How did that work? Was he already a British/Canadian dual citizen, or did he have to go through a process of British naturalization? Or can any Canadian immediately become a British citizen if they wish? They have the same monarch, but my understanding was that the different countries are considered different realms of the monarch rather than one single kingdom.
Fine by me.
[sub]Ottawanker.[/sub]
until 1947 there was no separate Canadian nationality, but since then they are distinctly different. Commonwealth nationalities generally, do not confire right of parmanent residence in the UK, as distinct from right of entry.
The Canadian government was very annoyed that Black was prepared to seek a Peerage, and renounce Canadian nationality to do it.
The territorial designation does not have to have any connection with the person, but generally does these days. Slim of Imphal and Allenby of Meggido both commemorate battles.
I am certain my (Canadian) parents would be surprised to hear that the Canadian nationality did not exist until after their births. Why do you say this?
Here’s a New Yorker article about Black and his story.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?031124fr_archive02
As Calvin Trillin puts it:
Of course, it got out, the Canadian government did object, Chretien called Tony Blair, and ultimately, Black had to move to Britain and renounce his citizenship to take his barony.
I think he’s talking about the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, which officially created “Canadian citizens”. Before 1947, Canadians were considered either “Canadian nationals” or “British subjects”.
Here’s a webpage from Citizenship and Immigration Canada talking about it.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/legacy/chap-5.html#chap5-2
Thank you.
The situation in Australia was similar. The concept of an “Australian citizen” did not exist in any strict legal sense until the passage of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1949 by the Commonwealth parliament. Prior to that time, Australians were British subjects. Even after the Act was passed a dual nomenclature continued to be used for some time. My mother’s first passport, issued in the mid 1950s, describes her as both an Australian citizen and a British subject.
Or Viscount Montgomery of El Alamein – Egypt being, at the time, technically a whole separate monarchy, even if its King WAS in geopolitical practice a mere client.
Since someone else mentioned Americans getting titles, even if they aren’t supposed to, isn’t it only honerary as opposed to official? For example, rudolph giuliani got knighted, but it’s not the same, as say, Paul McCartney getting knighted, is it?
dibs on Earl of Saskatchewan!
When Sir Arthur Wellesley was first raised to the peerage, he got the title of Baron Douro of Wellesley, named after the River Douro in Portugal, one of his major military victories. He went on to win a lot more battles and rose rapidly through the peerage, ultimately becoming better known as the Duke of Wellington.
Nitpick: Mr Murdoch became an American citizen in 1985, thereby renouncing his Australian citizenship (as required by Australian law). He does not have dual citizenship, and is an American.
Never heard Ottawanker before. Very clever. Of course, I’m still waiting to hear back from Sunspace.
My understanding is that anyone who is naturalized as an American citizen must renounce any titles of nobility but apparently one way for an American citizen to hold a British title of nobility is to inherit the title upon the death of the previous title holder. That’s the way, I believe, that Christopher Guest, the fifth Baron Haden-Guest of Saling, got his title upon the death of his father.
Ironically, that means, I think, that an American can be a hereditary peer but can’t hold a life peerage.
Aw, man! I wanted to be the Dowager Princess of Toronto!
Re: Why no Australian or Canadian lords, if they are technically monarchies?
I don’t know much about Britain or Australia, but Canada is actually a constitutional monarchy. The Queen has almost no role in our politics or even any power. She’s really just a symbol of Britain and the Commonwealth. The true leader of our government is the Prime Minister and the Queen rarely has any idea what’s going on in our government. My civics teachers told me it’s similar in Britain, but I don’t know enough to tell you everything…
Just wanted to add that you don’t need nobility to have a monarchy. Norway, for instance, is a constitutional monarchy, and the 1814 constitution explicitly forbids noble titles.
This led some people to scratch their heads a few years back when Crown Prince Haakon married a woman who had a son from a previous relationship. What to do with the little boy? He clearly was not entitled to become a prince. (His father is still in his life, so the new stepfather was not going to adopt the boy.) But some people strongly believed he should have some title after his mother became Crown Princess, particularly considering that future half-siblings would be princes/princesses. The Palace said that the constitution gave them no such option, and although they understood people’s concerns, it wasn’t worth changing the constitution over - a sentiment echoed by the new Crown Princess.
It’s no problem anyway. When the glossy weekly magazines write about “Marius”, their readers know exactly which Marius they’re talking about, title or no 
you have to be a Commonwealth citizen to get a ‘proper’ honour (assuming your own gov. doesn’t object), hence ones going to US citizens [usually K.B.E.'s] are honorary only and would only entitle you to be addressed as (e.g.) Mr Caspar Weinburger, K.B.E.
For the same reason Bob Geldorf’s K is honorary only, as Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949.
In Sweden it’s the same way. Men who marry without royal approval are given Luxembourgish titles instead.
Does the King of Sweden have to get permission from the Grand Duke of Luxembourg before granting a title from another country?