Well, Conrad Black got his wish, finally - he’s a member of the British House of Lords, as Lord Black of Crossharbour. Course, he had to give up his Canadian citizenship to do it, and seems to feel mighty aggrieved at the idea that Canada can actually have a policy that our citizens don’t hold foreign titles.
And, of course his former paper produces a sycophantic “commentary/editorial” bleating about the supposed pettiness of the Prime Minister, for actually complying with a long-standing resolution of the House of Commons, which decided that Canadians don’t take titles.
My heart bleeds.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Conrad.
At first I was really bothered by this. I mean, the guy is pure evil, so why should he get to be a British Lord? Then I figured out! The queen’s going retro. She’s decided to bring in insane, out-of-touch, cruel, absolutist tyrants to make the peerage what it was before universal suffrage hit Britain.
Besides seeing the man who once called a gay bar “Sodom and Gomorrah,” whose National Post once included an article in which a reporter used the word “faggot” to describe protestors (no, it was not a quotation) – seeing this man in drag (ie, the long red dress) held a certain satisfaction for me.
Anyway, from now on, I intend to hum the Darth Vadar theme from Star Wars whenever I see our Dark Lord of Southam.
I don’t like Conrad Black. That said, I do think the Prime Minister blocked his appointment for personal reasons. The fact that the law was there did not mean it was enforced in most cases. I think the fact the government did use taxpayer money to prevent this was wasteful. But good riddance, by crook or by crook.
Baker, some of us had a bit of a discussion involving Mr. Black and the dust-up with PM Chrétien last spring. Try this thread and also this other thread.
The background is that Black is a Canadian, born and bred, and has been very successful in the newspaper business, both here and in the UK. He wanted to get a peerage, like the other press barons [literally] over there. The Brits told him he had to have British citizenship, so he applied for it and got it, which meant he then held dual citizenship, Canadian and Brit. PM Blair was prepared to recommend him for a peerage. PM Chrétien opposed it, on the basis that Canadian policy is against having titles of nobility. He advised PM Blair of his opposition, and PM Blair withdrew the offer.
Black then renounced his Canadian citizenship, and recently got the peerage.
All in all, I find it rather odd. A century ago, the idea of a Canadian receiving a British peerage made perfect sense - we were all part of the Empiah, Canada was a colony, etc., etc.
Mr. Black doesn’t seem to have noticed that Canada is a sovereign nation, has been for 80 years, and hasn’t had titles pretty much for the same period. What time warp is he in?
Thanks Northern Piper. Black sounds like a bit of a jerk. One’s native citizenship should not be held so lightly. not that one can’t change it, just not for such a silly reason. I wonder , is the title hereditary or just for life?
I would imagine it’s a life peerage. They tend not to give out hereditary peerages very much any more - I think Thatcher gave out a couple, but I don’t think there’ve been any since then. Some of the Brit Dopers may know more.
Back when Mike Royko was a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times he jumped ship and went to the Chicago Tribune when Murdoch took over the group that owned the C S-T. I think he was quoted as saying “No self respecting fish would be caught dead wrapped in one of Murdoch’s papers.”
