Since Canada and Australia are both still monarchies, with Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State, do they also have local titled nobility?
Is there a Duke of Melbourne, or a Count of Toronto?
Ever since the Nickle resolution I’m sure it’s against the law for a Canadian to have such a thing.
Just ask Conrad Black.
The only existing Canadian noble title is Baron de Longueuil, which was granted by the King of France before the French and Indian War.
In 1919, the Canadian government adopted the Nickle Resolution, basically asking the crown not to grant titles or knighthoods on Canadian citizens, and for the most part, the crown hasn’t, and while there are and were a few Canadian peers (the most notable probably being Lord Beaverbrook, and the most controversial being Conrad Black, whose fight with Chretien over the peerage led to him renouncing his Canadian citizenship), it’s not common.
There are no Australian peers. Never have been, to the best of my knowledge, and I’m an Aus history nerd.
There are a few titled Australians who have inherited English titles, but as for “Duke of Melbourne” and the like; no, never.
Unless you count His Majesty Prince Leonard I of Hutt, and his missus, Her Royal Highness Princess Shirley of Hutt, Dame of the Rose of Sharon.
Shakester, I have to contradict you, unfortunately. Now that I know where to start looking, I found some interesting information.
There was in fact a Viscount of Melbourne, according to the National Museum of Australia. According to Wikipedia (I have not checked the cites), other Australians have in the past received British peerages, but that was stopped in 1975.
But basically, it appears that no one ever tried to set up anything like a feudal land ownership structures in these former colonies (dukedoms, baronies, and such…)
Interesting, and news to me. But only a handful. The Viscount of Melbourne was the only one that referred to an Australian place, the others seem to be Brit titles awarded to Australians.
No, there’s also the Baron Strathcona and Mount Royal of Mount Royal in the Province of Quebec and Dominion of Canada, i.e. Donald Smith, a significant figure in the early history of the Dominion. However, he moved back to the UK on his retirement and none of the subsequent Barons Strathcona and Mount Royal have lived in Canada.
Oh, and there was also Viscount Bennett, of Mickleham in the County of Surrey and of Calgary and Hopewell in the Dominion of Canada.
Note, however, that both of these were peerages of the United Kingdom, that referred to places in Canada. There is no separate Canadian peerage.
Wasn’t Melbourne named after him instead of him being granted a title referencing the city?
The City of Melbourne was named after Viscount Melbourne, Prime Minister of the UK..
However, the title of the former Australian Prime Minister was “Viscount Bruce of Melbourne .” I think he would be properly referred to as “Viscount Bruce,” not “Viscount of Melbourne.”
According to the tour guid, I think it was Stirling Castle (may have ben Edinburgh?) where James i/vi created a small strip of Nova Scotia to create the baron of Nova Scotia (since apparently he had to be invested in his own barony). Nobody seems to consider this real any more.
Conrad Black wanted to buy a lordship from the British government. Since he was the Canadian equivlent of Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck, but with pretentious vocabulary, the prime minister he’d been annoying (Chretien) made a point of invoking the Nickle resolution to prevent it. Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to get the title, his second not-so-bright move. Now that he’s doing time in the USA for business shennanigans, he wants to come back to Canada when he’s out. What are the odds?
It’s not against the law; Conrad Black was just impatient. He would be a life peer and a Canadian if he had just waited for Tony Blair and Jean Chretien to work out their tiff. It was purely a diplomatic issue, not a legal issue.
As a convicted felon and non-citizen the odds ought to be 0, but I bet he has enough friends in the coming Conservative government to get back in.
And he is not a Canadian Rush Limbaugh. I can’t stand him, but he wrote a well-reviewed biography of FDR (no, I haven’t read it).
FWIW, the former president of Latvia was forced to renounce her Canadian citizenship to take up that post. But she was told that she could get back in a week. Of course, she is not a convicted felon.
The issue was that Conrad owned and directed the National Post, a very conservative rag that spent its time attacking Chretien’s Libera government. The same government that would had the right to veto a title to a Canadian citizen. I don’t think there was anything to work out, except wait for Chretien to retire. Chretien was old school politics and knew how to carry a grudge. (in this case, I approve). Not sure how Paul Martin (his successor as PM) would have carried on…
Presumably once the objection was entered, the brits would have kept doing as requested by the Canadians.
Nope. Resolutions passed by either house (or even both houses) of the Canadian parliament are not legislative.
In the seventeenth century, both Maryland and Nova Scotia, and I think nominally also Newfoundland under one of its numerous charters, had some sort of formal colonial aristocracy.
In the eighteenth century, either the Quebec Act, or the legislation setting up Lower Canada and Upper Canada (I forget which) apparently made provision for the creation of colonial hereditary peerages; but this was never acted upon.
In a number of African and Pacific colonies/protectorates, certain local or regional chiefs were given seats in the relevant legislature ex officio.
I think that’s about it so far as the British Empire/Commonwealth is concerned.
All Australian politicians should be called Bruce, to avoid confusion.
See section VI of the Constitutional Act, 1791:
for completion it should be mentioned that we do have “the order of Australia” which makes you a Knight or Dame (and addressed as “sir blahblah” or “dame blahblahblah”.
These are not hereditary titles however, and are no longer awarded.
I should clarify: It isn’t illegal, it’s merely frowned on. The Canadian government doesn’t want “the crown” to be giving honours to Canadians without their strict consent. Ultimately it’s a power/control thing. I suppose “the crown” could just go ahead and give honours without the consent of the Canadian government, but the royals aren’t so crass to ever do such a thing.
Oh, my…
/Wealthy dowager
Thanks for the citation.