I recently wrote to the College of Arms about registering my South
African arms with them and found their answer very interesting.

They characterized my South African badge and coat of arms as "foreign"
(not Commonwealth) arms and informed me that such arms are only
registered if there is a need for them to be borne in Britain,
presumeably excluding Scotland. This strongly implies that the College
of Arms claims no jurisdiction outside of Britain, not even in New
Zealand, a country which has explicitly recognized their jurisdiction.
It also raises the question of whether the College of Arms would
register truly foreign arms from, say, Spain. What about arms from the
Republic of Ireland?

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	5 Jan 2005 14:15:57 -0800

mcmillanj@earthlink.net wrote:
> No, it's like a black person who insists on calling
> himself "John" instead of "John Doe, Esquire."

Methinks the last two sections of this Wikipedia article ("From
Dominions to Commonwealth realms" and "Phasing out of the term in
Canada") summarize the matter very well:

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

And particularly this sentence: "Present-day usage prefers the term
realm because it includes the United Kingdom as well, emphasising that
they are equal to and not subordinate to the United Kingdom."

Even as a republican I prefer the term "Commonwealth realm." I can't
for the life of me imagine why a monarchist would want to use
"Dominion," except to label Canada as a colony. That is, afterall,
what many monarchists want -- for Canada to be a British colony forever.

From:	Darren George
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:21:02 -0800

On 5 Jan 2005 14:15:57 -0800, jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:

>Methinks the last two sections of this Wikipedia article ("From
>Dominions to Commonwealth realms" and "Phasing out of the term in
>Canada") summarize the matter very well:

And you trust Wikipedia? For all we know, you could have written and
posted the article yourself.

---The Mad Alchemist---
http://www.mad-alchemy.com
Email sent to the above address, unless clearly marked
as wine or heraldry, will be deleted unread.

From:	Lorraine McMillan
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:55:17 GMT

wrote in message
news:1104963357.808775.241270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> mcmillanj@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Even as a republican I prefer the term "Commonwealth realm." I can't
> for the life of me imagine why a monarchist would want to use
> "Dominion," except to label Canada as a colony. That is, afterall,
> what many monarchists want -- for Canada to be a British colony forever.
>
What exactly do you consider to be the meaning of the word "dominion?"

My dictionary gives as the primary definition of dominion "domain," which it
defines in turn as a territory over which sovereignty is exercised.
Definition 2 is "supreme authority, sovereignty;" definition 3 has to do
with an order of angels. Definition 4 is "a self-governing nation of the
British Commonwealth other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges the
British monarch as chief of state."

Under definition 1, the term dominion would refer to any territorial state.

Definition 4 was invented specifically in the context of Canada's becoming
self-governing--escaping from its colonial status.

How could either of these connote being a colony?

Joseph McMillan
Virginia ("The Old Dominion"), USA

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	4 Jan 2005 04:54:55 -0800

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> Leaving the rest beside for the moment, "dominion" was not abolished,
> it's still there in the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, where
> it has always been:

"Dominion Day" became "Canada Day" in 1982, the same year the
constitution act came into effect.

It is odd to me that people would cling to a term that gives precedence
to the U.K. over Canada (the U.K. being the only Commonwealth realm
that was never a dominion, perhaps because it has a resident monarch
and no governor general), especially since the U.K. government and even
the royal household (quite rightly) eschew the term.

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	3 Jan 2005 12:59:13 -0800

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> I think the difference is that South Africa is a republic, whereas
Aus
> and NZ are still dominions with a Crown and a Royal prerogative. I
> suspect they would only register Irish and Spanish arms for residents
> of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I believe they will only
> register Canadian arms for the same sort of resident.

But if they claim jurisdiction over Australia and New Zealand why are
they only registering foreign arms for residents of England, Northern
Ireland and Wales?

And if Canadian and South African arms are treated the same way, what
relevance is there to being a Commonwealth realm (the term "dominion"
was abolished long ago) with a crown and royal prerogative?

From:	Andrew Chaplin
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:40:26 -0500

jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> But if they claim jurisdiction over Australia and New Zealand why are
> they only registering foreign arms for residents of England, Northern
> Ireland and Wales?
>
> And if Canadian and South African arms are treated the same way, what
> relevance is there to being a Commonwealth realm (the term "dominion"
> was abolished long ago) with a crown and royal prerogative?

Leaving the rest beside for the moment, "dominion" was not abolished,
it's still there in the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, where
it has always been:

QUOTE
An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,
and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith

[29th March 1867.]

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have
expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under
the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a
Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces
and promote the Interests of the British Empire:

And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of
Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the
Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that
the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:

And whereas it is expedient that Provision be made for the eventual
Admission into the Union of other Parts of British North America: (1)

I. PRELIMINARY

Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867.
UNQUOTE

If you had gone to school here, Jonathan, you would probably have
recognized _One Dominion_ as the title of your Grade 8 history text.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	5 Jan 2005 14:04:56 -0800

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> Darren George wrote:
> > No. "Dominion" is not a term of abuse, slander, or low status.
>
> We also chose it for ourselves from Psalm 72; likewise, our motto.

This article from Wikipedia claims otherwise:

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

"Canadians wanted to call their nation the Kingdom of Canada. However,
Americans, especially the yellow press in New York, railed against the
idea of a monarchy in North America. Since the United States had
recently demonstrated its military prowess in the American Civil War
and still had an enormous military infrastructure in place, the British
took these complaints very seriously. To calm the Americans, the
British government successfully resorted to a diplomatic ruse. It
explained to Americans that their fears had no foundation because
Canada was to become a dominion rather than a kingdom. It then told the
Canadians that Dominion meant the same as kingdom."

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	6 Jan 2005 06:33:06 -0800

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> Without verifiable citations of primary sources
> or of scholarly monographs, Wikipedia can hardly
> be seen as an authority.

I guess we're even then.

I can't imagine the British allowing Canada to characterize itself as a
kingdom in 1867, since that would have implied constitutional equality
with the U.K. long before that was achieved, if, indeed, it has ever
been achieved.

From:	Andrew Chaplin
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:12:23 -0500

jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> I recently wrote to the College of Arms about registering my South
> African arms with them and found their answer very interesting.
>
> They characterized my South African badge and coat of arms as "foreign"
> (not Commonwealth) arms and informed me that such arms are only
> registered if there is a need for them to be borne in Britain,
> presumeably excluding Scotland. This strongly implies that the College
> of Arms claims no jurisdiction outside of Britain, not even in New
> Zealand, a country which has explicitly recognized their jurisdiction.
> It also raises the question of whether the College of Arms would
> register truly foreign arms from, say, Spain. What about arms from the
> Republic of Ireland?

I think the difference is that South Africa is a republic, whereas Aus
and NZ are still dominions with a Crown and a Royal prerogative. I
suspect they would only register Irish and Spanish arms for residents
of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I believe they will only
register Canadian arms for the same sort of resident.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	4 Jan 2005 13:52:01 -0800

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> > > jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > "Dominion Day" became "Canada Day" in 1982, the same year the
> > > > constitution act came into effect.
> > >
> > > Correct, but irrelevant to the question of abolition.
> >
> > I believe the word "dominion" was removed from the names of
Canadian
> > government bodies back in the 1970s.
>
> It was, but again, it was of no constitutional import. It was the
> result of a decision made by PCO, in concert with Treasury Board, as
> part of the identity "project" that brought us the "Canada" wordmark.

I see. So, constitutionally speaking, Canada is rather like a black
person who insists on calling her- or himself a "nigger?"

From:	Darren George
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:09:02 -0800

On 4 Jan 2005 13:52:01 -0800, jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:

>I see. So, constitutionally speaking, Canada is rather like a black
>person who insists on calling her- or himself a "nigger?"

No. "Dominion" is not a term of abuse, slander, or low status.

There are a few sick people with a psychopathic need to feel oppressed
who will insist that any term you care to mention is derogatory,
especially if it happens to be applied to them. But there is no point
changing the language (or a system of government) to please these
people, as they will immediately seize upon a new set of words to take
offense to.

---The Mad Alchemist---
http://www.mad-alchemy.com
Email sent to the above address, unless clearly marked
as wine or heraldry, will be deleted unread.

From:	Andrew Chaplin
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:06:21 -0500

Darren George wrote:
>
> On 4 Jan 2005 13:52:01 -0800, jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> >I see. So, constitutionally speaking, Canada is rather like a black
> >person who insists on calling her- or himself a "nigger?"
>
> No. "Dominion" is not a term of abuse, slander, or low status.

We also chose it for ourselves from Psalm 72; likewise, our motto.

> There are a few sick people with a psychopathic need to feel oppressed
> who will insist that any term you care to mention is derogatory,
> especially if it happens to be applied to them. But there is no point
> changing the language (or a system of government) to please these
> people, as they will immediately seize upon a new set of words to take
> offense to.

--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

From:	mcmillanj at earthlink.net
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	5 Jan 2005 10:44:53 -0800

No, it's like a black person who insists on calling himself "John"
instead of "John Doe, Esquire."

The formal name used by a country is seldom perfectly descriptive of
its political system. The United States is a republic, but "republic"
forms no part of its official name. It is also a federation, yet,
again, nowhere in the official name will you find that term. Nor do
either word figure in the names of departments, agencies, and so on
(although "federal" does).

Australia and Canada have federal systems; neither refers to that fact
in its official name. Switzerland is a republic, but there is no
"Republic of Switzerland." Germany under the emperors was an empire,
but its official name was "Reich," which means realm, not empire.
India is constitutionally a "union," but its name is the Republic of
India. And so on.

Canada falls within the definition of the term "dominion" and therefore
is a dominion. Moreover, as the 1867 British North America Act, as
amended, is still part of its constitution (now in the guise of the
Constitution Act, 1867), it remains formally defined as a dominion.

It simply chooses to call itself these days by its less pretentious
given name.

From:	Andrew Chaplin
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:59:30 -0500

jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> > Leaving the rest beside for the moment, "dominion" was not abolished,
> > it's still there in the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, where
> > it has always been:
>
> "Dominion Day" became "Canada Day" in 1982, the same year the
> constitution act came into effect.

Correct, but irrelevant to the question of abolition.

> It is odd to me that people would cling to a term that gives precedence
> to the U.K. over Canada (the U.K. being the only Commonwealth realm
> that was never a dominion, perhaps because it has a resident monarch
> and no governor general), especially since the U.K. government and even
> the royal household (quite rightly) eschew the term.

Different ships, different long splices.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

From:	Andrew Chaplin
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:45:14 -0500

jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> > Darren George wrote:
> > > No. "Dominion" is not a term of abuse, slander, or low status.
> >
> > We also chose it for ourselves from Psalm 72; likewise, our motto.
>
> This article from Wikipedia claims otherwise:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominions
>
> "Canadians wanted to call their nation the Kingdom of Canada. However,
> Americans, especially the yellow press in New York, railed against the
> idea of a monarchy in North America. Since the United States had
> recently demonstrated its military prowess in the American Civil War
> and still had an enormous military infrastructure in place, the British
> took these complaints very seriously. To calm the Americans, the
> British government successfully resorted to a diplomatic ruse. It
> explained to Americans that their fears had no foundation because
> Canada was to become a dominion rather than a kingdom. It then told the
> Canadians that Dominion meant the same as kingdom."

Without verifiable citations of primary sources or of scholarly
monographs, Wikipedia can hardly be seen as an authority.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	4 Jan 2005 09:47:41 -0800

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > "Dominion Day" became "Canada Day" in 1982, the same year the
> > constitution act came into effect.
>
> Correct, but irrelevant to the question of abolition.

I believe the word "dominion" was removed from the names of Canadian
government bodies back in the 1970s.

From:	Andrew Chaplin
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:32:50 -0500

jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> > jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > "Dominion Day" became "Canada Day" in 1982, the same year the
> > > constitution act came into effect.
> >
> > Correct, but irrelevant to the question of abolition.
>
> I believe the word "dominion" was removed from the names of Canadian
> government bodies back in the 1970s.

It was, but again, it was of no constitutional import. It was the
result of a decision made by PCO, in concert with Treasury Board, as
part of the identity "project" that brought us the "Canada" wordmark.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

From:	jonathanNOSPAMmakepeace at yahoo.ca
Subject:	Re: CoA and imperial jurisdiction
Date:	6 Jan 2005 06:29:18 -0800

Lorraine McMillan wrote:
> My dictionary gives as the primary definition of dominion "domain,"
which it
> defines in turn as a territory over which sovereignty is exercised.
> Definition 2 is "supreme authority, sovereignty;" definition 3 has to
do
> with an order of angels. Definition 4 is "a self-governing nation of
the
> British Commonwealth other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges
the
> British monarch as chief of state."
>
> Under definition 1, the term dominion would refer to any territorial
state.
>
> Definition 4 was invented specifically in the context of Canada's
becoming
> self-governing--escaping from its colonial status.
>
> How could either of these connote being a colony?

How could "that acknowledges the BRITISH monarch as chief of state"
(emphasis mine) NOT connote being a colony for any other country than
Britain?

No matter how you slice it, "Dominion" (in terms of definition 4) is a
term of subordination for countries whose head of state resides
elsewhere and doesn't normally carry out her official duties her- or
himself, except with regard to the one country of which he or she is
monarch but isn't a Dominion -- the U.K.