Alta4ever Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 It isn't a Commonwealth Realm, meaning that it is no longer under the Crown. And yet its is listed as a comonwealth nation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_membe...alth_of_Nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 And yet its is listed as a comonwealth nationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_membe...alth_of_Nations It left in the 60's at sometime and rejoined in 1994 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 It left in the 60's at sometime and rejoined in 1994 So it is a Commonwealth Nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Having a peerage is being part of an order. Did you read the definitions? As usual a ignorant liberal who can't take being called a hypocrite. Now I'm a Liberal! Not so long ago I was accused here of being a Conservative. Ah well, I actually take the confusion as somewhat of a compliment; at least I'm not stuck to political dogmas. Anyway, your personal synthesis of definitions is neither here nor there. Being created a duke, earl, viscount, or baron is not the same as being admitted into an order. Or, because there are ranks within the peerage, do you believe there are peerages within the peerage? Oh, but it gets more complicated, because peers are often members of orders, at different levels within the order! Peerages within peerages within peerages within peerages! Er, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 It's a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. It's not a Commonwealth Realm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 So it is a Commonwealth Nation. As far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 So it is a Commonwealth Nation. There are only 16 Commonwealth Realms within the 53 member-state Commonwealth of Nations. South Africa is no longer one of the former, though it is part of the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 It's a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. It's not a Commonwealth Realm. I saw nothing that indacated that award can only be givent to commonwealth relms, but it does say the comonwealth with would be all member nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 The award is a gift from the Sovereign. The Queen is not the Sovereign of South Africa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 The award is a gift from the Sovereign. The Queen is not the Sovereign of South Africa. It is award by the monoarch who also happens to be the Head of the Common Wealth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Commonwealth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) Yes, she's the head of the Commonwealth, but she is not the head of state in South Africa, unlike in Canada. Oh, and she isn't the Monarch of South Africa either. Edited July 19, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lily Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 We've moved on to South Africa now? Someone seems desperate to make a point..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 We've moved on to South Africa now?Someone seems desperate to make a point..... What is the point?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 That has been the debate in Canada for a long time. I believe the government of Canada has tried to set up its own awards of merit and filled its own appointments.The awarding of knighthoods and using the title and inherited positions seemed to run contrary to what Canadian values were in regards to independence. Ah, so it is the snob appeal of the title that irritates you. Knighthoods are not inherited, they are just a title given to recognize achievement like being able to put Doctor before your name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nor should he but why should you or I care if Black or any other Canadian citizen sits in the House of Lords? It seems the Canadian government doesn't care if Canadians serve in the government of other nations. Canadians can now enjoy dual citizenship, and the federal government has always decided not to intervene in the relationship between the other country's government and people that country considers citizens, even if they are also Canadians.For example, many young people born in Canada to parents of Italian origin have had to serve in the Italian army even if they never had Italian citizenship. Many Canadians of Italian origin asked the Canadian government to intervene and defend its citizens. The answer was always the same: The Canadian government doesn't intervene in the decisions of other governments regarding their citizens. I don't understand why for Chrétien Canadian citizens could serve in a foreign army but could not be members of a foreign parliament. In fact, they can and are. Right now, we have two Canadian citizens who are members of the Italian Parliament: MP Gino Bucchino, a doctor with dual citizenship, and Senator Basilio Giordano, a Canadian Italian journalist from Montreal. The year before Giordano was elected to the Italian Senate, he ran against Justin Trudeau for the Liberal candidacy in a Montreal riding. The election of Bucchino and Giordano to the Italian Parliament was officially accepted by the Canadian government of Paul Martin in 2005 and confirmed by the present government of Stephen Harper. I'm not saying that this is right, and I'd be glad if the Canadian government would clearly define the rights and duties that come with Canadian citizenship and better define the concept of dual citizenship. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/668162 And, a dual Canadian was appointed Governor of Kandahar. The Afghan-Canadian academic named as Kandahar's next governor says he plans to be the bridge between his two home countries.Tooryalai Wesa, 58, accepted Afghan President Hamid Karzai's offer Thursday for the top political posting in the troubled province where Canada's troops are deployed. He'll be sworn in on Saturday. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/18/kandahar-gov.html I suppose if the British parliament is involved, it makes it wrong. Or does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Ah, so it is the snob appeal of the title that irritates you. Knighthoods are not inherited, they are just a title given to recognize achievement like being able to put Doctor before your name. Nothing to do with snob appeal except for those seeking title in Britain. I believe what Canada did was nation building. It is one of the reasons why Canada developed things like the Order of Canada and its own Victoria Cross. The selling of titles in Britain within Canada turned a lot of people off because it often had Canadians trying to curry favour outside of Canada. It was detrimental to our own governance. Knighthoods and inherited titles are two separate things. I should have made that clear in my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 I suppose if the British parliament is involved, it makes it wrong. Or does it? Why Canada has had a different approach to Britain is because knighthoods and titles were being awarded to Canadians who were trying to curry favour in Britain. It was the selling of titles that turned off many people in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nothing to do with snob appeal except for those seeking title in Britain. I believe what Canada did was nation building. It is one of the reasons why Canada developed things like the Order of Canada and its own Victoria Cross. The selling of titles in Britain within Canada turned a lot of people off because it often had Canadians trying to curry favour outside of Canada. It was detrimental to our own governance. Knighthoods and inherited titles are two separate things. I should have made that clear in my post. So if a Canadian goes to another country and does that country what it deems to be a great service, they should have to give up their Canadian citizenship if the Canadian government doesn't approve of any honour that country decides to bestow on them. In that case, I assume you would have no problem with a British citizen being required to give up their citizenship in order to receive the Order of Canada if the the British government so decided. Americans take great pleasure calling Anthony Hopkins and Elizabeth Taylor, Sir Anthony and Dame Elizabeth even though they are American citizens. How is any honour being bestowed on a Canadian by the British detriment to our own government in this day and age. It seems we have not grown up yet. No identity crisis, my backside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 How is any honour being bestowed on a Canadian by the British detriment to our own government in this day and age. It seems we have not grown up yet. To the extent that certain people complain about a former PM "from Quebec" receiving an award (without title) from a "British Queen" while our current PM. who is "from Alberta," then I certainly agree that "we" haven't grown up yet. To the extent that a former PM used the Nickle Resolution against Conrad Black as a way to try and deny his elevation to the peerage is also, imo, a sign that "we" haven't grown up yet. To not understand the substantial difference, however, between the OM and an elevation, while also failing to appreciate the arguments (albeit twisted to my mind) against allowing such elevations, is the sign of a twit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 To the extent that certain people complain about a former PM "from Quebec" receiving an award (without title) from a "British Queen" while our current PM. who is "from Alberta," then I certainly agree that "we" haven't grown up yet. To the extent that a former PM used the Nickle Resolution against Conrad Black as a way to try and deny his elevation to the peerage is also, imo, a sign that "we" haven't grown up yet. To not understand the substantial difference, however, between the OM and an elevation, while also failing to appreciate the arguments (albeit twisted to my mind) against allowing such elevations, is the sign of a twit. The difference is in ones head. No more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 The difference is in ones head. No more. No, the differences are clearly spelled out amongst many websites (and even on a server based in Texas ). One's understanding, or lack thereof, is all in one's head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 So if a Canadian goes to another country and does that country what it deems to be a great service, they should have to give up their Canadian citizenship if the Canadian government doesn't approve of any honour that country decides to bestow on them. In that case, I assume you would have no problem with a British citizen being required to give up their citizenship in order to receive the Order of Canada if the the British government so decided. I have no problem with what the British want to do with their own citizens. Canada generally has no problem with receiving awards and honours from any country including Britain. What we did have a problem with was the selling of titles in Canada and the currying of favour as a result. Americans take great pleasure calling Anthony Hopkins and Elizabeth Taylor, Sir Anthony and Dame Elizabeth even though they are American citizens. They are both British citizens as well. How is any honour being bestowed on a Canadian by the British detriment to our own government in this day and age. It seems we have not grown up yet. No problems with an honour. I think most Canadians were put off though by the selling of titles throughout our history. No identity crisis, my backside. This was about identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 No, the differences are clearly spelled out amongst many websites (and even on a server based in Texas ).One's understanding, or lack thereof, is all in one's head. I understand the differences between the awards and titles, what I don't understand is why Canadians should give a dam about awards and titles another country bestows. They have no bearing on how this country conducts its business and the uproar over them just highlights our own sense of insecurity. A a mature country would take little notice of them other than to recognize that one of their citizens had done something special for another country or is being honored for services to mankind in general. If jdobbin wants to make a big deal about peerages being sold in the past, that only reflects on Britain, not us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) They are both British citizens as well. So you would be OK with a Canadian holding dual citizenship receiving a nighthood. This was about identity. More about lack of identity methinks. Edited July 19, 2009 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Right, by sowing that we are not British, we're sowing that we have no identity. As I said, the identity crisis is only in the minds of those who imagine one or wish there to be one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.