Can we say beat a dead horse?!

MODERATION

Kelisli;79692 wrote:

All of a sudden this thread has less and less to do with the evolution of my personal arms. Whatever happened to opening new threads?!

Yes. That would be a good idea since this one has veered well off topic.

Thanks to the moderators for separating this topic off of the original thread.

The exchange of different views has been interesting!

George Lucki;79790 wrote:

Wow. I guess I’m left wondering what ‘less than complete freedom’ Canadians enjoy…:eek:

Me too.  I do wish people who’ve never traveled outside the United States would refrain from making such statements.

Quote:

(Just so you know I have an absolutely huge fondness for my American neighbours - historical irritants such as the 2nd American Revolution of 1812-1815 ...

It’s OK, we’ve never particularly held it against you; it was your British masters’ fault.  And once they stopped impressing our seamen, blockading our trade, inciting the Indians against us, and trying to retake land they gave up fair and square in 1783, we forgave them, too.

Quote:

... Fenian terrorism ...

Oh dear God, did you really have to say that?

Looking at this from the point of view of a citizen of a foreign kingdom where a limited nobility have (now very) limited additional rights compared with other citizens, I can see where the fathers of the United States were coming from. Being imbued with an egalitarian sensibility (sounds very like Witherspoon - anyone?) they wished to do everything in their power to prevent any form of established privilege taking root.

That, over 200 years later, it requires people to renounce part of their heritage when the likelihood of a US hereditary nobility taking root is small, is unfortunate. But how many does it really affect? A German born after 1918 is not a noble no matter where s/he is on the Furst-zu-von scale since in Germany these are now considered names not a sign of nobility. Thus, few potential citizens have anything to renounce since even when there is a residual nobiliary nomenclature, in most places it is no longer recognised. And of course, the US renunciation tends to have no effect in other jurisdictions anyway. It’s not as if it affects the posterity either, since AFAIK US law does not prevent the inheritance of foreign nobility/title and I would hold by the ancient precedent that (unless agreed by the original fount of honour) such status could only be renounced ad personam, not permanently.

Of course, whether such status should be boasted abroad is a matter of taste…

Half-heartedly apologising for stirring this pot

James

Joseph McMillan;79826 wrote:

Oh dear God, did you really have to say that?

No, I could have refrained, and it is of course a bit of a red herring in this thread but it was the last ‘invasion’ of Canada… and the conspiracy theorists of the strongly implicated the US

From the Canadian Encyclopedia article on Terrorism:
Quote:

International terrorism in Canada can be traced back to the FENIAN Brotherhood in the days before Confederation. The Fenians were an Irish nationalist group created in the 1850s with the intent of using force to advance the cause of Irish independence from Britain. After the US Civil War ended in 1865, the organization’s US branch swelled with an influx of veterans. Members were divided on tactics: some supported assassination and other terrorist activities, while others believing the group should act like a military force, engaging in conventional battles against the Canadian or British military. In 1866, the Fenians carried out a series of ineffective raids on targets in New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West. They destroyed bridges, cut telegraph wires, damaged or stole private property, and engaged in combat against local militias. These incidents succeeded only in increasing public support for Confederation, which would offer the colonies greater security. In 1868, Thomas D’Arcy MCGEE, a member of Parliament and father of Confederation, was assassinated, most likely by a Fenian who was acting without authorization from the brotherhood. Subsequent attacks were unsuccessful: an invasion in Quebec in 1870 was repulsed and in 1871 the group botched its final raid in Manitoba.

A catchy song of the day:

We are the Fenian Brotherhood, skilled in the arts of war,

And we’re going to fight for Ireland, the land we adore,

Many battles we have won, along with the boys in blue,

And we’ll go and capture Canada, for we’ve nothing else to do.

As someone pointed out, this has all been said before. However, I shall say something similar to that which I have previously posted.

By "nobility" at least two things are meant: one is hereditary legal privilege, and the other is one’s "gens" or ancestry.

The first is what one renounces by becoming (or being) an American. This is quite the modern idea and has now taken hold almost everywhere. The legal equality of persons is built into the constitution of the United States. However, in case there is any doubt, one must renounce legal privilege upon becoming a citizen.

The second, one’s ancestry, is impossible to renounce. There is no point is arguing for the preservation of something that one cannot lose.

George Lucki;79791 wrote:

Morally I think the US Would need to consider General Casimir Pulaski (‘the father of American Cavalry’) one of its own given that he died for American freedom at Savannah (he lived by the maxim ‘for your freedom and ours’).

Sorry to stray even further away from heraldry, but we still get Pulaski Day off from school every year in Chicago (and perhaps the rest of Illinois).

George, being as you’re a friend and this is just fun boxing between friends i won’t bite on your comment on the Irish with a long tirade, rather i will sit back and smile knowing that most of my irish brothers have no hereditary foreign crown to bow down to and as such every man is his own sovereign subject to the law that every man has an equal say in setting. so, feel free to mock the Irish freedom fighters in word or verse…they are at least free of a foreign yoke and in the end i’ll take that every time.

as to the freedom issue, my view is you can keep your queen…i’ll take my constitution and freedoms and leaders i vote for thank you very much. that is the very definition of ultimate freedom George and anything less is just that—less than complete. as an educated man, you know that despite being an Anglophile and monarchist (which are ok things for you though not for me), but so be it. while i am not a globe-trotter like many here i have spent time in Ireland, Bahamas, Bermuda, Jamaica, Belize, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico. most on cruises with 1 or 2 day stop overs while on cruise, but others for 2 week visits. so, while my experience is probably not comparable to many here who are globe-trotters, i am not completely bereft of how things are in foreign lands from my own experiences visiting there. as such, i should think i’d be entitled to comment on those things…just a little anyway. or is that the preserve of the globe-trotters alone?

also as an educated man you know very well not all parts of the British empire share the same levels of freedoms. i do have family (cousins) still in Armagh. and they do not have the same freedoms i have and in fact i dare say they do not have the same freedoms as their UK counterparts (though that’s changing for the better over the past few years) and they are part and parcel of the UK and not some dominion or commonwealth etc. again as an educated man you know this, so why would you assume my comment is only, or solely, directed at the Canuks? besides i could bring up a couple, such as freedom of speech which Catholics like us are not allowed to display without reprisal as has been reported on regularly and being opposed by the Holy See…unless i’m not to believe CNS or CNN or Fox News when they report on Catholics rights to preach on Church doctrine being curtailed there. but i don’t want to go too far down that path for fear of pissing off someone here unintentionally, frankly.

also what if i were to replace a few words from what you said so perhaps you could see how warped it sounds to me…let’s take your words,
Quote:

"Just so you know I have an absolutely huge fondness for my American neighbours - historical irritants such as the 2nd American Revolution of 1812-1815 and US tacit support for Fenian terrorism against Canada 1866-1871 aside, I couldn’t want for better friends and neighbours."

and replace them with:

‘Just so you know I have an absolutely huge fondness for my Canadian neighbors - historical irritants such as subjecting the French and Catholics unequally compared to their fellow British Protestants at one time aside, I couldn’t want for better friends and neighbours.’

now…see how i’d have a problem with such a comment?

and bringing it back to heraldry…you would honestly want me to trade in the U.S. Constitution, a federal republic and my own state of Colorado for a foreign queen all so we could have some bureaucrat—probably the nicest people on earth really so not taking a shot at them just saying—determine what is fit and proper for my familia when it comes to our coat of arms? i don’t like when they do that for stuff i truly need so i would be hard pressed to want to allow them to do it for our coat of arms. please my good friend let us just remember you are a monarchist, or loyalist, or whatever the correct phrase is these days. and that’s fine for you. you live in Canada. i, however, appreciate my forefather’s endeavors to grant me and my familia with freedoms that others at that time did not have and still do not have and as such am a republican (small "R" intentional).

Donnchadh;79833 wrote:

George, being as you’re a friend and this is just fun boxing between friends i won’t bite on your comment on the Irish with a long tirade, rather i will sit back and smile knowing that most of my irish brothers have no hereditary foreign crown to bow down to and as such every man is his own sovereign subject to the law that every man has an equal say in setting. so, feel free to mock the Irish freedom fighters in word or verse…they are at least free of a foreign yoke and in the end i’ll take that every time.

The verse is from the soldier’s song of the Fenian Brotherhood. Not mocking them. That was their view. Long live a free Ireland.

Quote:

so, while my experience is probably not comparable to many here who are globe-trotters, i am not completely bereft of how things are in foreign lands from my own experiences visiting there. as such, i should think i’d be entitled to comment on those things…just a little anyway. or is that the preserve of the globe-trotters alone?

Denny, nothing has stopped you from commenting in the past, I wouldn’t dream of stopping you. You are simply wrong when it comes to Canadian freedoms. You will find them in no way inferior to those enjoyed by US citizens. The political system is different but the freedoms very similar.

Quote:

besides i could bring up a couple, such as freedom of speech which Catholics like us are not allowed to display without reprisal as has been reported on regularly and being opposed by the Holy See…unless i’m not to believe CNS or CNN or Fox News when they report on Catholics rights to preach on Church doctrine being curtailed there. but i don’t want to go too far down that path for fear of pissing off someone here

unintentionally, frankly.

I think you may find it surprising that minority rights are well protected in Canada - a part of the arrangements made to encourage confederation. So for example French minority language rights are protected and the government services and many aspects of social and economic life are bilingual even where there are few speakers of the other language. Catholic minority rights are fully protected and so in most provinces there are both public (once Protestant) schools and fully government funded separate (still Catholic). In some places where Catholics were a majority (for example St. Albert near Edmonton the Public School system was Catholic and there are separate Protestant Schools.) Catholic hospitals and health services are fully government funded and of course exempt from providing services that are not conscionable. There is no curtailment of any ability to preach.

There are hot button social policy issues where churches and liberal groups disagree and not surprisingly there are attempts to use the courts as a tool. I think from the perspective of Catholics there is relatively little to complain about in our constitional order. It is simply good to know how things really are before commenting.

Quote:

also what if i were to replace a few words from what you said so perhaps you could see how warped it sounds to me…let’s take your words, and replace them with:

‘Just so you know I have an absolutely huge fondness for my Canadian neighbors - historical irritants such as subjecting the French and Catholics unequally compared to their fellow British Protestants at one time aside, I couldn’t want for better friends and neighbours.’

I would have no problem with this. It reflects a historical truth. You could also include the burning of the White House at the end of the war of 1812 -1814.

Quote:

now…see how i’d have a problem with such a comment?

No.

Quote:

and bringing it back to heraldry…you would honestly want me to trade in the U.S. Constitution, a federal republic and my own state of Colorado for a foreign queen all so we could have some bureaucrat—probably the nicest people on earth really so not taking a shot at them just saying—determine what is fit and proper for my familia when it comes to our coat of arms? i don’t like when they do that for stuff i truly need so i would be hard pressed to want to allow them to do it for our coat of arms. please my good friend let us just remember you are a monarchist, or loyalist, or whatever the correct phrase is these days. and that’s fine for you. you live in Canada. i, however, appreciate my forefather’s endeavors to grant me and my familia with freedoms that others at that time did not have and still do not have and as such am a republican (small "R" intentional).

I respect your preference and just so you know I think assumption of arms is a fine way of starting a family tradition of the use of arms. I have helped many design arms for themselves over the years. I don’t see that as incompatible with an official state heraldic registry.

I am a monarchist. Loyalists (United Empire Loyalists) are the descendents of those who wished to stay under the British crown after the American Revolution. In some cases their property was seized and in some cases they were under considerable pressure to leave the US. In Canada heraldically there is an augmentation in the form of a Loyalist civil or military coronet for the descendents of these Loyalists. (As an interesting anecdote there were three Polish officers serving with General von Reidesel’s forces in Canada including a Mjr Baltasar Lucki - not my direct ancestor).

Hope all is well with you Denny.

Best wishes.

George Lucki;79841 wrote:

Loyalists (United Empire Loyalists) are the descendents of those who wished to stay under the British crown after the American Revolution. In some cases their property was seized and in some cases they were under considerable pressure to leave the US.

This issue seems to get a lot of attention from Brits and Canadians when the American Revolution is discussed, as if how the Tories were dealt with was somehow contradictory to the ideals adopted by the newly independent United States.

It needs to be highlighted that, under the English common law at the time of the American Revolution, a person out of the allegiance of the King was not allowed to own real property within the realm of England. An alien living in England who wished to buy land had to go through a process called "denization," which turned him from an alien into a "denizen." This involved taking an oath of allegiance to the King and paying for the issuance of royal letters patent accomplishing the denization. A denizen still was not a subject; he could not vote, hold office, sit in Parliament, or even inherit real estate. The principle was that the land of the realm must not be owned by those who were not legally bound to be loyal to the sovereign of the realm.

It was on this same principle that those convicted of treason, in addition to being put to death, were also attainted and forfeited their lands (and titles, etc.) to the Crown.

All this was the logical basis for the statutes passed by both sides, British and American alike, disenfranchising and dispossessing the partisans of the opposite side, the British confiscating the property of those who adhered to the newly independent States, the States confiscating the property of those who persisted in adhering to the King. It was no different, in other words, from how the Stuarts dealt with the supporters of the Commonwealth after the Restoration, or how the Hanoverians dealt with the Jacobites after 1715, or, for that matter, how the British and the Loyalists would have dealt with the Patriots (or, if you prefer, Rebels) if the war had turned out differently—except that there was a good deal less hanging, drawing, and quartering than would have been the case had Britain won.

Joseph McMillan;79845 wrote:

This issue seems to get a lot of attention from Brits and Canadians when the American Revolution is discussed, as if how the Tories were dealt with was somehow contradictory to the ideals adopted by the newly independent United States.

Joseph, if the goal of the revolution was, as it is sometimes framed, to end British injustice and establish a nation that rejects those injustices, then mimicking those injustices, however logical by contemporary historical measures, does draw attention to itself.  But anybody who considers history thoughtfully knows this (as I’m sure all here do).  Anyway, ideals are goals, and rarely reached.

I’m sure George is just needling, and apparently doing it well.  You do me proud, countryman.

And Denny, do not confuse Canada with Northern Ireland, or the UK, or any other part of the world.  I think you’d be hard-pressed to identify many freedoms, constitutional or otherwise, that Americans have, but Canadians don’t, including specifically (since you mentioned them) freedom of religion and expression.

As for monarchists (and I count myself among them), you should try sitting down for drinks sometime with one for a thoughtful discussion on the pros and cons.  I doubt you’d be converted, but I think you’d be surprised at some of the benefits.  To bring this matter back to heraldry, try not to think about a heraldic authority as a bunch of meddling bureaucrats, but rather as an institution that values heraldry (and striking a balance between the rigor good heraldry requires, and the freedom of expression our histories require), much like this Society. Denny, if you ever find yourself in the Toronto area, I’ll buy you a drink and give you an education.

Now, in the interest of ongoing Canadian-American relations, we’ll let you keep Celine Dion and William Shatner if the Toronto Blue Jays can have Roy Halladay back.

Joseph McMillan;79845 wrote:

This issue seems to get a lot of attention from Brits and Canadians when the American Revolution is discussed, as if how the Tories were dealt with was somehow contradictory to the ideals adopted by the newly independent United States.

But it was - liberty, even the liberty to dissent and if needed to do so by force of arms was apparently an American ideal that was to have differentiated them from the British. Instead we have the same approach.

Quote:

All this was the logical basis for the statutes passed by both sides, British and American alike, disenfranchising and dispossessing the partisans of the opposite side, the British confiscating the property of those who adhered to the newly independent States, the States confiscating the property of those who persisted in adhering to the King.

Good point. Except that those who persisted were simply loyal to the oaths they had sworn. Their crime was in keeping their promises.

Quote:

It was no different, in other words, from how the Stuarts dealt with the supporters of the Commonwealth after the Restoration,

... in dealing with regicides and renegades…

Quote:

or how the Hanoverians dealt with the Jacobites after 1715, or, for that matter, how the British and the Loyalists would have dealt with the Patriots (or, if you prefer, Rebels) if the war had turned out differently—except that there was a good deal less hanging, drawing, and quartering than would have been the case had Britain won.

Quite likely so. ....hmmmm. I understand. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Except in a kinder gentler regime.

To maintain a bit of heraldic content… It’s worth taking a look at the heraldic seize quartiers of the Young Pretender Bonnie Prince Charlie. There are arms I’m very attached to among the sixteen.

BCT;79852 wrote:

Now, in the interest of ongoing Canadian-American relations, we’ll let you keep Celine Dion and William Shatner if the Toronto Blue Jays can have Roy Halladay back.

Maybe we could let them keep Celine Dion as a good will gesture. I would not object or ask for anything in return.

BCT;79852 wrote:

And Denny, do not confuse Canada with Northern Ireland, or the UK, or any other part of the world. I think you’d be hard-pressed to identify many freedoms, constitutional or otherwise, that Americans have, but Canadians don’t, including specifically (since you mentioned them) freedom of religion and expression.

Actually, you’d be hard pressed to find many freedoms that Americans have but Brits don’t—or Frenchman, Germans, Spaniards, Swedes, Italians, etc., including especially freedom of religion and expression.  About the only thing you can’t do in the UK if you’re Catholic is succeed to the throne.  The Act of Settlement thus impinges on the liberties of only a very small number of people, and as far as I’ve heard none of them are complaining.