Smallc Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 This is a political award in Canada. No, it's not even that. There's nothing political about it (except that it's being awarded to a distinguished politician). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 There are real political implications to all this and you are wrong to ignore these political implications. There are not and you have yet to provide any proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lily Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Now as for how partisan you I can only guess, but because you support the liberal party I can surmise you are as hypocritical as they are. You're free to surmise anything you want. I'm free to be amused by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I don't but as a wild guess, both superficially probably concern letters before and after the name. And that is where you would be wrong. There are real political implications to all this and you are wrong to ignore these political implications. That's my point. I think that Harper has made a smart political calculation. There will be zero political implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 This is a political award in Canada. It is delusional not to see the political implications of this award. It's not a political award. It's from the Queen. There are real political implications to all this and you are wrong to ignore these political implications. That's my point. I think that Harper has made a smart political calculation. He had nothing to do with it. It confers no title of nobility, therefore does not require Harper or the Privy Council. The Queen does not consult her Prime Ministers on this, as it has nothing to do with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 No, they're not. Read the difference between the peerage and an order . For extra marks, also brush up on noble titles and the Nickle Resolution. The Resolution requested that the British government refrain from conferring "any title of honour or titular distinction" upon any person ordinarily resident in Canada, except for those of a professional or vocational character. The Resolution declared that the Canadian government would not approve an order or decoration that carries with it a title of honour or any implication of precedence or privilege. Approval would be considered on the grounds of extraordinary service to mankind, or for conspicuous bravery in saving or attempting to save life. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=A1ARTA0009566 I beleive this would be a decoration that would have the implication of precedence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 I beleive this would be a decoration that would have the implication of precedence. This didn't come from the British government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 I beleive this would be a decoration that would have the implication of precedence. Then you'd better write Rideau Hall and tell them to cancel all honours, as they each come with an inherent precedence. But no, dobbin is right; the honour was not bestowed by the British government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Then you'd better write Rideau Hall and tell them to cancel all honours, as they each come with an inherent precedence.But no, dobbin is right; the honour was not bestowed by the British government. Neither was lord blacks it was bestowed by the Queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 The House of Lords is PART of the British Government...well, for now anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 The House of Lords is PART of the British Government...well, for now anyway. And yet the honour was bestowed by the queen not the House of Lords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 And yet the honour was bestowed by the queen not the House of Lords. Which means it was not the government of Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Neither was lord blacks it was bestowed by the Queen. It was to be bestowed by the Queen on the advice of her British Prime Minsiter - i.e. Elizabeth in her British council - making it therefore an honour from the British government, and therefore subject to the Nickle Resolution (even though it isn't a law and can be ignored at any Canadian Cabinet's whim... But that's another story). Further, a peerage, unlike the Order of Merit, carries with it a title - for Conrad: Baron Black of Crossharbour - not allowed under the Nickle Resolution. This is the exact reason why Canadians can only be appointed as high as the rank of Commander in the Royal Victorian Order; anything higher is a knighthood, bringing with it the associated title of Sir or Dame. Some people do slip through the cracks, though; amongst numerous examples: Frederick Banting became a Knight of the Order of the British Empire, giving him the style of Sir; R.B. Bennett became Viscount Bennett of Mickleham in the County of Surrey and of Calgary and Hopewell; the Baron Thomson of Fleet remains a Canadian; Edwin Leather was a Knight of both the Order of St. Michael and St. George and the Royal Victorian Order; and even as recent as 2002, Terry Matthews was knighted by the Queen. There's no doubt that Chretien blocked Black's peerage appointment out of spite. However, elevation to the peerage and induction into an order simply are not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Order of British Peerage http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFER...rdBritPeer.html a peerage is the same as being a member of an order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) Order of British Peeragea peerage is the same as being a member of an order. Though the link you provide gets the general definition of a peerage title correct, there is no such thing as the Order of British Peerage. Perhaps you should look for more reliable sources. [ed. to +] Edited July 18, 2009 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) Though the link you provide gets the general definition of a peerage title correct, there is no such thing as the Order of British Peerage. Perhaps you should look for more reliable sources.[ed. to +] 19. any class, kind, or sort, as of persons or things, distinguished from others by nature or character: talents of a high order. 21. a rank, grade, or class of persons in a community. 25. a monastic society or fraternity: the Franciscan order. 35. (initial capital letter) British. a. a special honor or rank conferred by a sovereign upon a person for distinguished achievement. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/order Describes a peerage doesn't it. Edited July 18, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 You'll never admit that a ) this isn't a political award, and b ) this award is not from the British government (unlike the awards that have been opposed in the past), will you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 You'll never admit that a ) this isn't a political award, and b ) this award is not from the British government (unlike the awards that have been opposed in the past), will you? The Queen is not the Head of the British Government? I was always taught she was. Its not a political award, so what is being awarded for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) The Queen is not the Head of the British Government? She's the Head of the State for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Administrator of the British Government, so yes, you could say that. She's also the Head of State for Canada though, and this award is not a British award. She doesn't act as the Administrator of our government for the most part (the Governor General does that), but when it comes down to it, the Government of Canada is administered in the name of her office. The award itself is a gift from the Queen for service of any kind. This particular awarding happens to be for political service (as far as we know), but the award still is not a political one. It certainly isn't awarded for political purposes. Edited July 18, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 She's the Head of the State for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Administrator of the British Government, so yes, you could say that. She's also the Head of State for Canada though, and this award is not a British award. She doesn't act as the Administrator of our government for the most part (the Governor General does that), but when it comes down to it, the Government of Canada is administered in the name of her office. Actually this award is a "british award". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 The award itself is a gift from the Queen for service of any kind. This particular awarding happens to be for political service (as far as we know), but the award still is not a political one. It certainly isn't awarded for political purposes. Really I haven't seen anything that rules out advising, its not "required" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Actually this award is a "british award". No, it isn't. It's a gift from the Queen of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Really I haven't seen anything that rules out advising, its not "required" And you think that Gordon Brown or Stephen Harper had something to do with this? Ministerial advice was probably not requested given the nature of the award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 And you think that Gordon Brown or Stephen Harper had something to do with this? Ministerial advice was probably not requested given the nature of the award. No, you are not understanding what I am saying. Those that receive the Order of Merit, are able to advise the Queen if they so choose, but they have no requirement to do so. This is very much like a peerage just without property only 24 members are premitted at any one time. If you look at the list they are all British Subjects except one, guess who that is. It is very Hypocritical of liberals to support Chretien receiving this title (and it is a title as OM is added after the persons name) while they demanded Black renouce his citizenship to accept his title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Ok, here is the difference. The Queen has a direct link to Canada as it's head of state. The Government of the United Kingdom is completely separate from Canada. This award is not from the government of the United Kingdom and has nothing to do with the government United Kingdom unlike knighthood (a british title) and lordship (a british government office). This is an award that is a personal gift from the Queen of Canada and all Commonwealth Realms. This is also an award that has been given to Prime Ministers if Canada in the past. The fact that most of the current recipients of the award are British and the fact that many places are mistakenly calling the award British does not change the fact that it is a personal gift from the Queen of Canada who also happens to be the Queen of the United Kingdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.