So the British monarch has bestowed the honour of “Order of Merit” on Jean Chretien
Quite an honour. Limited to 24 living people and only 168 ever chosen in over a hundred years.
Got me thinking.
Wasn’t it Chretien who blocked the queen from bestowing a knighthood on Conrad Black ? A lesser order that includes over 1000 people.
Something to do with the Nickle resolution ?
I like Chretien and detest Conrad Black, but I think Chretien should decline the honour. Otherwise he is a hypocrite.
If it goes in front of the name and is spelled out in full, it’s a title and that’s bad.
If it goes behind the name and uses initials, that’s not a title and it’s good.
I don’t make the rules up, but them’s apparently the rules.
At least it’s not a Knight Grand Cross, and it confers no title.
I suppose there’s a sort of logic to the rules. If it affects how you’re addressed, it smacks of elitism and is forbidden. If not, it’s merely recognition of your innate qualities.
Third party here, so you Canadia/ens correct me if/where I’m wrong:
Canada has since the 19th century held to a very egalitarian stance – people may be recognized and hono(u)red for exceptional deeds or contributions to Canada, but may not be knighted or ennobled, which would permanently set them apart as ‘higher’ or ‘better’ than other Canadians.
In advising against knighthoods and titles in the past, Canadian prime ministers, including Chretien, have not been making policy so much as giving voice to a national attitude.
As a matter of constitutional curiosity, what is the proper course for the Queen when she is advised by a prime minister of one realm to do something that she is advised by the prime minister of another realm not to do?
It’s murky - but in the case of Lord Black, at the time he was first up for a peerage, he was both a Canadian citizen by birth, and a British subject by naturalization, with residence in Canada. He was not granted the peerage, because of the objections from Prime Minister Chrétien.
My guess is that Her Majesty would have said to Tony and Jean, “I can’t get conflicting advice - you lot have to sort out the politics.” And Tony may have said, “Well, he’s primarily Canadian, so I’ll defer to you, Jean.” (And why Tony wanted to give a peerage to a Tory like Black in the first place is beyond me.)
Lord Black-to-be then showed how much he valued his Canadian citizenship by renouncing it, and then got the peerage.
I’ve seen in the papers that now that he’s going through his legal troubles in the U.S., he’s started to see the value of Canadian citizenship (for things like serving your time in your home country) and has considered re-applying for Canadian citizenship.
Just another example of why he’s known and loved in Canada. :rolleyes:
It’s not as clear-cut as the 19th century - Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister 1896-1911) and Robert Borden (PM 1911-1919) both got knighthoods, as did others of the pre-WWI period, and Robert Bennett (PM 1930-1935) got a viscounty).
I rememb er at the time that Black was told he couldn’t accept a peerage, there was an actual law on the books banning it, but it had not been rigorously enforced. At any rate, it seems that there was bad blood between them and Chretien decided to make an issue of it.
I can hardly think that Black could qualify as an immigrant here. Convicted felons are generally not eligible to enter, even as tourists, so I imagine Black will never be allowed in Canada again. Good riddance! And Chretien was genuinely lovable (although he had his hard side, as with Black).
I guess when Black is released, he will be deported to the UK and remain there. They’re welcome to him.
I could call myself “Bryan Ekers, CD” if I wanted.
Well, “Bryan Ekers, CD BCom” and if all goes as planned I can add a “BEng” in 2011 or so.
For a minute I confused Conrad Black and Lewis Black. That made this thread very odd.
It wasn’t a statute, Hari - it was a resolution of the House of Commons alone, the Nickel Resolution cited by the OP. Since it was simply a resolution, it did not have the force of law, but it’s been interpreted by subsequent governments as an expression of Canadian policy on the issue of titles. Since titles are a matter of prerogative, not statute law, the federal government is entitled to take that resolution into consideration in determining that it will not recommend that Her Majesty grant titles to Canadian citizens. However, as you comment, it’s not been consistently applied - see the example of Viscount Bennett, and I think a few others that were mentioned in the media at the time of the Black-Chrétien showdown.
Lord Beaverbook never gave up his Canadian citizenship, did he? There were actually seven Canadian peers set up in the late 19th, early 20th century…Robert Bennet, as you mentioned, as Viscount Bennett (in 1941), Max Aitken as Baron Beaverbrook (in 1917), Donald Smith as Baron Mount Royal (in 1897), Agnes Macdonald (John MacDonald’s widow) as Baronness Macdonald of Earnscliffe (in 1891), Thomas Shaughnessy as Baron Shaughnessy (in 1916), George Stephen as Baron Mount Stephen (in 1891), and Hugh Graham as Baron Atholstan (in 1917).
Actually, Hugh Graham (who was part of the reason the Nickle Resolution got passed) had circumstances somewhat similar to Conrad Black. They were both newspaper publishers (Graham owned the Montreal Star) active in Conservative Party politics and fundraising, as well as advocacy of right wing causes in general, in both cases, the elevation came against the advice of the Canadian PM and Governor General, and in both cases, the men were accused of purchasing their peerages, which were granted by non-Conservative British PMs (the Liberal Lloyd George and Labour Tony Blair respectively).
I’ll edit to add that the person to read regarding Canadian Honours and the peerage debate is Christopher McCreery, who’s written pretty exclusively on the subject.
It wasn’t a issue for Bennett, since he was granted the viscounty in 1941, when there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship. The first Canadian Citizenship Act came into force on January 1, 1947.
There have also been some knighthoods granted to Canadians following the Nickle resolution - I remember seeing a reference to one Canadian who was granted a knighthood in the 1960s, but in that case he had been living for years in the U.K.
He didn’t, necessarily. The way the system worked was that each party got to nominate a number of people for various honours. Conrad Black was one of the Conservative party’s nominations.
interesting - did not know that, thanks.
that probably helps answer Polycarp’s question as well - if it was a Tory nomination, I doubt that Tony would have wanted to use much political capital fighting Chrétien on the issue.