the 165 Companions with a higher level award).
Well, like it or not the idea of equivalence is largely a diplomatic
fiction. Although the Queen of Denmark will smile sweetly and be seen
wearing the Most August Order of the Double Jointed Red Iguana of the
Democratic Socialist People's Republic of Lower Costa del Sandalia,
side by side with her Elephant, very few would actually see it that way
in reality.
Christopher Buyers
Guy Stair Sainty
In any case this whole discussion of there being some kind of difference
between an order of "chivalry" and one of "knighthood" (and all the British
Orders from Bath through British Empire are certainly Orders of knighthood)
presupposes that everyone in the world thinks and writes in English. But as
I have written before, in French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and German
(and for all I know dozens of other languages), the word "chivalry" and
"knighthood" are translated into the same word. Obviously it is not like
the Garter or Thistle, but that is NOT the reason it is not an order of
Chivalry.
>
>>> The
>>> OM is different in that it confers no knightly rank (vs. the KCVO and
>>> GCVO).
And an Order that does confer knightly rank is not in your view an order of
Chivalry? How would you explain that to a Frenchmen in his own language?
Guy Stair Sainty
cj.b...@virgin.net says...
>
>
>George Lucki wrote:
>> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:1134024923.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>"idiosyncratic categorising" of authorities such as Paul
>Hieronymussen for a good explanation of what are orders of chivalry and
>what are orders of merit.
I do not think that this distinction is particularly difficult, although
perhaps in the case of Denmark there might be varying views as to the status
of the Dannebrog (in my view an Order of Chivalry). But what I am still
puzzled by is when you would consider an Order of Knighthood not to be an
order of Chivalry. The Order of the British Empire is certainly an Order of
Merit, but as an Order which confers knightly rank how is it not also an order
of Knighthood. If indeed the latter, how is it excluded from categorisation as
an Order of Chivalry (particularly in a foreing language work)?
cj.b...@virgin.net
chivalry, but it ceased to be that after the complete overhaul and
reformation into an order of merit, during the nineteenth century.
An order of chivalry is one with religious (specifically Christian)
associations of brotherhood, with their moral, social and religious
codes. Oaths and vows to defend Christianity, the poor, women, saints,
or devotion to serve, etc.
I fail to see where I ever mentioned that the Order of the British
Empire wasn't an order of knighthood. Perhaps you would care to quote
the passage where I supposedly did so?
I also fail to see why the deficiencies in vocabulary in one language
should restrict usage or meaning in another. In the Canadian context, I
dare say that there are no words in Eskimo for order of chivalry,
knighthood or merit. Is this is grounds for expunging their in both
English and French?
George Lucki
news:1134063952.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Lucki wrote:
>> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:1134024923.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Korean War there has been no time in the last sixty years where Canadian
>> military officers have been eligible for the award to the Order of the
>> British Empire except for awards for bravery.
>
> Apart from Korea, awards were also made to those who served in the
> Congo operations in 1964. They may well have been gazetted as "for
> gallantry" with the oak leaves decoration, but that does not exactly
> prove that Canadians were not eligible for British orders or
> decorations.
Christopher, Canadians were not eligible for other than bravery awards. You
had incorrectly suggested that the Order of Militray Merit was intended to
replace the Order of the British Empire.
>
> Canadians have always been eligible and still are, but as I said,
> Canadian ministers have not been disposed to make the regular bi-annual
> submissions after 1946. Even today, you will still see the occasional
> appointment of Canadian officers in the London Gazette, in the ranks of
> OBE or MBE. Usually, they are officers who have been on secondment with
> British or other Commonwealth forces. Similarly, small numbers of civil
> awards are also made, often to people resident in Canada, for services
> to Anglo-Canadian relations, services to veteran's affairs, etc.
Any new awards are of course foreign as far as Canada goes. Canadians have
also received US awards when working closely with US forces. It is no
different. It is not that Canadian PMs have not been disposed to making
honours lists submissions - Canada does not participate in the award of UK
honours.
>> It is
>> not the case that the CMM was intended to replace the CBE. During WWII
>> the
>> government created the Canada Medal an odd decoration (never awarded -
>> but
>> that is a separate story) as a single award for most military and
>> civilian
>> purposes.
>
> I do not quite know what the Canada Medal has to do with orders,
> whether it was awarded or not, whether it is peculiar or not.
It is by way of further illustrating Canadian government policy - which you
had badly misunderstood. To repeat Canada had not only chosen not to
participate in the British Honours system but had been developing its own
minimalist approach to honours. You can't simply look at the Canadian system
as a domestic replacement for the UK/Imperial system. They are apples and
oranges.
> Canada fully utilised the British orders, decorations and medals
> throughout WW2. Even the bi-annual PM's list was revived for civilian
> appointments, mainly to the Orders of St Michael and St George and the
> Order of the British Empire. Once that decision had been taken, the
> Canada Medal was superfluous.
It was only the exigencies of war alongside the UK that temporarily revived
honours.
>
>> This idea of one award for merit (civilian and military) carried
>> over into the original idea of the Order of Canada. After the
>> establishment
>> of the Order it became clear that a one size fits all does not work and
>> there was further expansion of that order and the creation of a seperate
>> order of military merit - as the Order of Canada did not address the
>> needs
>> of the military to reward services. The CMM was not intended to replace
>> anything but was a de novo creaqtion in the post-Order of Canada orders
>> system. There is no British award that is its clear equivalent. It is
>> worth
>> looking at the history of Canadian awards before making assumptions.
>
> Actually, it isn't too difficult to make comparisons. All one has to do
> is compare who received what under the old system, and who received
> what after.
And the difficulties in doing that very thing has prompted this part of the
thread.
>> If I recall both the internet sites of the Cabinet Ceremonial Office and
>> the
>> British Monarchy in the UK refer to the RVO as an order of chivalry. Of
>> course over the course of history the structure, purpose and objectives
>> of
>> orders created at different times has changed.
>
> The body responsible for orders in the United Kingdom is the Central
> Chancery of the Orders of Knigthood.
The Cabinet Ceremonial Secretariat is of course responsible for the
nomination processes and devlopment of the lists. Are you suggesting that
if I were to contact the Central Chancery they would advise that the RVO is
*not* an order of chivalry?
>> This is a seperate
>> discussion. I would caution that if you intend to use idiosyncratic
>> categories that you take care to define them and explain why your
>> perspective may be at odds with that of the consensus view (including
>> that
>> of those who are responsible for honours).
>
> I suggest that before you go about cautioning others, you consult the
> "idiosyncratic categorising" of authorities such as Paul
> Hieronymussen for a good explanation of what are orders of chivalry and
> what are orders of merit.
This is what I mean. Let's be clear what you mean by order of chivalry vs.
order of knighthood is not the same as what others mean. I would welcome
your distinctions as follow:
1. order of chivalry v. order of merit
2. order of chivalry v. order of knighthood
There are a number of overlapping classifications that might be used to
group orders - based on the criteria for the award, the conferral of
knightly status, the presenece of significant ongoing obligations on
members, the confraternal and corporate character of the order's government,
etc.
>> Whether an order has classes or not is absolutely irrelevant. Some
>> chivalric
>> orders through history have had classes others have not! You may wish to
>> reconsider such a statement.
>
> I am not discussing the generality of orders of chivalry and merit, I
> was comparing the RVO to the Orders of the Garter and Thistle. Perhaps
> you could show me how these two orders are divided into classes
> comprising a Grand Cross, Knight Commander, Commander, Officer and
> Member grades?
One of the things that has prompted me to avoid entering into discussions
with you is that the point of the discussion is sometimes a bit of a moving
target. No one suggests that the Garter and Thistle have multiple classes.
Sheesh. The question - still to you is - how do you define chivalric order
so that RVO is not a chivalric order. All I'm looking for at this point is
to know how you draw whatever distinction you make and then I can address
myself to whatever point you might be making here. Cannot chivalric awards
(within a definition of chivalric=knightly) be made to individuals who have
done something to merit the award?
>> > But the CVO, LVO, MVO and the Royal Victorian Medals do not confer any
>> > knightly rank. These are what Canada accepts, so what is the difference
>> > with the OM, exactly? I cannot see it myself.
>>
>> The OM may be conferred to Canadians as an award of HM in right of the UK
>> for merit and would be considered a Commonwealth decoration. Canadian
>> policy
>> is broader than simply a self-denial of titular honours. The exception
>> made
>> for the RVO is that it is for conferred for personal services to the
>> Crown
>> and solely in the gift of the Crown - so it may be conferred by HM for
>> personal services to her in her capacity as Queen of Canada or for
>> services
>> to her vice-regal representatives. Canada declines all other awards of
>> merit
>> or chivalric orders of the UK crown as it has its own Canadian system of
>> honours emanating from the Canadian crown.
>
> But the RVO (and Royal Victorian Chain) does not emanate from the
> Canadian Crown. The Order is a British order, there is no getting away
> from that fact.
If you re-read my posts you will note that I have not made the claim the
order emanates purely from the Canadian Crown and so see it as an anomaly in
teh honours ssytem but rather is awarded by HM for personal services to her.
>> Canada prefers that its citizens
>> also not receive awards of other heads of state (including Commonwealth
>> states) that are not merit awards and this would include those that come
>> with titular titles and those that do not. I hope that clarifies the
>> difference.
>
> Sorry, I have lost your line of argument. Is the RVO an order of merit
> or chivalry?
Sheesh. It was your point to distinguish this order as an order of merit not
chivalry (either or). It is not so much for merit as for personal services
rendered to HM.
>> >> For Canada the difference between the orders and awards in the Queen's
>> >> personal gift would have been this - for the Bath and Brit Empire the
>> >> Canadian PM might simply not put forward a list to communicate his
>> >> desire
>> >> that none be awarded for service to the Canadian crown. For the others
>> >> it
>> >> requires that the PM convey in more general terms his advice as to
>> >> whether
>> >> the Queen may properly (constitutionally) exercise this perogative of
>> >> honour
>> >> that is solely hers in respect to Canadians. By resolution of teh
>> >> Commons
>> >> teh elected representatives conveyed what has been since interpreted
>> >> as
>> >> this
>> >> message.
>> >
>> > All well and good. But I say again, there is essentially no difference
>> > in this regard between the OM and the non titular awards of the Royal
>> > Victorian Order.
>>
>> But there is as you will see above.
>>
> No I don't see the difference at all, though I do admit that you seem
> to have refined your line of argument somewhat.
I don't know how to make the point more plainly. I will leave it with you to
sort this out further for yourself.
>
> Sorry, I understood that the old precedence for the CC, CMM, OC, CB,
> CMG, CVO, CBE, DSO, OMM, LVO, OBE, ISO, CM, MMM, MVO, MBE, etc.
> continued for those who had received their British honours before 1972.
> Are you saying that it is now CC, OC, CM, CMM, CB, CMG, CVO, CBE, DSO,
> OMM, LVO, OBE, ISO, MMM, MVO, MBE, etc
The second list has been correct since 1998 for pre-1972 awards - that is
from the change in the precedence of the 2nd and 3rd classes of the Order of
Canada.
>> > In regard to the higher grades, I would suggest that due to the
>> > examples of the award of the CC to several former Chiefs of the Defence
>> > staff, it is somewhat loosely equivalent to the GCB. On the civilian
>> > front, since the CC goes with the rations to Governors-General, former
>> > Prime Ministers and Chief Justices, it is somewhat loosely equivalent
>> > to the GCMG, as awarded in Canada in former times.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think you really know the Canadian Honours system. The CC does
>> not
>> go to the Governor General with the rations. The GG is also ex-officio
>> the
>> Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and
>> Commander of the Orders of Military Merit and Merit of the Police Forces
>> and
>> Prior of the VOSJ. On the installation of the Governor General she is
>> invested with the Collars of the three prinicpal orders and the collar of
>> the Canadian Heraldic Authority.
>
> If that isn't 'going with the rations', I do not know what is.
> The membership of these orders goes with the job. They are not awarded
> for merit, and they are retained after leaving office.
Sheesh. It is the role of the serving GG to be ex-officio the head of the
governemnt of these orders of which HM is the Sovereign. This is different
than the evolving (and in my mind unfortunate) custom of bestowing orders
on deprted PMs and Chief Justices as a matter of course. (Justices and
politicians are barred from receiving Canadian orders while in office).
>> In its award to Prime Ministers and Chief Justices I would draw the
>> equivalancy not to the GCMG awarded in former times to distinguished
>> foreign
>> or colonial leaders as those awards were made to those in Imperial
>> service
>> rather than to the heads of goverment and judiciary of a fully
>> independent
>> state, but the awards made in the UK to their own Prime Ministers and
>> Chief
>> Justices - this would place the CC higher in the pecking order - Garter,
>> Peerage, etc.
>
> I suggest you look at your own history and the awards made by your own
> governments, in respect of the GCMG. Indeed, you can look across all
> the dominions for that. Awards in the dominions, were always a matter
> for dominion ministers, not the British government or British
> ministers. Canadian Prime Ministers and Chief Justices, were never in
> "Imperial Service", as far as I know. The closest to that perhaps
> may be the two Canadian Premiers who went on to serve as British
> governors in the West Indies, but that is a different story.
I understand your point, but suggest you consider that these awards as they
continued to be made evolved from the Imperial British criteria that the
Dominion service was abroad and merited the StMStG as it contributed to
British interests where as from a Dominion perspective it would have been
domestic service. As far as Imperial Service goes, as I understand until
1967 Canadian Prime Ministers, Chief Justices and some others were appointed
to the 'Imperial' Privy Council even though since 1867 there has been a
seperate Privy Council for Canada.
>
>> The UK has awards that go beyond the conferral of orders of
>> chivalry or merit. The CC is after all the single premier award of the
>> Canadian Crown and should be equated to the premier awards of other
>> states.
>> (that notwithstanding I think that there is still room to honour the most
>> distinguished of the 165 Companions with a higher level award).
>
> Well, like it or not the idea of equivalence is largely a diplomatic
> fiction. Although the Queen of Denmark will smile sweetly and be seen
> wearing the Most August Order of the Double Jointed Red Iguana of the
> Democratic Socialist People's Republic of Lower Costa del Sandalia,
> side by side with her Elephant, very few would actually see it that way
> in reality.
>
So, Christopher - finding the equivalency of orders is in your mind nothing
but a diplomatic fiction in this case - we can't make the comparison based
on comparing the recipients, except when you do it to suggest an alternative
equivalence?
George Lucki
George Lucki
means to draw. For example in Polish while chivalric and knightly are
synonymous one can draw other distinctions so that the word Zakon (as in
Zakon Maltanski for the Order of Malta or the Zakon Kryzacki for the
Teutonic Order) is reseved specifically for the military-religious and
monastic orders of the Church while the word Order is used for monarchical
chivalric orders whether of honour or merit. All of the above examples are
knightly but do not have the same purposes.
I have previously tried here to draw the distinction between the award of
honours as a token of esteem and companionship, in recognition of
meritorious services previously rendered and in anticipation of important
services to be rendered in the future. I do fear that the distinctions merit
vs. chivalric or chivalric vs. multi-level are not particularly clear or
useful but I would leave it to Christropher to explain what he means.
Kind regards, George Lucki
cj.b...@virgin.net
> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:1134063952.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > George Lucki wrote:
> >> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1134024923.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> Christopher, You are unfortunately mistaken. Except for the period of the
> >> Korean War there has been no time in the last sixty years where Canadian
> >> military officers have been eligible for the award to the Order of the
> >> British Empire except for awards for bravery.
> >
> > Apart from Korea, awards were also made to those who served in the
> > Congo operations in 1964. They may well have been gazetted as "for
> > gallantry" with the oak leaves decoration, but that does not exactly
> > prove that Canadians were not eligible for British orders or
> > decorations.
>
> Christopher, Canadians were not eligible for other than bravery awards.
I am sorry, but this is patent not the case. There are numerous
examples of Canadians who received British honours during the period
mentioned. Here are some prominent examples:
Colonel Henry Willis-O'Conor - CVO 1946
Frederick Linwood Clinton Pereira - CVO 1946
The Rt Hon William Lyon Mackenzie King - OM (civil) 1947
Dr Robert David Defries - CBE (civil) 1947
George S. Braden - CBE (civil) 1948
Colonel Hugh Mcintyre Urquhar - CVO 1948
Major-General John Meredith Rockingham - CB 1952
Lieutenant-General Frank James Fleury - CBE (mil) 1952
Wilder Graves Penfield - OM (civil) 1953
Major-General Mortimer Patrick Bogert - CBE (mil) 1953
Dr Louis Boyd Neel - CBE (civil) 1953
Brigadier Gerald Lucian Morgan Smith - CBE (mil) 1953
James Arthur Masters - CVO 1957
Professor John Ewart Wallace Stirling - CBE (civil) 1957
Vincent Massey - Royal Victorian Chain 1960
The Rt Hon Lester Bowles Pearson - OM (civil) 1971
Captain Charles Herbert Best - CH 1971
Roland Michener - Royal Victorian Chain 1973
Arnold Cantwell Smith - CH 1975
Graeme McDonald Wilson - CMG 1975
The Rt Hon John George Diefenbaker - CH 1976
The Rt Hon Pierre Elliot Trudeau - CH 1984
Ronald Donald Southern - CBE (civil) 1995
Perhaps you would be good enough to go through each one and tell us
which were for "bravery". Aha, I know. Dr Neel, for braving the
heights of tall buildings! Sheesh!
> You
> had incorrectly suggested that the Order of Militray Merit was intended to
> replace the Order of the British Empire.
Of course it was.
> >
> > Canadians have always been eligible and still are, but as I said,
> > Canadian ministers have not been disposed to make the regular bi-annual
> > submissions after 1946. Even today, you will still see the occasional
> > appointment of Canadian officers in the London Gazette, in the ranks of
> > OBE or MBE. Usually, they are officers who have been on secondment with
> > British or other Commonwealth forces. Similarly, small numbers of civil
> > awards are also made, often to people resident in Canada, for services
> > to Anglo-Canadian relations, services to veteran's affairs, etc.
>
> Any new awards are of course foreign as far as Canada goes. Canadians have
> also received US awards when working closely with US forces. It is no
> different.
No, there is a big difference. Awards to Canadians are not honorary,
foreign, supernumery, or extra awards. Recipients of British honours
are full members. They are all fully gazetted in the London Gazette,
and they count as part of the statutory numbers.
> It is not that Canadian PMs have not been disposed to making
> honours lists submissions - Canada does not participate in the award of UK
> honours.
As you have already told us, the RVO is awarded to Canadians. It is a
British order, whatever pretence is presented to Canadians.
> >> It is
> >> not the case that the CMM was intended to replace the CBE. During WWII
> >> the
> >> government created the Canada Medal an odd decoration (never awarded -
> >> but
> >> that is a separate story) as a single award for most military and
> >> civilian
> >> purposes.
> >
> > I do not quite know what the Canada Medal has to do with orders,
> > whether it was awarded or not, whether it is peculiar or not.
>
> It is by way of further illustrating Canadian government policy - which you
> had badly misunderstood.
This silly medal is of no consequence whatsoever. It was never awarded.
No sooner was it created than the Canadian government promptly forgot
about it and went back to recommending British honours, military AND
civil, for the duration of WW2, for Korea, for the Congo, for gallantry
and bravery. British special honours were not only continued, but were
accepted by Canadian former Prime Ministers themselves.
> To repeat Canada had not only chosen not to
> participate in the British Honours system but had been developing its own
> minimalist approach to honours. You can't simply look at the Canadian system
> as a domestic replacement for the UK/Imperial system. They are apples and
> oranges.
Urgh?
> > Canada fully utilised the British orders, decorations and medals
> > throughout WW2. Even the bi-annual PM's list was revived for civilian
> > appointments, mainly to the Orders of St Michael and St George and the
> > Order of the British Empire. Once that decision had been taken, the
> > Canada Medal was superfluous.
>
> It was only the exigencies of war alongside the UK that temporarily revived
> honours.
I doubt it was just the "exigencies of war". The public acceptance
of any new awards, especially for bravery and gallantry, would have
been near zilch. Isn't that why the Victoria Cross is been
"copied" even now? An outrageous idea for anyone pretending that
their system was equivalent in any way.
No, only partly. They are not responsible for any awards made by the
Queen personally. They are not responsible for any awards made for
foreign service. They are not responsible for any military awards. They
are not responsible for gallantry awards. They are not responsible for
awards by the Queen's realms and territories overseas. They
frequently get things wrong.
> Are you suggesting that
> if I were to contact the Central Chancery they would advise that the RVO is
> *not* an order of chivalry?
I don't read minds, but why not give it ago. Better still, address
your envelope to the Central Chancery of the Orders of Chivalry and see
if their reply is addressed from the Central Chancery of the Orders of
Chivalry or Knighthood.
>
> >> This is a seperate
> >> discussion. I would caution that if you intend to use idiosyncratic
> >> categories that you take care to define them and explain why your
> >> perspective may be at odds with that of the consensus view (including
> >> that
> >> of those who are responsible for honours).
> >
> > I suggest that before you go about cautioning others, you consult the
> > "idiosyncratic categorising" of authorities such as Paul
> > Hieronymussen for a good explanation of what are orders of chivalry and
> > what are orders of merit.
>
> This is what I mean. Let's be clear what you mean by order of chivalry vs.
> order of knighthood is not the same as what others mean. I would welcome
> your distinctions as follow:
> 1. order of chivalry v. order of merit
> 2. order of chivalry v. order of knighthood
> There are a number of overlapping classifications that might be used to
> group orders - based on the criteria for the award, the conferral of
> knightly status, the presenece of significant ongoing obligations on
> members, the confraternal and corporate character of the order's government,
> etc.
Well, if you have read Hieronymussen, you will be familiar with the
difference, yes?
Sheesh. I am not just talking about being Chancellor while holding
office as Governor-General. I know that, but there is no role after
they leave office, is there? I am talking about becoming ordinary
members of the highest classes of the three orders, solely on the
grounds that they previously held the office of GG. Or are you saying
that they actually go on to command Canadian Forces in peace-keeping
operations in Cyprus, or solve murders in down-town Toronto?
> This is different
> than the evolving (and in my mind unfortunate) custom of bestowing orders
> on deprted PMs and Chief Justices as a matter of course. (Justices and
> politicians are barred from receiving Canadian orders while in office).
What is the big difference here? Former Governor-Generals are
guaranteed membership in the senior grades of the Orders of Canada,
Military Merit and Merit for the Police. Whereas, in the case of former
PMs and Chief Justices, it is almost a certainty. Little difference to
me.
> >> In its award to Prime Ministers and Chief Justices I would draw the
> >> equivalancy not to the GCMG awarded in former times to distinguished
> >> foreign
> >> or colonial leaders as those awards were made to those in Imperial
> >> service
> >> rather than to the heads of goverment and judiciary of a fully
> >> independent
> >> state, but the awards made in the UK to their own Prime Ministers and
> >> Chief
> >> Justices - this would place the CC higher in the pecking order - Garter,
> >> Peerage, etc.
> >
> > I suggest you look at your own history and the awards made by your own
> > governments, in respect of the GCMG. Indeed, you can look across all
> > the dominions for that. Awards in the dominions, were always a matter
> > for dominion ministers, not the British government or British
> > ministers. Canadian Prime Ministers and Chief Justices, were never in
> > "Imperial Service", as far as I know. The closest to that perhaps
> > may be the two Canadian Premiers who went on to serve as British
> > governors in the West Indies, but that is a different story.
>
> I understand your point, but suggest you consider that these awards as they
> continued to be made evolved from the Imperial British criteria that the
> Dominion service was abroad and merited the StMStG as it contributed to
> British interests where as from a Dominion perspective it would have been
> domestic service.
No. Awards in the dominions were made by the dominion governments, not
the British government. The latter played no part in drawing up the
lists or approving who was on it. Indeed, there are several examples,
that I know of, where British PMs were unhappy about certain
nominations, but could not do anything about it.
> As far as Imperial Service goes, as I understand until
> 1967 Canadian Prime Ministers, Chief Justices and some others were appointed
> to the 'Imperial' Privy Council even though since 1867 there has been a
> seperate Privy Council for Canada.
Again, those appointments were at the request or nomination of the
Canadian government, not the British. Indeed, once titular honours were
halted by the Canadian government, the numbers of those nominated
increased. Massey, in his autobiography draws attention to the scramble
by Canadian politicians to get themselves nominated as Imperial Privy
Councillors, so that they could use the form of address.
> >
> >> The UK has awards that go beyond the conferral of orders of
> >> chivalry or merit. The CC is after all the single premier award of the
> >> Canadian Crown and should be equated to the premier awards of other
> >> states.
> >> (that notwithstanding I think that there is still room to honour the most
> >> distinguished of the 165 Companions with a higher level award).
> >
> > Well, like it or not the idea of equivalence is largely a diplomatic
> > fiction. Although the Queen of Denmark will smile sweetly and be seen
> > wearing the Most August Order of the Double Jointed Red Iguana of the
> > Democratic Socialist People's Republic of Lower Costa del Sandalia,
> > side by side with her Elephant, very few would actually see it that way
> > in reality.
> >
> So, Christopher - finding the equivalency of orders is in your mind nothing
> but a diplomatic fiction in this case - we can't make the comparison based
> on comparing the recipients, except when you do it to suggest an alternative
> equivalence?
>
Not at all. In the Canadian case, it is particularly easy to do because
the Canadian system evolved out of a pre-existing practice - the use of
British honours by Canadians in a particular way. The Canadian system
didn't suddenly drop out of the sky. It was never designed with any
idea of the familiar international system of the "diplomatic"
exchange of decorations in mind.
You can try to make such comparisons, but they make no sense whatever
until and unless actual exchanges take place. None have. Even if they
were, you may not end up with the sort of status for the Canadian Order
that you have in mind.
I can think of half a dozen instances where the highest order of one
country does not necessarily equate to the highest order of another.
For example, the highest ranking order in the Netherlands is the
Military Order of Willem. Curiously, like the order of Canada, all
classes rank before the other Dutch orders. However, it absorbs the
functions of the VC, the military division of the Order of the Bath and
the DSO. So it will never be equated with the highest exchangeable
order of another country, and the Order of Canada could never be
equated with it.
Several West Indian Commonwealth countries now have as their highest
ranking order, one usually termed the Order of the National Hero. These
are reserved for people involved in nation building and the
independence struggle. Thus they can also never be exchangeable equated
with an order such as the Order of Canada.
In the British instance, the "exchangeable" awards of the Order of
the Garter are more or less restricted to European and Japanese
sovereigns. Most Heads of State receive the GCB during State Visits. If
the visits are simply official, the usual award is the GCMG.
Even if Canada were to become a republic tomorrow, with its own
indigenous Head of State, he or she will never be in a position to
receive either the highest or the second highest British orders. So the
Order of Canada will never actually be equivalent to either the Garter
or the Thistle. The irony is that had Canada not abandoned British
titular honours, the awards of the Royal Victorian Chain to two very
distinguished Canadians, Massey and Michener, would actually have been
made KGs.
cj.b...@virgin.net
And there are several hundreds more where there will be no word for
knightood or chivalry, and where the concepts may be entirely unknown
to the culture. The Inuit languages of Canada, surely amongst them.
Does that mean we ought to go around calling an order "the little
bauble that white people wear round their necks"?
> Obviously it is not like
> the Garter or Thistle, but that is NOT the reason it is not an order of
> Chivalry.
> >
> >>> The
> >>> OM is different in that it confers no knightly rank (vs. the KCVO and
> >>> GCVO).
>
> And an Order that does confer knightly rank is not in your view an order of
> Chivalry?
And where did I say that?
An order of chivalry is usualy an order of knighthood, but an order of
knighthood is not necessarily an order of chivalry.
An order of knighthood can be an order of merit, but an order of merit
is not necessarily an order of knighthood and is certainly not an order
of chivalry.
> How would you explain that to a Frenchmen in his own language?
I am not interested in French and I really do not understand your
fixation with it. As I have said before, why on earth should the
deficiencies in vocabulary in one language determine what one writes or
says in another?
Where we use the title "Sir" the French would probably use "Chevalier".
Does that mean we should go around styling British recipients "Knight
(Elton) John" or "Knight (John) Major"?. We use "Sir" as a title, to
convey one meaning, and the word "knight" to convey something a little
different. I see no reason whatever why we should do anything else.
Guy Stair Sainty
cj.b...@virgin.net says...
>
>
>Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>
>An order of chivalry is one with religious (specifically Christian)
>associations of brotherhood, with their moral, social and religious
>codes. Oaths and vows to defend Christianity, the poor, women, saints,
>or devotion to serve, etc.
And these are characteristics of the Order of Saint Patrick, or for that matter
the Order of the Seraphim? When the religious oath required of
recipients of the Thistle was abolished in 1865, did its character
change?
>
>I fail to see where I ever mentioned that the Order of the British
>Empire wasn't an order of knighthood. Perhaps you would care to quote
>the passage where I supposedly did so?
That is not my suggestion; my question is how do you differentiate an Order of
Chivalry from one of knighthood? This is not a distinction that can be made
in most European languages because the concept that there is a difference
would not be generally accepted.
>
>I also fail to see why the deficiencies in vocabulary in one language
>should restrict usage or meaning in another. In the Canadian context, I
>dare say that there are no words in Eskimo for order of chivalry,
>knighthood or merit. Is this is grounds for expunging their in both
>English and French?
>
Really, no doubt that is true of many languages - however the very concept of
an Order of Chivalry and Knighthood first developed on the continent, and
in English certainly there would have been no distinction made between the
one or other until the 20th century. Or perhaps you can cite a source that
demonstrates the existence of such a distinction in English before that
date?
Do you really believe that James II and VII when he founded the Order of the
Thistle, when George I founded the Order of the Bath or George III founded the
Order of Saint Patrick, or any of their contemporaries would have considered
there was some difference between an Order of Chivalry and one of
Knighthood? What about George IV as Prince Regent, when he reformed the classes
of the Order of the Bath? Or when he founded the Guelphic Order?
Would you suggest that the Order of the Bath was founded as an Order of Chivalry
or Knighthood, according to your definitions? Has its status
changed since?
Guy Stair Sainty
>
>"Guy Stair Sainty" <g...@sainty.org> wrote in message
>news:dn9sj...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <xUYlf.157228$yS6.82415@clgrps12>, George Lucki says...
>>>
>>><cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1134024923.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I have asked Christopher the same question. there may be a distinction he
>means to draw. For example in Polish while chivalric and knightly are
>synonymous one can draw other distinctions so that the word Zakon (as in
>Zakon Maltanski for the Order of Malta or the Zakon Kryzacki for the
>Teutonic Order) is reseved specifically for the military-religious and
>monastic orders of the Church while the word Order is used for monarchical
>chivalric orders whether of honour or merit. All of the above examples are
>knightly but do not have the same purposes.
>I have previously tried here to draw the distinction between the award of
>honours as a token of esteem and companionship, in recognition of
>meritorious services previously rendered and in anticipation of important
>services to be rendered in the future. I do fear that the distinctions merit
>vs. chivalric or chivalric vs. multi-level are not particularly clear or
>useful but I would leave it to Christropher to explain what he means.
I agree that there are Orders that are unquestionably "Orders of Chivalry /
Knighthood" and others which are unquestionably "Orders of Merit". But there
are also Orders of Chivalry / Knighthood which may be granted in recognition of
extraordinary service, and in a sense this is even true of certain Collar
Orders. For example, the Garter has in the present reign been given to every
Prime Minister after they left office (at various intervals thereafter,
except Lord Hume, a Scot given the Thistle); this is given for one single
reason, having been prime minister - while there is no doubt that this
honour is in the exclusive gift of the sovereign, there would seem little
likelihood of a former prime minister, once retired from politics, not being
offered this distinction unless they had been implicated in some serious
scandal. Even taking aside these particular and rare awards, there are a
significant group of Orders usually given in the European monarchies (but
also IMO in France, with the Legion of Honour and Poland with the White
Eagle) which may be characterised as both. Indeed I find it hard to accept
that the Order of the British Empire is not both an Order of Knighthood and
of Merit.
That prior to the early 19th century all those Orders that were
characterised as Orders of Knighthood or Chivalry were very different in
character to their modern successors, is also a fact, and this is as true
of the Orders of the Bath and Charles III (for example) as it is of the
Garter. This is part of the historical evolution of these Orders and
in my view negates any real possibility of drawing some kind of distinction,
even in English, between such institutions.
George Lucki
time (both the evolution of older orders themselves) and the characteristics
of orders created at different times creates a complex construct of
knighthood and a complex construct of order. The distinction proposed by
Christopher between orders of knighthood and chivalry which he kindly
provided turns out not to be particularly useful. If the line had been drawn
between military-religious orders and the later monarchical orders of
companionship and honour it might have been clearer although still not
completely so but it still would have led to paradoxes such as excluding
many ancient orders of chivalry from that category because they were not
Christian enough at their outset or in their later evolution - paradoxes
that would lead to classifying the Order of the Bath as non-chivalric I
guess. The distinction between of merit and chivalric is similarly difficult
to draw as you have suggested. The more useful classification is the
descriptive one that allows several terms to describe an order - the source
of its creation, its corporate or self-governing charcater, the criteria for
award, etc. - and then linking these to a particular period in the history
of the order.
George Lucki
George Lucki
news:1134118723....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think you have made my point. Let's look at the list of exceptions you
provided particularly for the period pre-1972 (the change in the order of
precedence that moved British awards into the Commonwealth category and
outside the Canadian Order of precedence) and post Korean War. Except for
awards relating to WWII/Korean War and bravery awards we have only a small
number of awards and if you look at these you will find a number that are
awards in HM personal gift - the source of which is no Canadian nomination.
You will also find awards of the CH made to members of the 'Imperial' Privy
Council and then a handful of others over the whole time frame. Louis Boyd
Neel the example you used to scoff with for example was born in England and
did not become a Canadian citizen until 1961 - eight years after his CBE. I
suppose you included him because he came to Canada in 1953 to take up the
role of Dean of the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto. Others like
Arnold Cantwell Smith was of course the first Secretary General of the
Commonwealth and this rather than any service within Canada that merited his
CH - and you will note that the policy at this time was that Canadians could
accept foreign honours for merit - but this was not a Canadian award as also
for example Gen. de Chastelain's more recent CH for his work in Northern
Ireland. You will also probably find over the years some examples of awards
to Canadians from the British Honours list which were not opposed by
Canadian advice. The existence of a handful of exceptions does not change
the point made.
>> You
>> had incorrectly suggested that the Order of Militray Merit was intended
>> to
>> replace the Order of the British Empire.
>
> Of course it was.
And still nothing but your assertion.
>> Any new awards are of course foreign as far as Canada goes. Canadians
>> have
>> also received US awards when working closely with US forces. It is no
>> different.
>
> No, there is a big difference. Awards to Canadians are not honorary,
> foreign, supernumery, or extra awards. Recipients of British honours
> are full members. They are all fully gazetted in the London Gazette,
> and they count as part of the statutory numbers.
In Canada they are Commonwealth awards and not Canadian awards. The British
are more gnerous to include Canadians as ordinary members of British orders
than Canadians are to to include Britons in Canadian orders. The inclusion
of Canadians as ordinary members comes from the view that as loyal subjects
of HM Canadians are eligible for substantive rather than honorary awards.
The Canadian view is that Britons not being citizens of the the Canadian
crown receive honorary appointments to the Order of Canada. There is no
symmetry here.
>> To repeat Canada had not only chosen not to
>> participate in the British Honours system but had been developing its own
>> minimalist approach to honours. You can't simply look at the Canadian
>> system
>> as a domestic replacement for the UK/Imperial system. They are apples and
>> oranges.
>
> Urgh?
Well grunted.
> I doubt it was just the "exigencies of war". The public acceptance
> of any new awards, especially for bravery and gallantry, would have
> been near zilch. Isn't that why the Victoria Cross is been
> "copied" even now? An outrageous idea for anyone pretending that
> their system was equivalent in any way.
I don't understand. There has been good acceptance of the newer bravery and
valour awards. They are held in high esteem. The Victoria Cross has been
held in especially high regard and the Canadian winners of this award people
of remarkable courage. The new Canadian Victoria Cross will carry this
tradition forward within the Canadian Honours system. HM graciously approved
this new award carrying forward the design of the British decoration in
1993.
>> Are you suggesting that
>> if I were to contact the Central Chancery they would advise that the RVO
>> is
>> *not* an order of chivalry?
>
> I don't read minds, but why not give it ago. Better still, address
> your envelope to the Central Chancery of the Orders of Chivalry and see
> if their reply is addressed from the Central Chancery of the Orders of
> Chivalry or Knighthood.
:) So you are suggesting that they are called the Central Chancery of the
Orders of Knighthood because these orders are not Orders of Chivalry.
>> Sheesh. It is the role of the serving GG to be ex-officio the head of the
>> governemnt of these orders of which HM is the Sovereign.
>
> Sheesh. I am not just talking about being Chancellor while holding
> office as Governor-General. I know that, but there is no role after
> they leave office, is there? I am talking about becoming ordinary
> members of the highest classes of the three orders, solely on the
> grounds that they previously held the office of GG. Or are you saying
> that they actually go on to command Canadian Forces in peace-keeping
> operations in Cyprus, or solve murders in down-town Toronto?
No. Their role as chancellor is ex-officio and if they are not already
Companions of the orders they are invested as Companions on assuming the
office and not on leaving office. The award of the order is for life and not
time limited. In the same way that the Sovereign does not actually command
the troops in Cyprus neither would the GG altough she is also the Commander
in Chief of Canada by virtue of her office. To understand this look at the
common practice that the head of state in many republican systems is
invested as a member and perhaps grandmaster of the senior order or oorders.
While the GG is not head of state her role is increasingly defined as
fulfilling the roles of a head of state including a formal role as
chancellor of the orders and as principal companion of the Order of Canada.
>> This is different
>> than the evolving (and in my mind unfortunate) custom of bestowing
>> orders
>> on deprted PMs and Chief Justices as a matter of course. (Justices and
>> politicians are barred from receiving Canadian orders while in office).
>
> What is the big difference here? Former Governor-Generals are
> guaranteed membership in the senior grades of the Orders of Canada,
> Military Merit and Merit for the Police. Whereas, in the case of former
> PMs and Chief Justices, it is almost a certainty. Little difference to
> me.
I think you will find, if you appreciate the constitutional role of the GG
that the difference is outlined above. The GG is the head of the orders'
governments and invested by virtue of installation into these offices that
accompany the role of GG and CinC. Prime Ministers and Chief Justices do not
receive the order while in office but afterwards for merit in their service.
>> I understand your point, but suggest you consider that these awards as
>> they
>> continued to be made evolved from the Imperial British criteria that the
>> Dominion service was abroad and merited the StMStG as it contributed to
>> British interests where as from a Dominion perspective it would have been
>> domestic service.
>
> No. Awards in the dominions were made by the dominion governments, not
> the British government. The latter played no part in drawing up the
> lists or approving who was on it. Indeed, there are several examples,
> that I know of, where British PMs were unhappy about certain
> nominations, but could not do anything about it.
You may have missed my point. I was looking at why a StMStG might be awarded
rather than the Bath for domestic service within a Dominion.
>> As far as Imperial Service goes, as I understand until
>> 1967 Canadian Prime Ministers, Chief Justices and some others were
>> appointed
>> to the 'Imperial' Privy Council even though since 1867 there has been a
>> seperate Privy Council for Canada.
>
> Again, those appointments were at the request or nomination of the
> Canadian government, not the British. Indeed, once titular honours were
> halted by the Canadian government, the numbers of those nominated
> increased. Massey, in his autobiography draws attention to the scramble
> by Canadian politicians to get themselves nominated as Imperial Privy
> Councillors, so that they could use the form of address.
You are referring to the form of address Rt. Hon. that was not previously
available to Canadian Prime Ministers except by membership in the Imperial
privy Council. Happily among other changes the grant of the use of this
style is now (since 1967) within the gift of the Governor General.
>> So, Christopher - finding the equivalency of orders is in your mind
>> nothing
>> but a diplomatic fiction in this case - we can't make the comparison
>> based
>> on comparing the recipients, except when you do it to suggest an
>> alternative
>> equivalence?
>>
> Not at all. In the Canadian case, it is particularly easy to do because
> the Canadian system evolved out of a pre-existing practice - the use of
> British honours by Canadians in a particular way. The Canadian system
> didn't suddenly drop out of the sky. It was never designed with any
> idea of the familiar international system of the "diplomatic"
> exchange of decorations in mind.
Unfortunately it did drop out of the sky so to speak - it was created de
novo without emulation of the British system.
> You can try to make such comparisons, but they make no sense whatever
> until and unless actual exchanges take place. None have. Even if they
> were, you may not end up with the sort of status for the Canadian Order
> that you have in mind.
No exchanges of orders has taken place because such exchanges are not
pernmitted by Canadian governemnt policy. I have suggested that there is
need for a seperate diplomatic order but there is none. I agree with you
that the Order of Canada was not intended and would be unsuitable for such a
function.
> I can think of half a dozen instances where the highest order of one
> country does not necessarily equate to the highest order of another.
> For example, the highest ranking order in the Netherlands is the
> Military Order of Willem. Curiously, like the order of Canada, all
> classes rank before the other Dutch orders. However, it absorbs the
> functions of the VC, the military division of the Order of the Bath and
> the DSO. So it will never be equated with the highest exchangeable
> order of another country, and the Order of Canada could never be
> equated with it.
Absolutely. Nor would the order of Canada be equated with the British VC or
GC. You will get nowhere comparing apples and oranges. There are awards that
do not easily compare to the awards of a different state and different
states may have different views of the precedence of different sorts of
awards or the eliigibility for certain awards. My discussion with Rafal has
started with the consideration fo the change of precedence between the Order
of Canada and other Canadian and British orders and my prespective has been
that the precedence is set domestically and there need not be a concordance
with other nations' pratcices. I have no disagreement with your following
points except to point out that the Order of Canada is not an exchangable
order and so its equivalence needs be determined in other ways and that your
illustration that Massey and Michener might have otherwise merited KG is
correct and I have no dote that this would have occurred were it not for
Canada's self-denial of titular honours.
Kind regards, George Lucki
cj.b...@virgin.net
Which bravery awards are in the list I provided?
> we have only a small
> number of awards and if you look at these you will find a number that are
> awards in HM personal gift - the source of which is no Canadian nomination.
What has this got to do with anything. The issue was whether or not
Canadians received orders. You told us that apart from bravery
decorations there were none. Clearly, this isn't the case.
> You will also find awards of the CH made to members of the 'Imperial' Privy
> Council and then a handful of others over the whole time frame.
And why were they members of the Imperial Privy Council in the first
place? What government, judicial or diplomatic positions did they hold
in Britain?
The people in question usually nominated themselves, or each other, to
the British PC. Vincent Massey writes about this in his autobiography,
how once titular honours were halted, Canadian politicians were falling
over themselves to get themselves niminated by the Canadian PM.
> Louis Boyd
> Neel the example you used to scoff with for example was born in England and
> did not become a Canadian citizen until 1961 - eight years after his CBE. I
> suppose you included him because he came to Canada in 1953 to take up the
> role of Dean of the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto.
What has Canadian citizenship got to do with anything? The Nickle
convention talk's about HM's subjects ordinarily resident in Canada,
that means Canadians, Britons, Australians, Cypriots, Maltese,
everyone.
> Others like
> Arnold Cantwell Smith was of course the first Secretary General of the
> Commonwealth and this rather than any service within Canada that merited his
> CH - and you will note that the policy at this time was that Canadians could
> accept foreign honours for merit -
Last I heard, Canada was part and parcel of the Commonwealth. I
presume, that was the basis on which the gentleman in question received
his appointment in the first place?
What has service "within Canada" got to do with anything? Are awards of
Canadian orders and decorations post 1968/72 restricted to "within
Canada"?
> but this was not a Canadian award as also
> for example Gen. de Chastelain's more recent CH for his work in Northern
> Ireland.
I know that. Where do you see him on the list I provided?
> You will also probably find over the years some examples of awards
> to Canadians from the British Honours list which were not opposed by
> Canadian advice. The existence of a handful of exceptions does not change
> the point made.
I have told you something like FOUR times, that the Canadian government
did not participate in the bi-annual nominations every year. Nobody is
arguing otherwise. However, ALL appointments for gallentry and bravery
WERE nominated by CANADIAN ministers, and none other. It is proof of
participation in the system, whichever way you want to look at it.
Why on earth bravery and gallantry decorations should not be included
is quite beyond me. They were part and parcel of the British system of
awards, they were made to Canadians, and nominations were made by
Canadian ministers. You might as well say that apart from members of
the male sex who had white eyeballs, no nominations to British orders
were made!
> >> You
> >> had incorrectly suggested that the Order of Militray Merit was intended
> >> to
> >> replace the Order of the British Empire.
> >
> > Of course it was.
>
> And still nothing but your assertion.
No, I told you before to have a look at the books by Commander
Blatherwick. You can look at the correspondence and submissions from
the Defence services whin the Order of Military Merit was being set up.
You can take an honours list from, say 1946, and compare it to a modern
list of appointments to the Order of MM. The military ranks appointed
to the different grades will be almost identical to those nominated to
the Order of the British Empire in the previous lists.
Gosh you do surprise me, would never have known any of that unless you
told me that here!
> The new Canadian Victoria Cross will carry this
> tradition forward within the Canadian Honours system. HM graciously approved
> this new award carrying forward the design of the British decoration in
> 1993.
Carrying forward or a straight copy? Is that a replacement for the
British decoration or another bolt from the sky?
> >> Are you suggesting that
> >> if I were to contact the Central Chancery they would advise that the RVO
> >> is *not* an order of chivalry?
> >
> > I don't read minds, but why not give it ago. Better still, address
> > your envelope to the Central Chancery of the Orders of Chivalry and see
> > if their reply is addressed from the Central Chancery of the Orders of
> > Chivalry or Knighthood.
>
> :) So you are suggesting that they are called the Central Chancery of the
> Orders of Knighthood because these orders are not Orders of Chivalry.
Not at all. The name probably comes from the fact that the term covered
the widest range of orders that they handled. Although, it may actually
be the case that at the time the office was set up, it probably had
very little to do with the orders of chivalry.
> >> Sheesh. It is the role of the serving GG to be ex-officio the head of the
> >> governemnt of these orders of which HM is the Sovereign.
> >
> > Sheesh. I am not just talking about being Chancellor while holding
> > office as Governor-General. I know that, but there is no role after
> > they leave office, is there? I am talking about becoming ordinary
> > members of the highest classes of the three orders, solely on the
> > grounds that they previously held the office of GG. Or are you saying
> > that they actually go on to command Canadian Forces in peace-keeping
> > operations in Cyprus, or solve murders in down-town Toronto?
>
> No. Their role as chancellor is ex-officio and if they are not already
> Companions of the orders they are invested as Companions on assuming the
> office and not on leaving office.
Where do I say that they are invested on leaving office, please could
you be so kind as to quote the sentence?
I said, becoming ordinary members on leaving office.
> The award of the order is for life and not
> time limited. In the same way that the Sovereign does not actually command
> the troops in Cyprus neither would the GG altough she is also the Commander
> in Chief of Canada by virtue of her office. To understand this look at the
> common practice that the head of state in many republican systems is
> invested as a member and perhaps grandmaster of the senior order or oorders.
But how does this change anything? As I said, the orders go with the
rations. You are simply confirming my point.
> >> This is different
> >> than the evolving (and in my mind unfortunate) custom of bestowing
> >> orders
> >> on deprted PMs and Chief Justices as a matter of course. (Justices and
> >> politicians are barred from receiving Canadian orders while in office).
> >
> > What is the big difference here? Former Governor-Generals are
> > guaranteed membership in the senior grades of the Orders of Canada,
> > Military Merit and Merit for the Police. Whereas, in the case of former
> > PMs and Chief Justices, it is almost a certainty. Little difference to
> > me.
>
> I think you will find, if you appreciate the constitutional role of the GG
> that the difference is outlined above. The GG is the head of the orders'
> governments and invested by virtue of installation into these offices that
> accompany the role of GG and CinC. Prime Ministers and Chief Justices do not
> receive the order while in office but afterwards for merit in their service.
The Governor-General does not become an ordinary member of the various
orders, just like a former Chief Justice or PM, until he/she leaves
office. There is little difference in that regard, between them.
> >> I understand your point, but suggest you consider that these awards as
> >> they
> >> continued to be made evolved from the Imperial British criteria that the
> >> Dominion service was abroad and merited the StMStG as it contributed to
> >> British interests where as from a Dominion perspective it would have been
> >> domestic service.
> >
> > No. Awards in the dominions were made by the dominion governments, not
> > the British government. The latter played no part in drawing up the
> > lists or approving who was on it. Indeed, there are several examples,
> > that I know of, where British PMs were unhappy about certain
> > nominations, but could not do anything about it.
>
> You may have missed my point. I was looking at why a StMStG might be awarded
> rather than the Bath for domestic service within a Dominion.
The point I was making was that dominion governments made their own
awards according to their own interests. The British were not making
awards because they contributed to "British interests" in the
dominions!
As I have pointed out, there are several instances in the records where
British ministers would have preferred not to see some of those awards
being made, but were unable to do anything about them.
While it is true that the Order of St Michael and & George was the
usual order used, it is wrong to imagine that the Order of the Bath was
not. There were five awards in celebration of Confederation in 1867.
However, as time went on, most awards were in the military division of
the order, the last such being in 1952.
> >> As far as Imperial Service goes, as I understand until
> >> 1967 Canadian Prime Ministers, Chief Justices and some others were
> >> appointed
> >> to the 'Imperial' Privy Council even though since 1867 there has been a
> >> seperate Privy Council for Canada.
> >
> > Again, those appointments were at the request or nomination of the
> > Canadian government, not the British. Indeed, once titular honours were
> > halted by the Canadian government, the numbers of those nominated
> > increased. Massey, in his autobiography draws attention to the scramble
> > by Canadian politicians to get themselves nominated as Imperial Privy
> > Councillors, so that they could use the form of address.
>
> You are referring to the form of address Rt. Hon. that was not previously
> available to Canadian Prime Ministers except by membership in the Imperial
> privy Council. Happily among other changes the grant of the use of this
> style is now (since 1967) within the gift of the Governor General.
>
So how does any of this mean that such appointments, before 1967, were
for "Imperial Service", your claim?
> >> So, Christopher - finding the equivalency of orders is in your mind
> >> nothing
> >> but a diplomatic fiction in this case - we can't make the comparison
> >> based
> >> on comparing the recipients, except when you do it to suggest an
> >> alternative
> >> equivalence?
> >>
> > Not at all. In the Canadian case, it is particularly easy to do because
> > the Canadian system evolved out of a pre-existing practice - the use of
> > British honours by Canadians in a particular way. The Canadian system
> > didn't suddenly drop out of the sky. It was never designed with any
> > idea of the familiar international system of the "diplomatic"
> > exchange of decorations in mind.
>
> Unfortunately it did drop out of the sky so to speak - it was created de
> novo without emulation of the British system.
Sorry, but the Victoria Cross is a straight copy of the British
decoration. There is nothing "novo" about it.
I have told you about the history of the Order of Military Merit, you
are free to follow up or not as you please.
Christopher Buyers
George Lucki
news:1134160643.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are none in your list - my reference here is to the Canadian
government policy of the day which permitted those awards.
>
>> we have only a small
>> number of awards and if you look at these you will find a number that are
>> awards in HM personal gift - the source of which is no Canadian
>> nomination.
>
> What has this got to do with anything. The issue was whether or not
> Canadians received orders. You told us that apart from bravery
> decorations there were none. Clearly, this isn't the case.
If you wanted/meant to say that there were a hadful of exceptional awards -
no problem, if you continue to suggest the British Honours System that
Canada continued to be a part of the Imperial Honours system then we
continue to disagree.
>> You will also find awards of the CH made to members of the 'Imperial'
>> Privy
>> Council and then a handful of others over the whole time frame.
>
> And why were they members of the Imperial Privy Council in the first
> place? What government, judicial or diplomatic positions did they hold
> in Britain?
Members of the Imperial Privy Council.
> The people in question usually nominated themselves, or each other, to
> the British PC. Vincent Massey writes about this in his autobiography,
> how once titular honours were halted, Canadian politicians were falling
> over themselves to get themselves niminated by the Canadian PM.
Ah, vanity... There are numerous anecdotes to highlight the role of vanity
in the acquisition of such honours.
>> Louis Boyd
>> Neel the example you used to scoff with for example was born in England
>> and
>> did not become a Canadian citizen until 1961 - eight years after his CBE.
>> I
>> suppose you included him because he came to Canada in 1953 to take up the
>> role of Dean of the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto.
>
> What has Canadian citizenship got to do with anything? The Nickle
> convention talk's about HM's subjects ordinarily resident in Canada,
> that means Canadians, Britons, Australians, Cypriots, Maltese,
> everyone.
Think about it again, He arrived in Canada to take up a new job in the same
year he received his award (1953). I don't know if he was already in Canada
and just off the airplane or maybe had not even arrived. In anycase the
whole nomination vetting process must have occurred before he arrived. This
is not an award to a Canadian. One other observation - the Nickle resolution
was passed before Canadian citizenship had been established - tehre were
only subjects at that time. The Canadian Citizenship Act was enacted in 1947
and applied at the time of Boyd's immigration.
>
>> Others like
>> Arnold Cantwell Smith was of course the first Secretary General of the
>> Commonwealth and this rather than any service within Canada that merited
>> his
>> CH - and you will note that the policy at this time was that Canadians
>> could
>> accept foreign honours for merit -
>
> Last I heard, Canada was part and parcel of the Commonwealth. I
> presume, that was the basis on which the gentleman in question received
> his appointment in the first place?
Awards made by commonwealth realms are not Canadian, but of course Canada is
a part of the commonwealth. Two separate issues.
> What has service "within Canada" got to do with anything? Are awards of
> Canadian orders and decorations post 1968/72 restricted to "within
> Canada"?
No. To clarify - Canadians might get British awards for work they did on
behalf of Britain or even on behalf of some other Commonwealth realm. These
are not Canadian awards.
>
>> but this was not a Canadian award as also
>> for example Gen. de Chastelain's more recent CH for his work in Northern
>> Ireland.
>> You will also probably find over the years some examples of awards
>> to Canadians from the British Honours list which were not opposed by
>> Canadian advice. The existence of a handful of exceptions does not change
>> the point made.
>
> I have told you something like FOUR times, that the Canadian government
> did not participate in the bi-annual nominations every year. Nobody is
> arguing otherwise. However, ALL appointments for gallentry and bravery
> WERE nominated by CANADIAN ministers, and none other. It is proof of
> participation in the system, whichever way you want to look at it.
Yes. The regular course would be that appointments for gallantry would have
come from Canadian nomination. This was the one area where awards to
Canadians continued to be maintained as a matter of policy in this period.
>
> Why on earth bravery and gallantry decorations should not be included
> is quite beyond me. They were part and parcel of the British system of
> awards, they were made to Canadians, and nominations were made by
> Canadian ministers. You might as well say that apart from members of
> the male sex who had white eyeballs, no nominations to British orders
> were made!
The discussion has focused more on orders. Gallantry and bravery awards are
most frequently made by decorations other than orders. The Order fo the
British Empire awards for bravery would be the exception.
>
> No, I told you before to have a look at the books by Commander
> Blatherwick. You can look at the correspondence and submissions from
> the Defence services whin the Order of Military Merit was being set up.
> You can take an honours list from, say 1946, and compare it to a modern
> list of appointments to the Order of MM. The military ranks appointed
> to the different grades will be almost identical to those nominated to
> the Order of the British Empire in the previous lists.
In 1946 bwar-time appointments were still ongoing. Take a look at perhaps a
1962 list and make the comparison.
>> I don't understand. There has been good acceptance of the newer bravery
>> and
>> valour awards. They are held in high esteem. The Victoria Cross has been
>> held in especially high regard and the Canadian winners of this award
>> people
>> of remarkable courage.
>
> Gosh you do surprise me, would never have known any of that unless you
> told me that here!
Glad to be of assistance.
>> The new Canadian Victoria Cross will carry this
>> tradition forward within the Canadian Honours system. HM graciously
>> approved
>> this new award carrying forward the design of the British decoration in
>> 1993.
>
> Carrying forward or a straight copy? Is that a replacement for the
> British decoration or another bolt from the sky?
In this case clearly a direct replacement for a British decoration.
>> >> Sheesh. It is the role of the serving GG to be ex-officio the head of
>> >> the
>> >> governemnt of these orders of which HM is the Sovereign.
>> >
>> > Sheesh. I am not just talking about being Chancellor while holding
>> > office as Governor-General. I know that, but there is no role after
>> > they leave office, is there? I am talking about becoming ordinary
>> > members of the highest classes of the three orders, solely on the
>> > grounds that they previously held the office of GG. Or are you saying
>> > that they actually go on to command Canadian Forces in peace-keeping
>> > operations in Cyprus, or solve murders in down-town Toronto?
>>
>> No. Their role as chancellor is ex-officio and if they are not already
>> Companions of the orders they are invested as Companions on assuming the
>> office and not on leaving office.
>
> Where do I say that they are invested on leaving office, please could
> you be so kind as to quote the sentence?
>
> I said, becoming ordinary members on leaving office.
Nice sidestep around your words. Of course GGs are invested as Comapnions
and while in office hold the office of Chancellor and Principal Companion.
The only thing that happens when they leave office is that they are no
longer Chancellor and Principla Companion as the new GG takes on those
roles.
>> The award of the order is for life and not
>> time limited. In the same way that the Sovereign does not actually
>> command
>> the troops in Cyprus neither would the GG altough she is also the
>> Commander
>> in Chief of Canada by virtue of her office. To understand this look at
>> the
>> common practice that the head of state in many republican systems is
>> invested as a member and perhaps grandmaster of the senior order or
>> oorders.
>
> But how does this change anything? As I said, the orders go with the
> rations. You are simply confirming my point.
I can't make it the difference betwen the role of GGs in Canadian orders and
the appointment of former PMs or Chief Justices any plainer. I don't
believe you will understand this distinction.
> The Governor-General does not become an ordinary member of the various
> orders, just like a former Chief Justice or PM, until he/she leaves
> office. There is little difference in that regard, between them.
IMHO you just haven't understood when it comes to some of points at issue.
I'm at a loss as to how to make the information more accessible to you.
Perhaps someone else with more patience can assist you in this regard. But,
I do appreciate your spirited discussion of this and the numerous other
issues. I am surprised at some of your perspectives and the bases for
conclusions but it is good to see other people taking a passionate interest
in Canadian honours.
Kind regards, George Lucki
cj.b...@virgin.net
> no problem, if you continue to suggest the British Honours System that
> Canada continued to be a part of the Imperial Honours system then we
> continue to disagree.
In order for your argument to be even in the slightest bit correct, one
would have to say Canada did not participate in the Imperial Honours
System:
- except for those who received bravery decorations.
- except for those who received orders or decorations for gallantry.
- except those orders and decorations in the personal gift of the
Sovereign.
- except for military orders and decorations conferred for war services
or overseas expeditions.
- except those orders and decorations conferred on members of the
Imperial Privy Council.
- except for services to the Commonwealth.
- except for Governor-Generals, Prime Ministers and Chief Justices.
As I say, one may as well state that except for males with white
eye-balls, no Canadians received any British honours!
Even with all those exceptions one would still end up with a few awards
to Canadians here and there. Were that many exclusions applied to
Britain, there would be few recipients of British honours full stop,
not just Canadians.
> >> You will also find awards of the CH made to members of the 'Imperial'
> >> Privy
> >> Council and then a handful of others over the whole time frame.
> >
> > And why were they members of the Imperial Privy Council in the first
> > place? What government, judicial or diplomatic positions did they hold
> > in Britain?
>
> Members of the Imperial Privy Council.
Membership of the Privy Council is not either a governmental, judicial
or diplomatic position is it?
>
> > The people in question usually nominated themselves, or each other, to
> > the British PC. Vincent Massey writes about this in his autobiography,
> > how once titular honours were halted, Canadian politicians were falling
> > over themselves to get themselves nominated by the Canadian PM.
>
> Ah, vanity... There are numerous anecdotes to highlight the role of vanity
> in the acquisition of such honours.
Of course. But the point is that they were Canadians appointing
Canadians, thus participating in the Imperial Honours system, which you
pretend that they did not.
> >> Louis Boyd
> >> Neel the example you used to scoff with for example was born in England
> >> and
> >> did not become a Canadian citizen until 1961 - eight years after his CBE.
> >> I
> >> suppose you included him because he came to Canada in 1953 to take up the
> >> role of Dean of the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto.
> >
> > What has Canadian citizenship got to do with anything? The Nickle
> > convention talk's about HM's subjects ordinarily resident in Canada,
> > that means Canadians, Britons, Australians, Cypriots, Maltese,
> > everyone.
>
> Think about it again, He arrived in Canada to take up a new job in the same
> year he received his award (1953). I don't know if he was already in Canada
> and just off the airplane or maybe had not even arrived. In anycase the
> whole nomination vetting process must have occurred before he arrived. This
> is not an award to a Canadian.
Even if his nomination was gazetted before he left, he would have been
invested afterwards.
Indeed, that was also the case with all the Newfies who were nominated
on the eve of entry into the confederation.
> One other observation - the Nickle resolution
> was passed before Canadian citizenship had been established - tehre were
> only subjects at that time. The Canadian Citizenship Act was enacted in 1947
> and applied at the time of Boyd's immigration.
Again, what has that got to do with anything?
> >> Others like
> >> Arnold Cantwell Smith was of course the first Secretary General of the
> >> Commonwealth and this rather than any service within Canada that merited
> >> his
> >> CH - and you will note that the policy at this time was that Canadians
> >> could
> >> accept foreign honours for merit -
> >
> > Last I heard, Canada was part and parcel of the Commonwealth. I
> > presume, that was the basis on which the gentleman in question received
> > his appointment in the first place?
>
> Awards made by commonwealth realms are not Canadian, but of course Canada is
> a part of the commonwealth. Two separate issues.
We are not talking about Commonwealth realms, we are talking about
Britain and the use of British honours to reward distinguished
Canadians. Smith was one such person.
>
> > What has service "within Canada" got to do with anything? Are awards of
> > Canadian orders and decorations post 1968/72 restricted to "within
> > Canada"?
>
> No. To clarify - Canadians might get British awards for work they did on
> behalf of Britain or even on behalf of some other Commonwealth realm. These
> are not Canadian awards.
So when Smith, a Canadian citizen, was working for the Commonwealth,
that job did not involve Canada in any degree, shape or form? He was
working entirely for Britain and other Commonwealth realms?
> >> but this was not a Canadian award as also
> >> for example Gen. de Chastelain's more recent CH for his work in Northern
> >> Ireland.
>
> >> You will also probably find over the years some examples of awards
> >> to Canadians from the British Honours list which were not opposed by
> >> Canadian advice. The existence of a handful of exceptions does not change
> >> the point made.
> >
> > I have told you something like FOUR times, that the Canadian government
> > did not participate in the bi-annual nominations every year. Nobody is
> > arguing otherwise. However, ALL appointments for gallentry and bravery
> > WERE nominated by CANADIAN ministers, and none other. It is proof of
> > participation in the system, whichever way you want to look at it.
>
> Yes. The regular course would be that appointments for gallantry would have
> come from Canadian nomination. This was the one area where awards to
> Canadians continued to be maintained as a matter of policy in this period.
>
> >
> > Why on earth bravery and gallantry decorations should not be included
> > is quite beyond me. They were part and parcel of the British system of
> > awards, they were made to Canadians, and nominations were made by
> > Canadian ministers. You might as well say that apart from members of
> > the male sex who had white eyeballs, no nominations to British orders
> > were made!
>
> The discussion has focused more on orders. Gallantry and bravery awards are
> most frequently made by decorations other than orders. The Order fo the
> British Empire awards for bravery would be the exception.
Again, why should any exception or exclusion be made?
In any case, there were no awards for bravery in the Order of the
British Empire. They were for gallantry. But even that, in the case of
Canada, was sometimes stretched to get people "under the wire". A
good example being the CBE "for gallantry" to General Dextraze in
1964.
> > No, I told you before to have a look at the books by Commander
> > Blatherwick. You can look at the correspondence and submissions from
> > the Defence services whin the Order of Military Merit was being set up.
> > You can take an honours list from, say 1946, and compare it to a modern
> > list of appointments to the Order of MM. The military ranks appointed
> > to the different grades will be almost identical to those nominated to
> > the Order of the British Empire in the previous lists.
>
> In 1946 bwar-time appointments were still ongoing. Take a look at perhaps a
> 1962 list and make the comparison.
When you look at Blatherwick, look at Army appointments in 1964. I take
it from your comments, that you are unfamiliar with this source, is
this correct?
> >> The new Canadian Victoria Cross will carry this
> >> tradition forward within the Canadian Honours system. HM graciously
> >> approved
> >> this new award carrying forward the design of the British decoration in
> >> 1993.
> >
> > Carrying forward or a straight copy? Is that a replacement for the
> > British decoration or another bolt from the sky?
>
> In this case clearly a direct replacement for a British decoration.
Not a replacement, a straight copy. Design, criteria of award,
precedence, method of wear, method of manufacture, substance of
manufacture - everything!
Perhaps when you get a chance to examine Blatherwick, you may also like
to re-consider your poor observations on the origins and criteria of
the Order of Military Merit. You are invited to consider the fact that
the three classes of that order are called Commander, Officer and
Member. You may then like to reflect upon the fact that this was again,
a straight copy from the three junior classes of the Order of the
British Empire. There being no other order anywhere in the world at
that time, using these same designations. Coincidence? You may think
so, but I certainly do not.
You may then also like to consider the designation of "Companion"
for the Order of Canada, established five years previously. Again,
consider how many countries other than Britain, then used such a
designation, for any decoration, let alone the usual term for a neck
decoration. One can find odd examples from, France, Thailand or Hawaii,
but I doubt if even you would attempt to argue that those countries
stood model for Canada.
> >> >> Sheesh. It is the role of the serving GG to be ex-officio the head of
> >> >> the
> >> >> governemnt of these orders of which HM is the Sovereign.
> >> >
> >> > Sheesh. I am not just talking about being Chancellor while holding
> >> > office as Governor-General. I know that, but there is no role after
> >> > they leave office, is there? I am talking about becoming ordinary
> >> > members of the highest classes of the three orders, solely on the
> >> > grounds that they previously held the office of GG. Or are you saying
> >> > that they actually go on to command Canadian Forces in peace-keeping
> >> > operations in Cyprus, or solve murders in down-town Toronto?
> >>
> >> No. Their role as chancellor is ex-officio and if they are not already
> >> Companions of the orders they are invested as Companions on assuming the
> >> office and not on leaving office.
> >
> > Where do I say that they are invested on leaving office, please could
> > you be so kind as to quote the sentence?
> >
> > I said, becoming ordinary members on leaving office.
>
> Nice sidestep around your words.
Then show me where I ever said that they were invested on leaving
office. Don't tell, me you are unable to do so?
> Of course GGs are invested as Comapnions
> and while in office hold the office of Chancellor and Principal Companion.
> The only thing that happens when they leave office is that they are no
> longer Chancellor and Principla Companion as the new GG takes on those
> roles.
Indeed, but the issue is not about holding the position of Chancellor
or Principal Companion. I never used those terms. I have been talking
all along about being Companions, i.e. ordinary Companions.
Of course, there are examples from many countries where the Head of
State may hold the positions of ex-officio Chancellor or Grand Master
while in office. There are also examples from other countries where
they may retain membership after leaving office. But the point remains,
that they obtain that membership not out of merit, but purely by right
of having held that office.
Incidentally, can you point to any other examples from other countries
where such an individual retains the highest class of military and
police orders or decorations, after relinquishing their office?
> >> The award of the order is for life and not
> >> time limited. In the same way that the Sovereign does not actually
> >> command
> >> the troops in Cyprus neither would the GG altough she is also the
> >> Commander
> >> in Chief of Canada by virtue of her office. To understand this look at
> >> the
> >> common practice that the head of state in many republican systems is
> >> invested as a member and perhaps grandmaster of the senior order or
> >> oorders.
> >
> > But how does this change anything? As I said, the orders go with the
> > rations. You are simply confirming my point.
>
> I can't make it the difference betwen the role of GGs in Canadian orders and
> the appointment of former PMs or Chief Justices any plainer. I don't
> believe you will understand this distinction.
A FORMER Governor-General, much like a former Chief Justice, has no
role.
> > The Governor-General does not become an ordinary member of the various
> > orders, just like a former Chief Justice or PM, until he/she leaves
> > office. There is little difference in that regard, between them.
>
> IMHO you just haven't understood when it comes to some of points at issue.
No, apply that to yourself. You just haven't looked at half the
sources, bothered to look at actual appointments, or considered
anything apart from regurgitating "received" wisdom.
> I'm at a loss as to how to make the information more accessible to you.
> Perhaps someone else with more patience can assist you in this regard. But,
> I do appreciate your spirited discussion of this and the numerous other
> issues. I am surprised at some of your perspectives and the bases for
> conclusions but it is good to see other people taking a passionate interest
> in Canadian honours.
At your service,
Christopher Buyers
George Lucki
news:1134200037.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> George Lucki wrote:
>> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:1134160643.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher,
I really have nothing else to add to the discussion. I have already made my
points as plainly as clearly as I am able.
This has been without any apparent effect. While this topic is another area
of your presumed expertise I hope you will not be offended if I suggest that
it would simply be helpful if you could learn more about Canadian honours
and about Canada. While I appreciate the passion you bring to your
arguments, this discusssion has the potential to degenerate in the same
disagreeable way as the recent thread regarding the posthumous award of the
Companion of the Liberation to King George VI. I think we may simply leave
it that we continue to disagree on some of these matters.
Our discussion started with the list published by McCreery equating Canadian
and British orders but it has meandered far from there. You had suggested
that there was a profound misunderstanding of both the Canadian and British
systems on the part of McCreery - and proceeded to make some novel
arguments. Among the later differences in our perspectives are your views
that the British Honours System continued to operate in Canada during the
whole post WWII period and that the Order of Military Merit is simply a
replacement for the Order of the British Empire, as well as some of your
perspectives on matters such as the role of the GG in the Canadian Honours
System. Along the way there have been some interesting but unproductive
segways such as the idiosyncratic distinction you proposed around orders of
chivalry and orders of knighthood that would make the Royal Victorian Order
or the Order of the Bath not orders of chivalry.
Returning to the question of Canadian Honours I would urge you again to
reconsider some of your conclusions - based upon the information that has
been provided and based upon a good reading of the whole range of materials
relative to the Canadian Honours. But further discussion along the lines of
the last few posts will lead us nowhere except to growing frustration.
Kind regards, George Lucki
cj.b...@virgin.net
> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:1134200037.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > George Lucki wrote:
> >> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1134160643.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Christopher,
> I really have nothing else to add to the discussion. I have already made my
> points as plainly as clearly as I am able.
Let me understand you correctly here. You need 26 lines to tell us that
"you have nothing to add".
> This has been without any apparent effect. While this topic is another area
> of your presumed expertise I hope you will not be offended if I suggest that
> it would simply be helpful if you could learn more about Canadian honours
> and about Canada.
I don't think I mention anywhere that I am or I am not an expert on
anything. I have just mentioned a few things that you have not been
able to answer and a few sources that you have clearly not consulted.
If that makes you think that I am an expert, so be it.
I am sure I could learn an enormous amount about Canadian honours, but
I fear that isn't going to come from you.
> While I appreciate the passion you bring to your
> arguments, this discusssion has the potential to degenerate in the same
> disagreeable way as the recent thread regarding the posthumous award of the
> Companion of the Liberation to King George VI
Let me understand this correctly. You have been to the Public Record
Office in Kew and consulted the Foreign Office files containing the
Foreign Office documents, the letters from the British Ambassador in
Paris, and the correspondence from General de Gaulle's office. Yes or
no?
>. I think we may simply leave
> it that we continue to disagree on some of these matters.
>
> Our discussion started with the list published by McCreery equating Canadian
> and British orders but it has meandered far from there. You had suggested
> that there was a profound misunderstanding of both the Canadian and British
> systems on the part of McCreery - and proceeded to make some novel
> arguments.
If you care to read my post on it, you will see the specific incidents
I raised. For example, his mistaken view about the awards of the orders
of the Bath and British Empire and the mistakes over the equivalent
awards in the Order of Military Merit.
He was quoted here as saying that the "Order of Military Merit" was
usually awarded to Warrant Officers in the Canadian system, whereas the
CB was not awarded to Warrant Officer in the UK. That is a serious
error of misunderstanding of both systems, as I explained in detail and
you have been entirely unable to refute.
> Among the later differences in our perspectives are your views
> that the British Honours System continued to operate in Canada during the
> whole post WWII period and that the Order of Military Merit is simply a
> replacement for the Order of the British Empire, as well as some of your
> perspectives on matters such as the role of the GG in the Canadian Honours
> System.
Instead of arguing with me, you would be better placed examining the
history and correspondence dealing with such matters as the creation of
the Order of Military Merit. I have suggested in particular, the
Defence department notes and correspondence around 1972, the
publications by Commander Blatherwick, or simply comparing military
honours lists for British honours to Canadians against modern Canadian
awards. I take it from the profound silence on my questions here, that
you have not actually consulted any of these either.
> Along the way there have been some interesting but unproductive
> segways such as the idiosyncratic distinction you proposed around orders of
> chivalry and orders of knighthood that would make the Royal Victorian Order
> or the Order of the Bath not orders of chivalry.
As you say, that was a side issue and we can have a separate discussion
on that if you wish. But for my money, idiosyncratic in terms of this
topic, are silly claims such as the appointment of Canadians to the
Imperial Privy Council being for "Imperial Service". Or, the use of
the Order of St Michael and & George by dominion governments as being
"by the British Government to further British interests".
> Returning to the question of Canadian Honours I would urge you again to
> reconsider some of your conclusions - based upon the information that has
> been provided and based upon a good reading of the whole range of materials
> relative to the Canadian Honours. But further discussion along the lines of
> the last few posts will lead us nowhere except to growing frustration.
I would be happy to change my views on anything, but not from someone
who simply bangs on repeatedly along the same theme when provided with
numerous examples that clearly refute his claims. I dare say that were
you to consult some of the sources I have suggested, many of your
frustrations would ease. Though I fear that you may not be proved
correct in most of your assumptions.
Christopher Buyers
George Lucki
No.
I also took absoltutely no part in that rather testy discussion between
yourself and others and simply used it as an example of a discussion with a
detiorating tone - one which it appears you still hold on to.
It is possible to visit many places and consult many records and
correspondence and still misunderstand.
Thank you as well for your last words on the subject of Canadian Orders. We
are at least clear on the points about which we disagree.
Kind regards, George Lucki
cj.b...@virgin.net
I guess you must have been meandering then?
> It is possible to visit many places and consult many records and
> correspondence and still misunderstand.
I agree completely that it is perfectly possible to missunderstand,
after consulting records. But I dare say that the likelyhood of
understanding anything is reduced to near zero, when one is so stubborn
as not even to be willing to consult sources at all.
cj.b...@virgin.net
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> In article <1134074753.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> cj.b...@virgin.net says...
>> >
> >Empire wasn't an order of knighthood. Perhaps you would care to quote
> >the passage where I supposedly did so?
>
> That is not my suggestion;
Really. I presume that your name is Sainty, and the following is a
quotation from your post:
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> In article <1134063952.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> The Order of the British Empire is certainly an Order of
> Merit, but as an Order which confers knightly rank how is it not also an order
> of Knighthood.
I am entertained by your explanations that an order of chivalry is
European, when you were telling us not so long ago that the Japanese
Order of the Chrysanthemum was an order of "chivalry". Does this mean
you have begun to learn, at long last?
cj.b...@virgin.net
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> In article <1134074753.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> cj.b...@virgin.net says...
> >
> >
> >Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> >
> >An order of chivalry is one with religious (specifically Christian)
> >associations of brotherhood, with their moral, social and religious
> >codes. Oaths and vows to defend Christianity, the poor, women, saints,
> >or devotion to serve, etc.
>
> And these are characteristics of the Order of Saint Patrick, or for that matter
> the Order of the Seraphim?
I presume that "Saint" Patrick is a clear indication of a Christian
association. I am happy to be corrected, if I have misunderstood
something.
I believe that the Seraphim has upon its insignia, the letters IHS,
with a cross extending above the H. I am given to understand that the
letters signify Iesus Hominum Salvator, apparently an association with
Christianity, according to some authorities. You shall have to ask the
Swedes if they still consider the Order an order of chivalry or merit,
given the socialist decisions on decorations in the 1970's.
> When the religious oath required of
> recipients of the Thistle was abolished in 1865, did its character
> change?
Of course its character changed, but not enough to cease being an order
of chivalry. If you care to read my post, you will find it hard to see
that an oath mentioned as the sole and only characteristic. It is an
example, nothing more.
> Really, no doubt that is true of many languages - however the very concept of
> an Order of Chivalry and Knighthood first developed on the continent, and
> in English certainly there would have been no distinction made between the
> one or other until the 20th century. Or perhaps you can cite a source that
> demonstrates the existence of such a distinction in English before that
> date?
Last I looked at a calendar, I am living in the twentieth century. Why
should I want to go back at all? Why stop at the twentieth century at
all? Why not go back to the 17th century, then you could also claim
that orders of merit did not exist and consequently it is false to make
a distinction!
> Do you really believe that James II and VII when he founded the Order of the
> Thistle, when George I founded the Order of the Bath or George III founded the
> Order of Saint Patrick, or any of their contemporaries would have considered
> there was some difference between an Order of Chivalry and one of
> Knighthood?
Definitely not.
> What about George IV as Prince Regent, when he reformed the classes
> of the Order of the Bath? Or when he founded the Guelphic Order?
Was the Guelphic order an order of knighthood? My understanding was
that it didn't in fact confer knighthood. It is true that most
British recipients of the first and second class were made knights
bachelor if they had not previously received the accolade, but many did
not.
> Would you suggest that the Order of the Bath was founded as an Order of Chivalry
> or Knighthood, according to your definitions? Has its status
> changed since?
I would probably say yes, but it all depends what one means by
"founded", when it comes to the Order of the Bath. Knighthood of
the Bath certainly originated in the age of chivalry, but it
undoubtedly became an order of merit after the reforms of 1815.
George Lucki
<cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1134336246.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Last I looked at a calendar, I am living in the twentieth century. Why
> should I want to go back at all? Why stop at the twentieth century at
> all? Why not go back to the 17th century, then you could also claim
> that orders of merit did not exist and consequently it is false to make
> a distinction!
I would get a new calendar. We're some years into a new century.... :)
cj.b...@virgin.net
Thank you, I have one on order.
I suppose one ought to be especially grateful that you haven't taken 26
lines to impart this invaluable piece of information.
Guy Stair Sainty
cj.b...@virgin.net says...
>
>
>Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>> In article <1134074753.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> cj.b...@virgin.net says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
>> >
>> >An order of chivalry is one with religious (specifically Christian)
>> >associations of brotherhood, with their moral, social and religious
>> >codes. Oaths and vows to defend Christianity, the poor, women, saints,
>> >or devotion to serve, etc.
>>
>>And these are characteristics of the Order of Saint Patrick, or for that matter
>> the Order of the Seraphim?
>
>I presume that "Saint" Patrick is a clear indication of a Christian
>association. I am happy to be corrected, if I have misunderstood
>something.
The word "Saint" attached to the name of an Order has no more necessary
connection with imposing a notion of Christian brotherhood than Saint Pancras
suggests the building to which this name has been is actually a Church. There
are dozens of Orders that have the name Saint in the title and are not connected
with "Christian brotherhood" - the Russian Orders of Saint George and Saint
Vladimir, the British Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, the Irish Order
of Saint Patrick (from which any requirement to undertake to be a Christian was
specifically removed), the Bulgarian Order of Saint Alexander, etc etc.
You claim is that an Order of Chivalry must impose duties to defend
Christianity, the poor, women, etc etc; I say this is poppycokc. There was a
time when Orders of Chivalry, synonymous with knighthood, imposed such
requirements, but aside from the handful of Orders of religious military
foundation such as the Order of Malta, the legitimate Saint John Orders, the
Spanish Military Orders, the Constantinian, Saint Stephen and Holy Sepulchre
Orders and a handful of dynastic Orders such as Saint George for the defence of
the Immaculate Conception, none require this today. This is quite simply because
there have been changes and development which have as society has changed
removed these elements. Hence the requirement in the Orders of the Thistle,
Bath, Saint Patrick, to be a Christian were specifically removed. This is now
even the case in the British Order of Saint John, where a promise only to
support "the aims" of this "Christian Order" is required. Edward VII
tried to argue that the Garter should be limited to Christians when the
government wished him to confer it on the Shah of Persia; he was overruled.
>I believe that the Seraphim has upon its insignia, the letters IHS,
>with a cross extending above the H. I am given to understand that the
>letters signify Iesus Hominum Salvator, apparently an association with
>Christianity, according to some authorities. You shall have to ask the
>Swedes if they still consider the Order an order of chivalry or merit,
>given the socialist decisions on decorations in the 1970's.
You will find that the King of Sweden considers this an Order of Chivalry, and
certainly not of merit, since it is not given for merit. However you will
equally find that there is not the slightest suggestion today that it is any
kind of Christian brotherhood (or sisterhood, for that matter, bearing in mind
that almost a third of the members are ladies) as almost one quarter of the
membership profess a non-Christian faith and several others would porbably
practice no faith at all. Neither does it impose any of the duties which you
suggest are necessary qualifications for an Order of Chivalry.
>
>> When the religious oath required of
>> recipients of the Thistle was abolished in 1865, did its character
>> change?
>
>Of course its character changed, but not enough to cease being an order
>of chivalry. If you care to read my post, you will find it hard to see
>that an oath mentioned as the sole and only characteristic. It is an
>example, nothing more.
No of course it did not change, because it is neither necessary to be a
Christian nor fulfill any of the requirements that you list as necessary
qualifications to be an Order of Chivalry. You have listed a series of
requirements (which still remain at the head of this post), perhaps you would
say which of these characteristics is today required of a knight upon his
admission to the Order of the Thistle?
What I would say is that some of these may once have been considered necessary
elements of any princely Order, at least in theory (which is why similar duties
were imposed on members of later founded Orders such as the Black Eagle of
Prussia, founded to emulate the ancient chivalric traditions but without any
reasonable expecttaion that the knights would actually carry out such duties).
In a similar fashion the statutes of the Order of the Bath originally imposed
the theoretical responsibility to fast and to bath before admission, without
these obligations ever actually being required of the knights (and they were
later removed). The Thistle was revived (actually founded), along with mention
of a fictional date of foundation, and its statutes deliberately framed so that
it would share the characteristics of genuinely ancient Orders such as the
Garter. But these aspects have been abandoned. Nonetheless, it remains an Order
of Chivalry and knighthood.
>
>> Really, no doubt that is true of many languages - however the very concept of
>> an Order of Chivalry and Knighthood first developed on the continent, and
>> in English certainly there would have been no distinction made between the
>> one or other until the 20th century. Or perhaps you can cite a source that
>> demonstrates the existence of such a distinction in English before that
>> date?
>
>Last I looked at a calendar, I am living in the twentieth century. Why
>should I want to go back at all? Why stop at the twentieth century at
>all? Why not go back to the 17th century, then you could also claim
>that orders of merit did not exist and consequently it is false to make
>a distinction!
This is plain silly; one does not compare Christianity with polytheism before
the birth of Christ. The concept of an Order of Merit did not exist until the
post-medieval period (actually there were awards of merit, called Orders, in the
sixteenth century, all of them relatively short-lived, but they did not have the
structure of the Order of Saint Louis which was the first military order of
merit and the first to be given as such in different classes), so of course one
cannot compare them. The point you fail to comprehend is that how we define an
Order fo Chivalry has changed, and that no modern princely Order of an existing
state has any more than relatively superficial connection with the ancient
medieval Orders, or even those founded in the 16th or 17th centuries. One cannot
make a series of definitions that applied in the 17th or 18th centuries and
apply them usefully to the same group today and expect to find a similar result.
>
>> What about George IV as Prince Regent, when he reformed the classes
>> of the Order of the Bath? Or when he founded the Guelphic Order?
>
>Was the Guelphic order an order of knighthood? My understanding was
>that it didn't in fact confer knighthood. It is true that most
>British recipients of the first and second class were made knights
>bachelor if they had not previously received the accolade, but many did
>not.
They were as much knights as knights of Saint John are; they were not entitled
to the title "Sir". But they were entitled to the heraldic privileges of
kngihthood, including the crest helm of a knight.
>
>>Would you suggest that the Order of the Bath was founded as an Order of Chivalry
>> or Knighthood, according to your definitions? Has its status
>> changed since?
>
>I would probably say yes, but it all depends what one means by
>"founded", when it comes to the Order of the Bath. Knighthood of
>the Bath certainly originated in the age of chivalry, but it
>undoubtedly became an order of merit after the reforms of 1815.
>
I would agree that it became an Order of Merit in 1815 and was basically an
Order of Merit from 1725. However it was also an Order of Knighthood and an
Order of Chivalry. With your insistence on British sources and your comment on
earlier on the titularity of the Central Chancery of Orders of Knighthood, I
would draw your attention to Brigdaier Sir Ian De La Bere, sometime Chancellor
of the Royal Orders, who in "The Queen's Orders of Chivalry" includes all those
Orders in which the title of Sir is conferred. Stephen Patterson, with whose
excellent book I know you to be familiar, is entitled "Royal Insignia: British
and Foreign Orders of Chivalry from the Royal Collection". William A Shaw's
compilation of the names of those who received knighthoods is entitled
"The Knights of England : A Complete Record from the Earliest Time to the
Present Day of the Knights of all the Orders of Chivalry in England, Scotland,
and Ireland". The Orders of the Bath, Saint Michael and Saint George and indeed
the Guelphic Order are included in this excellent (albeit occasionally
incorrect) work. I could give other similar examples.
It is possible to apply different criteria today to define an Order of Chivalry
than one would apply 150 years ago or more. Your criteria are irrelevant and
outdated today, and absolutely useless in trying to provide
a useful way of differentiating an Order of Knighthood / Chivalry from one
of Merit.
cj.b...@virgin.net
Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> In article <1134336246.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> cj.b...@virgin.net says...
> >
> >
> >Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> >> In article <1134074753.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> cj.b...@virgin.net says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Guy Stair Sainty wrote:
> >> >
> >> >An order of chivalry is one with religious (specifically Christian)
> >> >associations of brotherhood, with their moral, social and religious
> >> >codes. Oaths and vows to defend Christianity, the poor, women, saints,
> >> >or devotion to serve, etc.
> >>
> >>And these are characteristics of the Order of Saint Patrick, or for that matter
> >> the Order of the Seraphim?
> >
> >I presume that "Saint" Patrick is a clear indication of a Christian
> >association. I am happy to be corrected, if I have misunderstood
> >something.
>
> The word "Saint" attached to the name of an Order has no more necessary
> connection with imposing a notion of Christian brotherhood than Saint Pancras
> suggests the building to which this name has been is actually a Church.
You quote what I have written, but yet again cannot understand what
appears on the page. My sentence says "Christian association". How does
Christian association in your underdeveloped mind translate as
"imposing" anything?
If you cannot understand the difference between the word association
and imposition, try purchasing a dictionary.
As for Saint Patrick and the Order of Saint Patrick, forgive me for my
error. I had no idea until now that King George III had a railway
station in mind, when he attached that name to his new Irish order.
Remind me now, were George III's Irish trains electric powered or
diesel?
> There
> are dozens of Orders that have the name Saint in the title and are not connected
> with "Christian brotherhood" - the Russian Orders of Saint George and Saint
> Vladimir, the British Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, the Irish Order
> of Saint Patrick (from which any requirement to undertake to be a Christian was
> specifically removed), the Bulgarian Order of Saint Alexander, etc etc.
>
> You claim is that an Order of Chivalry must impose duties to defend
> Christianity, the poor, women, etc etc; I say this is poppycokc.
Are you poppy or cock?
Why, or why, do you persist in displaying your reading difficulties on
this board? Where did I say "must" anything? Quote the passage or bolt
your infantile trap.
I listed some common features as examples, nothing more.
> >I believe that the Seraphim has upon its insignia, the letters IHS,
> >with a cross extending above the H. I am given to understand that the
> >letters signify Iesus Hominum Salvator, apparently an association with
> >Christianity, according to some authorities. You shall have to ask the
> >Swedes if they still consider the Order an order of chivalry or merit,
> >given the socialist decisions on decorations in the 1970's.
>
> You will find that the King of Sweden considers this an Order of Chivalry, and
> certainly not of merit, since it is not given for merit. However you will
> equally find that there is not the slightest suggestion today that it is any
> kind of Christian brotherhood (or sisterhood, for that matter, bearing in mind
> that almost a third of the members are ladies) as almost one quarter of the
> membership profess a non-Christian faith and several others would porbably
> practice no faith at all. Neither does it impose any of the duties which you
> suggest are necessary qualifications for an Order of Chivalry.
I have not spoken with the King of Sweden, as you so obviously have.
Consequently, I do not know what he thinks either way. But given your
level of comprehending language, I doubt you would have understood
anything he had to say to you anyway.
I have an open mind on that order, hence the sentence "You shall have
to ask the
Swedes if they still consider the Order an order of chivalry".
> This is plain silly.
Indeed, it is as silly as wanting to go back to definitions of some
earlier age. Why should the nineteenth century be any more relevant
than the seventeenth?
> >
> >> What about George IV as Prince Regent, when he reformed the classes
> >> of the Order of the Bath? Or when he founded the Guelphic Order?
> >
> >Was the Guelphic order an order of knighthood? My understanding was
> >that it didn't in fact confer knighthood. It is true that most
> >British recipients of the first and second class were made knights
> >bachelor if they had not previously received the accolade, but many did
> >not.
>
> They were as much knights as knights of Saint John are; they were not entitled
> to the title "Sir". But they were entitled to the heraldic privileges of
> kngihthood, including the crest helm of a knight.
> >
> >>Would you suggest that the Order of the Bath was founded as an Order of Chivalry
> >> or Knighthood, according to your definitions? Has its status
> >> changed since?
> >
> >I would probably say yes, but it all depends what one means by
> >"founded", when it comes to the Order of the Bath. Knighthood of
> >the Bath certainly originated in the age of chivalry, but it
> >undoubtedly became an order of merit after the reforms of 1815.
> >
> I would agree that it became an Order of Merit in 1815 and was basically an
> Order of Merit from 1725. However it was also an Order of Knighthood and an
> Order of Chivalry.
Well, I guess then you better tell us what your criteria are for the
differences between orders of merit and chivalry.
>With your insistence on British sources and your comment on
> earlier on the titularity of the Central Chancery of Orders of Knighthood, I
> would draw your attention to Brigdaier Sir Ian De La Bere, sometime Chancellor
> of the Royal Orders, who in "The Queen's Orders of Chivalry" includes all those
> Orders in which the title of Sir is conferred.
I would suggest, as with the old saying of not judging a book by its
cover, you do not judge a book's contents entirely by its title. You
may just care to look inside, and actually read the text, before making
claims about it.
The Indian orders never were orders of chivalry. Anyone with knowledge
about the trouble and effort taken by both Queen Victoria and Prince
Albert, to expunge any references to Christianity or chivalry, from the
design of the insignia, colour of the ribbons, naming of the classes,
conditions of award, and so on, would know that.
> Stephen Patterson, with whose
> excellent book I know you to be familiar, is entitled "Royal Insignia: British
> and Foreign Orders of Chivalry from the Royal Collection".
Are we therefore to assume that ALL the orders that appear within it
are orders of chivalry? Is that your considered expert opinion?
Even if reading presents a difficulty for you, I understand that you
have looked at the pictures, though from your dealings with third
parties it seems not with a very informed eye. Nevertheless, I would
have hoped that you would have seen the pretty pictures of the Royal
Family Orders, the Turkish Order of the Majidiya, the Order of Canada
and Military Merit of Canada, the Orders of Australia, New Zealand and
the QSO. Are these all orders of chivalry, as a consequence of
appearing in a book with the above title?
As another poster was want to say - sheesh!
> William A Shaw's
> compilation of the names of those who received knighthoods is entitled
> "The Knights of England : A Complete Record from the Earliest Time to the
> Present Day of the Knights of all the Orders of Chivalry in England, Scotland,
> and Ireland". The Orders of the Bath, Saint Michael and Saint George and indeed
> the Guelphic Order are included in this excellent (albeit occasionally
> incorrect) work.
As a consequence of the book's title, are we therefore supposed to
assume that knighthood of the Bath before 1725, was an "Order of
Chivalry"?
> I could give other similar examples.
Please do, I am enjoying this.
>
> It is possible to apply different criteria today to define an Order of Chivalry
> than one would apply 150 years ago or more. Your criteria are irrelevant and
> outdated today,
What's this? Are you interested in "today" after all? Surely you
want us to only consider definitions used in the nineteenth century?
> and absolutely useless in trying to provide
> a useful way of differentiating an Order of Knighthood / Chivalry from one
> of Merit.
The difference between orders of knighthood and chivalry are plain to
see for anyone who has any knowledge of British orders from the middle
of the nineteenth century onwards. The creation of the Orders of the
Star of India and the Indian Empire, being perfect examples of this.
In fact, the difference between orders of chivalry and knighthood are
perhaps more useful today than they have been for some time. Such
modern decorations as the Order of Barbados, the Orders of the National
Hero and the Nation of Antigua, and the Order of the National Hero of
St Kitts, all confer knighthood. The same applies to the Order of
Australia and the New Zealand Order of Merit, during the periods when
those orders conferred knighthood. However, they could hardly be
called, and were never intended to be, orders of chivalry. But you know
all about them, given that you have edited a book on orders!
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
[deletions]
>>I believe that the Seraphim has upon its insignia, the letters IHS,
>>with a cross extending above the H. I am given to understand that the
>>letters signify Iesus Hominum Salvator, apparently an association with
>>Christianity, according to some authorities.
[deletions]
One should note that originally the letters IHS (or IHC) were a
Greek-language monogram, the first three letters of Iesous or Jesus; XPS was
short for Christos, of course, just as XP, aka the sigla, was (and still is
in Christian iconography).
The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on IHS that the original meaning was
lost in the Latin texts of the mediaeval Western Church. The article
concludes with this: "St. Ignatius of Loyola adopted the monogram in his
seal as general of the Society of Jesus (1541), and thus it became the
emblem of his institute. IHS was sometimes wrongly understood as "Jesus
Hominum (or Hierosolymae) Salvator", i.e. Jesus, the Saviour of men (or of
Jerusalem=Hierosolyma)."
--
Frank in Seattle
____
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
George Lucki
news:1134400681....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
Christopher,
I'll just bypass all the insulting and inapporpriate remarks you had
peppered your last post and which could serve as another example of
deteriorating tone and point out that while the early orders of chivalry
were military-religious orders many of the monarchical orders of knighthood
(or chivalry as you will - both terms really being synonymous at the time)
were really not about any religious objects but about the monarch's temporal
power and influence. The establishment of the Garter for example can be seen
as an instrument of a King seeking to gain the French throne. The social
order of the day did not clearly seperate the temporal from the religious
and so the chivalric orders of Christian Europe included typically religious
exercises or requirements at this time. With the later consolidation of
monarchical power there would have been less need for the creation of
chivalric orders even of this monarchical sort and honour was emphasized
over companionship (in service) and by the 19th century newer creations
(whether dynastic or state) included ever clearer indications that the
awards were still a token of the sovereign's esteem but for merits in
service as opposed to companionship or honour. All the same these creations
have remained chivalric and knightly and while for a particular order at a
particular time it might be useful to clarify its specific structure and
purpose overall the distinction chivalric v. merit is not so useful. Some
orders may be more clearly one or the other and some both at different times
or at the same time. To say that Garter is chivalric but Bath is not because
it is for merit introduces a distinction that oversimplifies the history
and evolution of these orders and introduces a distinction that is not
really meaningful today and not so meaningful historically. (Equating
chivalry only with Christian mission and then saying that St. Patrick or
Garter are chivalric because of some very minimal religious requirements
while many other knightly orders are not grossly overvalues the role of
religion in the current Garter).
Reflecting further even the question of which order is knightly needs to be
flexible and take into account the legal situation historically in a
particular land. The aristocracy and knighthood of England was organized
quite differently that in many continental lands. In Europe what we might
consider knightly orders might include those whose statutes limited
conferrement of the order to those who were already members of the nobility
(which in many cases was equated with the equestrian estate) or those orders
that conferred personal or hereditary nobility. Not every knightly order
would include an accolade as part of its investiture ceremony.
The attempt to classify orders as chivalric or knightly/merit requires
reconsideration.
George Lucki
cj.b...@virgin.net
George Lucki wrote:
> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:1134400681....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> Christopher,
> I'll just bypass all the insulting and inapporpriate remarks you had
> peppered your last post and which could serve as another example of
> deteriorating tone
Now as for Sainty. I dare say you have little or no idea of the history
to all this. So I advise you to mind your own business. I have warned
that little twerp that if he ever tried to dump on me, he wouldn't just
get it back in spades, he will get sea container loads in return. He is
attracting just such right now and there is more in store, the more he
carries on. As you may no doubt be already aware, he has a history of
attracting enemies, often ending up in full blown legal disputes. He
seems intent on heading that way with me. So be it. But I would suggest
that you stay out of this one lest you are cought in the cross-fire.
Perhaps, and I am open to any reasonable suggestion. But one involving
the reclassification of the Order of Canada and the Order of Military
Merit, into orders of chivalry merely because they happened to be dealt
with a sub-heading "British and Foreign Orders of Chivalry from the
Royal Collection", isn't one that I endorse. Do you?
We are not dealing with Europe, or more specifically dealing with some
narrow sub-committee of opus dei related to parts of south-west Europe.
Orders and decorations are relevant world-wide and need to be defined
and considered on that basis, as best we can. To most of the world,
south-west European limitations in language and adherance to
pre-nineteenth century norms that may not even completely apply even
there, are utterly meaningless. Most orders that exist today are in
countries which did not even exist at that time and are places where
the very idea of chivalry is alien.
cj.b...@virgin.net
Lest we over emphasise the Christian iconography, was there any mention
of St Ignatius of Loyala building a railway station of that name?
Guy Stair Sainty
Without wishing to hack over the same ground, nor respond to Mr Buyers using the
insulting language of his postings here, it should be sufficient to point out
that:
(a) none of the criteria he uses to define an "Order of Chivalry" can usefully
be applied today to separate an Order of Knighthood from one of Chivalry, to the
extent that there is such a difference. I have attempted to help him understand
that while most, if not all, Orders at one time met his definition, none of the
princely Orders given by reigning sovereigns do so today. Indeed aside from the
religious-military Orders and certain house or dynastic Orders given by
non-reigning families, it is almost impossible to claim that Merit is not a
significant criteria in the award of almost all Orders given today.
(b) there are Orders of Knighthood which are also Orders of Merit, and some
which have some added dimension; one may choose another term to describe the
latter, and indeed we have done so in our forthcoming book - but the criteria we
have applied is not the irrelevant categorisation selected by Mr Buyers. We have
in fact chosen to use the term “Order of Chivalry” to differentiate a certain
category of Orders, but in doing so do not attempt (as Mr Buyers has done) to
provide some eternal, but in fact now irrelevant distinction that will
effectively thrust all existing princely Orders into the Merit category. Had we
used Mr Buyers’ criteria, we would have had to have eliminated the category
altogether since we believe (and are supported in this by Professors D’Arcy
Boulton and Jonathan Riley-Smith, both of whom have contributed essays to our
book), that the Orders which today most closely resemble the criteria set by Mr
Buyers are those Orders which we have classed as “religious-military” Orders.
(c) I gave a list of some publications which used the term Orders of Chivalry in
their title, and included therein both Orders of Knighthood and Merit, only to
demonstrate that reputable specialists do not limit the term “Chivalry” in the
narrow way chosen by Mr Buyers. The title “Order of Chivalry” may be applied by
different writers to include Orders which are also Orders of Merit, because it
is not a “scientific” term, or in other cases it has been applied to define what
others might style Orders of Knighthood. That is why we have not chosen the word
“Chivalry” in the title of our book, preferring knighthood and merit, since
while most Orders of knighthood have a merit dimension, many Orders of Merit do
not confer any form of knighthood. Some Merit Orders confer what are styled
knighthoods, but the characteristics of these Orders are such as to make it
clear they are nonetheless purely and solely merit Orders without what we have
chosen to require of an Order that meets the definition I explain following here
(d).
(d) We have included a section “Orders of Chivalry” in our book, and this
comprises those Orders conferred by heads of sovereign states which have several
(but not necessarily all) of the following characteristics; regulation by
statutes, being headed by a grand master or sovereign, having executive or
ceremonial officers and a council or chapter, enjoying a continuous corporate or
quasi-corporate existence as a legal being, having a permanent seat or chapel,
conferring particular privileges or precedence on the recipient or being the
continuation by a republic of earlier monarchical chivalric institutions. Most,
if not all, of these Orders are actually conferred for meritorious services, but
that fact does not preclude them from being called Orders of Chivalry. None of
the Orders we have included in this category impose any responsibilities
(defending women, aiding the poor, etc) or imply any religious dimension (such
as being associated with some form of Christian brotherhood). We do not intend
to suggest, however, that this method of categorisation should be considered a
scientific norm, since we have still had to apply subjective considerations in
selecting those Orders to be included in this section. A state merit Order that
has none, or perhaps just one or two of these characteristics, would probably
not meet our required criteria, and so these have been included under “State
Merit” – others, notably the British Orders, which like all the Orders in this
category are clearly conferred for meritorious service, have nonetheless been
included in the section “Orders of Chivalry” but for reasons unrelated to Mr
Buyers’ criteria. Since we have included single class collar Orders (not all
single class Orders confer a collar on the recipient) in another category, those
Orders that we have chosen to list in the section Orders of Chivalry are: The
Royal Order of the Dannebrog (Denmark); The National Order of the Legion of
Honour (France); The Royal Norwegian Order of Saint Olav (Norway); The Order of
the White Eagle (Poland); The Military Order of the Tower and Sword, Valour,
Loyalty and Merit; The Order of Christ; The Military Order of Avis; and The
Military Order of Saint James of the Sword (Portugal); The Royal and
Distinguished Order of Charles III; The Royal Order of Isabella the Catholic;
The Royal and Military Order of Saint Ferdinand; and The Royal and Military
Order of Saint Hermenegildo (Spain); The Royal Order of the Sword; The Royal
Order of the Polar Star; and The Royal Order of Vasa (Sweden); The Most
Honourable Order of the Bath; The Most Exalted Order of the Star of India; The
Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George; The Most Eminent
Order of the Indian Empire; The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire
(United Kingdom). In most European languages the title of this chapter would be
synonymous with knighthood, and would be understood - as we have intended it
should be - to exclude those Orders which lack the historic corporate structure
but which were founded purely and soley as awards for meritorious service (even
where they do confer the title of knight).
In addition to this category, we include individual sections for “Orders of
religious-military foundation”, “Single Class Collar Orders” (a definition which
does not include those Orders which have only ever been Orders of Merit);
“Dynastic or House Orders,” “Ladies Orders” and “State Merit Orders (the largest
section), as well as a section that includes royal sponsored or founded
non-state Orders (the Dutch Order of the Golden Ark, and the Hungarian Order of
Vitez are examples in this sub-section), Nobiliary, Chivalric and Royal
Confraternities and Institutions (the Spanish Maestranzas are examples), Orders
founded by royal claimants in exile (an example being the Russian Order of Saint
Nicholas the Miracle Worker), and Orders revived by questionable authority.
Guy Stair Sainty
cj.b...@virgin.net says...
>
>
>George Lucki wrote:
>> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:1134400681....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> Christopher,
>> I'll just bypass all the insulting and inapporpriate remarks you had
>> peppered your last post and which could serve as another example of
>> deteriorating tone
>
>Now as for Sainty. I dare say you have little or no idea of the history
>to all this. So I advise you to mind your own business. I have warned
>that little twerp that if he ever tried to dump on me, he wouldn't just
>get it back in spades, he will get sea container loads in return. He is
>attracting just such right now and there is more in store, the more he
>carries on. As you may no doubt be already aware, he has a history of
>attracting enemies, often ending up in full blown legal disputes. He
>seems intent on heading that way with me. So be it. But I would suggest
>that you stay out of this one lest you are cought in the cross-fire.
How astonishing to learn that differences of opinion over the nature of Orders
can excite such passions. I can only respond to this by saying that I have no
idea as to what has exercised Mr Buyers so much; I once differed with him over
whether there was any automaticity in the awards of the Royal Victorian Order,
and whether the Garter or Spanish Golden Fleece were more exclusive. I also
suggested that the significantly lower numerical limits on the award of the
grand crosses of the French republican Orders to frenchmen made them more
exclusive than the awards of grand cross of the British Orders to British
recipients. All of this provoked in Mr Buyers highly excited reactions, of which
the present paragraph is a good example. I have no doubt as to the existence of
my enemies; those who have been embarassed by their participation in dubious
chivalric enterprises are unlikely to welcome their exposure. As for law cases,
however, the only one in which I have been involved was when the false duke of
Braganza sued me unsuccessfully for exposing the truth of his fraud.
As for "dumping" on Mr Buyers I have not the slightest idea of what he is
writing - although he persists in believing that I informed on him regarding his
use of copyrighted images. Having surveyed his useful site, it was immediately
obvious that he had done so - that others apparently came to the same conclusion
is hardly surprising and is perhaps a testament to the success of his
endeavours, in that his site has obviously attracted broad interest.
>
A careful review of these exchanges will speedily demonstrate which of us has
reached to invective and insult, and which has attenpted a reasoned discussion
of the issues. But I would not want to waste any one's time on this, and for
those who read Mr Buyer's posts, I suggest that one simply tries to ignore the
petty insults and patronising tone and focus on the occasional nuggets of useful
information.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
news:1134456269....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
>> [deletions]
>>
>> One should note that originally the letters IHS (or IHC) were a
>> Greek-language monogram, the first three letters of Iesous or Jesus; XPS
>> was
>> short for Christos, of course, just as XP, aka the sigla, was (and still
>> is
>> in Christian iconography).
[deletion]
> Many thanks for that clarification.
>
> Lest we over emphasise the Christian iconography, was there any mention
> of St Ignatius of Loyala building a railway station of that name?
>
Sorry to be so dense but the reference zoomed way over my poor, balding
head. I freely admit I don't get out as much as I ought.
(However, I hope you won't mind if I note that St. Ignatius was of Loyola,
that being a "castle of Loyola above Azpeitia in Guipuscoa", which the
Catholic Encyclopedia has as his birthplace.
(That same source has this heraldic and other information, which might be of
some interest to some here: "The family arms are: per pale, or, seven bends
gules (?vert) for Oñez; argent, pot and chain sable between two grey wolves
rampant, for Loyola. The saint was baptized Iñigo, after St. Enecus
(Innicus), Abbot of Oña: the name Ignatius was assumed in later years, while
he was residing in Rome." It then lists some sources for the saint's
genealogy.)
(Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07639c.htm)
cj.b...@virgin.net
Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
> <cj.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:1134456269....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
>
> >> [deletions]
> >>
> >> One should note that originally the letters IHS (or IHC) were a
> >> Greek-language monogram, the first three letters of Iesous or Jesus; XPS
> >> was
> >> short for Christos, of course, just as XP, aka the sigla, was (and still
> >> is
> >> in Christian iconography).
>
> [deletion]
>
> > Many thanks for that clarification.
> >
> > Lest we over emphasise the Christian iconography, was there any mention
> > of St Ignatius of Loyala building a railway station of that name?
> >
>
> Sorry to be so dense but the reference zoomed way over my poor, balding
> head. I freely admit I don't get out as much as I ought.
>
My apologies. That was a dig at a certain oh so innocent and saintly
soul's reference to St Pancras railway station in London.
sne...@slis.sjsu.edu
edesp...@yahoo.fr
Leigh Strother-Vien a écrit :
..
> Blessings, ..
That was a few letters from a sick cow..