# Why no Australian or Canadian lords, if they are technically monarchies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 10, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472 "2005-02-10T22:01:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/1 "2005-02-10T22:01:04Z")
Inspired by the concurrent ([thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5825218#post5825218).) In the UK it seems to be quite the thing for the Queen to elevate prominent industrialists, business magnates, and artists to life peerages in honor of their accomplishments. It’s probably only a matter of time before we start hearing of Lord McCartney of Liverpool and Hamburg. However, while Canada and Australia are, technically speaking, reigned over by the Queen, we never hear of anyone in those countries being ennobled or knighted. Why isn’t Rupert Murdoch, for example, Lord Murdoch of Sydney or something like that? Do Australians or Canadians ever get ennobled but we don’t hear about it? Or do those countries have laws that prevent it? Or, is it not done for some other reason? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/2 "2005-02-10T22:02:22Z")
The current thead I referred to is the one asking why Americans and other non-British people are so fascinated by the Royals. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/3 "2005-02-10T22:11:03Z")
As for Canada, in 1919, the Canadian House of Commons passed the Nickle Resolution, which said that Canadians weren’t allowed to accept knighthoods or hereditary titles. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/4 "2005-02-10T23:18:15Z")
The highest honourarium awardable to a Canadian by the government of Canada is the “Order of Canada” medal. Looking at a list of recipients though, it would seem somewhat less prestigious than it should be. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/5 "2005-02-10T23:59:41Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > As for Canada, in 1919, the Canadian House of Commons passed the Nickle Resolution, which said that Canadians weren’t allowed to accept knighthoods or hereditary titles. Prior to that date, though, [Max Aitken](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Maxwell_Aitken,_1st_Baron_Beaverbrook) of Newcastle, N.B., was ennobled for a wide range of reasons, including his contributions to the political aspect of fighting World War I, as well as his status as a prominent Liberal newspaper owner (the _Daily Express_, and the reference is to the Liberal Party), as Lord Beaverbrook. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/6 "2005-02-11T00:03:05Z")
In past years Australians were given peerages. Stanley Bruce, a former Prime Minister, was created \*Viscount Bruce of Melbourne and Westminster \* in 1947. Australians used also to be given imperial honours in the form of knighthoods, damehoods etc. Another former PM and arch-royalist, Sir Robert Menzies, was made a Knight of the Thistle. The awarding of English imperial honours has now pretty much come to a complete stop, inspired by a combination of egalitarianism, republican feelings and perceived irrelevancy. An Australian honours system, known as the Order of Australia, now operates. When constituted, it did have provision for knighthoods, but these have since been abolished. Nowadays the Order of Australia confers no title on the recipient, other than the appropriate letters after his name. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/7 "2005-02-11T00:32:29Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Prior to that date, though, [Max Aitken](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Maxwell_Aitken,_1st_Baron_Beaverbrook) of Newcastle, N.B., was ennobled for a wide range of reasons. Actually, after that date a few Canadians were knighted, most notably Frederick Banting, who discovered insulin, under the Bennett administration. Bennett would actually go on to move to Britain and become enobled himself. But after him, that practice stopped. In fact, just recently, Conrad Black had to give up his Canadian citizenship to become a baron. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/8 "2005-02-11T03:45:39Z")
The Queen herself indicated that she thought it more appropirate that she stop giving honours to Australian subjects, in 1990. By that time, Australian governments had pretty much stopped nominating recipients anyway. See [url=]here > [@](#): > > I’ve mentioned the Queen’s views on the matter of honours for her Australian subjects. These were contained in a letter written in February 1990 by her then Private Secretary, Sir William Heseltine, to the Governor-General and to the six State Governors. Sir William pointed out that the 1990 New Year imperial honours list had included no nominations from Australia as no Australian Government had exercised its prerogative to make recommendations for British honours. That being the case, it seemed a good moment to consider whether the time had not arrived for Australia , like Canada , to honour its citizens exclusively within its own system. Such an arrangement would not exclude the possibility of the Queen of Australia continuing to honour her Australian subjects with an award within her own personal Order, the Royal Victorian Order, nor with those other honours which are also wholly within her own gift, namely, the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle and the Order of Merit. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/9 "2005-02-11T04:10:40Z")
\*\* Why no Australian or Canadian lords, if they are technically monarchies? \*\* Hey, just because we’re monarchies doesn’t mean we’re not democratic! ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/10 "2005-02-11T05:12:04Z")
But… but… I _want_ to be Duke of Toronto! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/11 "2005-02-11T05:19:35Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > But… but… I _want_ to be Duke of Toronto! Why? Are you sterile and dull? ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/12 "2005-02-11T06:41:09Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > Why isn’t Rupert Murdoch, for example, Lord Murdoch of Sydney or something like that? If I’m not mistaken, Murdoch is now an American citizen, so he is no longer eligible for foreign honors without a special exemption from Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Lockz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Lockz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lockz)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/13 "2005-02-11T12:40:39Z")
**Sunspace** & **Bryan Ekers** : can I grab your exchange for my sig? ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/14 "2005-02-11T13:27:25Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Why? Are you sterile and dull? Clearly, some people think so. Just look at my dating record. Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Emporor Norton. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/15 "2005-02-11T17:36:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Lord McCartney of Liverpool and Hamburg Hamburg? Could the queen grant title over a place that’s not part of her kingdom? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/16 "2005-02-11T17:48:35Z")
> [@Cunctator](#): > > In past years Australians were given peerages. Stanley Bruce, a former Prime Minister, was created \*Viscount Bruce of Melbourne and Westminster \* in 1947. Australians used also to be given imperial honours in the form of knighthoods, damehoods etc. Another former PM and arch-royalist, Sir Robert Menzies, was made a Knight of the Thistle. Even Americans can be knighted, even though our laws prohibit us from using the titles, or at least they stipulate that the titles have no significance–this being the Land Of The Free I imagine we can call ourselves anything we wish. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense in Reagan’s cabinet, was knighted by the Queen, as was P.G. Wodehouse shortly before his death in 1975. Wodehouse had long since become a naturalized American citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/17 "2005-02-11T17:53:55Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Hamburg? Could the queen grant title over a place that’s not part of her kingdom? Well, there was Earl Mountbatten of Burma. I don’t think the territorial designations are meant to imply dominion either by the monarch or by the recipient of the title. From what I gather, new peers often seem to choose a territorial designation that has something to do with what they accomplished, as I assume Lord Burma did. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/18 "2005-02-11T17:55:12Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > \*\* Why no Australian or Canadian lords, if they are technically monarchies? \*\* Hey, just because we’re monarchies doesn’t mean we’re not democratic! But you could say that of the UK, too. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/19 "2005-02-11T17:55:44Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > Well, there was Earl Mountbatten of Burma. I don’t think the territorial designations are meant to imply dominion either by the monarch or by the recipient of the title. From what I gather, new peers often seem to choose a territorial designation that has something to do with what they accomplished, as I assume Lord Burma did. Well, Burma **was** under the dominion of the King-Emperor at the time, wasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Celyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9dc877/32.png) [@Celyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celyn)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472/20 "2005-02-11T18:03:11Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Hamburg? Could the queen grant title over a place that’s not part of her kingdom? ooh don’t mention the war! You might give Liz Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Coburg, or whatever she really is, ideas. :eek: [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-australian-or-canadian-lords-if-they-are-technically-monarchies/289472.md?page=2)