Chretien honoured by Queen

[August1991]

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.

Mackenzie King had many reasons to institute a policy forbidding Canadian citizens from receiving British/foreign honorifics/titles.

Look, I don't really care to get into the details of "British/foreign" or "honorific/award/titles". To me these distinctions are largely irrelevant here.

I have tried to make other more fundamental points.

First, the Queen's award to Chretien - whatever its legal status - is of political significance in Canada. (It must be politically significant because we are discussing it here. It is/was also being discussed elsewhere.)

Second, this award (despite what you read in the Toronto press) will not help the federal Liberal Party. I offered above the weak press statement of Ignatieff. I particularly liked Jean-Jaques Samson's piece because it points out that Chretien's name is worse in Quebec than Mulroney's name among Reformers:

Jean Chrétien amusait beaucoup la reine, paraît-il. C’est humiliant pour les Québécois d’entendre cela. M’est aussitôt venue à l’esprit l’image du fou de la reine.

Journal de Quebec

Third, Harper is behind this award. As I understand the monarchy, this Queen and Canadian politics, it is unthinkable for her to give any Canadian an award - much less a retired PM from an opposing party - unless she had the prior approval of the sitting PM.

For some strange reason, posters to this forum have difficulty wrapping their mind around these "obvious" facts.

-----

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 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.

Appreciate the difference? There is no difference, it is all politics.

Grown up? I consider the American method mature. The standard title in the US is "Honorable" and it's used for the president as well as a state representative. No one says "His Excellency Barack Obama" - he's simply "The Honorable Barack Obama", just like "The Honorable John McCain" or "The Honorable Gary Hart". Abroad, all American politicians are honourable - and nothing more.

IMV, that's mature and "grown up".

Edited July 19, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

Actually, abroad the American President is called His Excellency, as are most heads of state and government and their representatives (it seems this should be qualified with often). I Canada, only the Governor General is referred to by that title (excluding foreign dignitaries). Everyone else is: a ) nothing, b ) honourable, or c ) right honourable (actually, the GG is that too).

Edited July 19, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

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.

Does the Canadian identity consist of being not British and not American or is it more than that? Sometimes I wonder.

[jdobbin]

First, the Queen's award to Chretien - whatever its legal status - is of political significance in Canada. (It must be politically significant because we are discussing it here. It is also being discussed elsewhere.)

I don't judge what is said here as important to the Canadian public.

The award to Chretien has left the building. In other words, no one really cared.

Third, Harper is behind this award. As I understand the monarchy, this Queen and Canadian politics, it is unthinkable for her to give any Canadian an award - much less a retired PM from an opposing party - unless she had the prior approval of the sitting PM.

Which is why we keep calling you a liar.

You are the only one saying that anywhere I've looked. Please give evidence of this or you will continue to be looked as a liar.

For some strange reason, posters to this forum have difficulty wrapping their mind around these "obvious" facts

.

It helps to present facts and you have none.

[August1991]

Actually, abroad the American President is called His Excellency, as are most heads of state and government and their representatives.

Not the US president - abroad, Barack Obama is still "The Honorable Barack Obama" just like he was when he was a State Senator in Illinois. Some countries, typically third world, might get this wrong. Heck, some people think Obama is the Second Coming.

Moreover smallc, the honorific "His Excellency" is usually reserved for Heads of State, not Heads of Government.

Edited July 19, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

See:

The full title of the Governor General is:

Her Excellency, the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., Governor General of Canada

The full title of the Prime Minister is:

The Right Honourable Stephen Joseph Harper, P.C., M.P., M.A.

[Smallc]

Not the US president - abroad, Barack Obama is still "The Honorable Barack Obama" just like he was when he was a State Senator in Illinois.

Moreover smallc, the honorific "His Excellency" is usually reserved for Heads of State, not Heads of Government.

You should really read things before posting. Really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellency

http://www.reference.com/browse/excellency

Edited July 19, 2009 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

IMV, that's mature and "grown up".

Let's be grown up and call everyone "Comrade", then.

[Wilber]

Not the US president - abroad, Barack Obama is still "The Honorable Barack Obama" just like he was when he was a State Senator in Illinois.

Moreover smallc, the honorific "His Excellency" is usually reserved for Heads of State, not Heads of Government.

A President of the United States is the Head of State.

[August1991]

[Talk about a subject that I find supremely and pointlessly arcane. The choic of marketing names for house paint is more worthy of attention. "Jungle Red" vs. "Phlegmatic Green"? "No, honey. We're doing the bathroom in Titanic Blue."]

You should really read things before posting. Really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excellency

Smallc, you should read before posting - or understand the validity of your source.

From the wikipedia article you posted:

In the United States, the form "Excellency" was commonly used for George Washington during his Presidency, but it began to fall out of use with his successor, and today has been replaced in direct address with the simple "Mr. President" or "The Honorable " However, in many foreign countries and in United Nations protocol the President of the United States is usually referred to as "His Excellency." Diplomatic correspondence to President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, as during the Trent Affair, for instance, frequently referred to him as "His Excellency."

The wikipedia article is accurate but misleading. Under US protocol, the US president is referred to as "The Honorable" and that is the standard used in most countries that matter, including Canada. The UN may refer to "His Excellency Barack Obama" (I don't think it does) but that's the UN.

Edited July 19, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

That's not what it says there. It isn't only at the UN. In Canada we simply call them president, without anything attached.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

However, in many foreign countries and in United Nations protocol the President of the United States is usually referred to as "His Excellency."

http://www.reference.com/browse/excellency

[Smallc]

What it really boils down to, is that whether or not the honourific excellency is used when abroad is more related to the policy of he country you are visiting rather than the policy of your own country. We don't call most presidents and prime ministers excellency. Many other countries do.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Does the Canadian identity consist of being not British and not American or is it more than that? Sometimes I wonder.

It's far more than that and there are many examples of it (even if it varies slightly from region to region). About 90% of the population understand now that this is a great country (best in the world actually according to the poll on Canada day) and that it does have an identity. I'm guessing you're in the other 10%.

[August1991]

What it really boils down to, is that whether or not the honourific excellency is used when abroad is more related to the policy of he country you are visiting rather than the policy of your own country. We don't call most presidents and prime ministers excellency. Many other countries do.

Smallc, this is complicated and your simple rule is not correct. The US preference is to refer to most US politicians as "The Honorable" and in Canada, we follow this US preference. (As noted above, Stephen Harper is known in Canada as the "The Right Honourable" and abroad most countries follow this title.)

Some countries ("most" countries, according to wikipedia and this is what I find misleading) cannot bring themselves to refer to a US Head of State as merely "The Honorable". (Perhaps these countries feel that a mere honorable is not sufficiently obsequious to Americans or indirectly insulting to their own head of state.) And so, these countries use the term "His Excellency Barack Obama". IME, Americans view such usage as foreign. The term is not used in US protocol.

-----

Getting back to my point (assuming that I had one or even care about it).

I think the American practice is mature and "grown up". The terms "Comrade" or "Citizen" are false. If people who hold positions within the state apparatus require a designation, then "Honourable" is good enough.

It's the term we use in the House of Commons and it's an attempt at politeness.

Edited July 19, 2009 by August1991

[Wilber]

It's far more than that and there are many examples of it (even if it varies slightly from region to region). About 90% of the population understand now that this is a great country (best in the world actually according to the poll on Canada day) and that it does have an identity. I'm guessing you're in the other 10%.

Then why do we put so much weight on what they do? Health care is a good example. Any time suggestions are made that conflict with the status quo, the cry of an American style system arises. We continually shoot ourselves in the foot trying not to be like them rather than just being us. My idea of being pro Canadian isn't based on not being like someone else.

[August1991]

What it really boils down to, is that whether or not the honourific excellency is used when abroad is more related to the policy of he country you are visiting rather than the policy of your own country. We don't call most presidents and prime ministers excellency. Many other countries do.

Smallc, this is complicated and your simple rule is not correct. The US preference is to refer to most US politicians as "The Honorable" and in Canada, we follow this US preference. (As noted above, Stephen Harper is known in Canada as the "The Right Honourable" and abroad most countries follow this title.)

Some countries ("most" countries, according to wikipedia and this is what I find misleading) cannot bring themselves to refer to a US Head of State as merely "The Honorable". (Perhaps these countries feel that a mere honorable is not sufficiently obsequious to Americans or indirectly insulting to their own head of state.) And so, these countries use the term "His Excellency Barack Obama". IME, Americans view such usage as foreign. The term "His Excellency" is not used anywhere in US protocol in reference to any American - although ambassadors abroad are typically referred to as excellencies since they represent the head of state.

-----

Getting back to my point (assuming that I had one or even care about it).

I think the American practice is mature and "grown up". The terms "Comrade" or "Citizen" are false. If people who hold positions within the state apparatus require a designation, then "Honourable" is good enough. It's the term we use in the House of Commons and it's an attempt at politeness.

My point? Bruce Springsteen is "The Boss" and Edward Ellington became a "Duke". I prefer American practice - let's leave honorifics to private decision.

Does the Canadian identity consist of being not British and not American or is it more than that? Sometimes I wonder.

It's far more than that and there are many examples of it (even if it varies slightly from region to region). About 90% of the population understand now that this is a great country (best in the world actually according to the poll on Canada day) and that it does have an identity. I'm guessing you're in the other 10%.

IME, this is largely an issue for English-speaking Canada. Wilber, your question about "Canadian identity" really means "English Canada identity" and Smallc, your answer doesn't change this. Edited July 19, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

Then why do we put so much weight on what they do?

Because they are the worlds most powerful country and we live right beside them. They also share many things with us. Also, a poll a very short time ago showed that almost 3/4 of Canadians like their health care. As I said, many of the crisis situations that exist are mostly in the minds of certain people. Things aren't perfect of course, but they sky isn't always falling.

[Smallc]

I prefer American practice - let's leave honorifics to private decision.

What you prefer is rather irrelevant. It certainly doesn't make things more civilized solely based on your process.

IME, this is largely an issue for English-speaking Canada. Wilber, your question about "Canadian identity" really means "English Canada identity" and Smallc, your answer doesn't change this.

No, it's not. In the poll that was done (both this year and last) many Quebecers agreed with other Canadians (although in slightly smaller numbers). This is a question of Canadians identity.

[Wilber]

Because they are the worlds most powerful country and we live right beside them. They also share many things with us. Also, a poll a very short time ago showed that almost 3/4 of Canadians like their health care. As I said, many of the crisis situations that exist are mostly in the minds of certain people. Things aren't perfect of course, but they sky isn't always falling.

Britain is not and we don't live right beside them.

I prefer our system to the US as well and who says the sky is falling but resisting any changes that might improve it because of the Americans is just idiotic. I care about our system, not theirs.

[Smallc]

You weren't talking about the British a minute ago.

[g_bambino]

Smallc, this is complicated and your simple rule is not correct. The US preference is to refer to most US politicians as "The Honorable" and in Canada, we follow this US preference.

I think the American practice is mature and "grown up". The terms "Comrade" or "Citizen" are false. If people who hold positions within the state apparatus require a designation, then "Honourable" is good enough.

We don't follow the US; we inherited the British usage. In the federal sphere, "The Honourable" is applied only to members of the Queen's Privy Council; this evolved out of the time when Canada was still under the watch of the British Cabinet, part of the Imperial Privy Council, the members of which were (and are still) designated as "The Right Honourable". Canadian privy councilors, of course, could not be ranked higher than imperial privy councilors, and so received the lower style. Canadian prime ministers have come to be styled with "The Right Honourable" because they used to be appointed to the Imperial Privy Council in London, as well as to the QPC in Canada. Even now that the legal ties to Britain have been severed, the practice remains.

Your opinion that "The Honourable" should be applied to everyone from the head of state on down to... well, I'm not sure to whom... seems to be a kind of cop-out; it's an arbitrary line drawn between the honourable and the not honourable that has neither the courage to try to impose a communist utopia of ultra-equality, nor to admit that there is a heirarchical structure to human society that should be acknowledged and communicated through symbols like honorific styles.

_{[ed. to clarify]}

Edited July 19, 2009 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Actually, abroad the American President is called His Excellency

It would seem that in Canada he's "The Honourable" (or, should it be "Honorable"?); at least, according to Rideau Hall. Perhaps Canada isn't abroad enough to warrant the use of "His Excellency".

[Smallc]

Hah, I guess not. It probably is that we respect the US tradition of not using the word. I imagine that they would respect ours by not calling the Prime Minister his Excellency. Many other countries would have different policies.

[August1991]

It would seem that in Canada he's "The Honourable" (or, should it be "Honorable"?); at least, according to Rideau Hall. Perhaps Canada isn't abroad enough to warrant the use of "His Excellency".

Obama, a US President should be "The Honorable"? That's technically a mistake.

IMV, it's not a mistake at all. I spell the words honour and colour abroad with pride. And I also speak French/English loudly (with great pride) when going through foreign airports.

Edited July 19, 2009 by August1991