The recent granting of the Order of Merit by the Queen to Jean Chretien has created a stir in monarchist ranks
Having pretty much completely abolished titular honours from the Canadian landscape (apart from the odd anomoly), it was surely the intent of the Government of Canada to ensure that the highest honour bestowed upon Canadians (save those rewarded for the most conspicuous acts of bravery) be the Order of Canada, whatever the rank. By refusing to resurrect the old knighthoods, the Order of Canada would never have to compete with the likes of the Garter, the Thistle or the Bath.
This is clear from the Governor General's website regarding the modern orders of precedence. All three ranks of the Order of Canada take precedence in the orders of wear after the Victoria Cross (V.C.) and the Cross of Valour (C.V.).
The problem is they forgot about the non-titular orders that are in the personal gift of the Sovereign, such as the highly prestigious Companions of Honour (1917) and the even more exclusive Order of Merit (1902), both of which rank ahead of the Order of Canada (1967) if bestowed prior to June 1, 1972. Presumably these honours are so rare, no room was ever made for them in the new Canadian honours system, though the Royal Victorian Order was, probably because it conveniently ranked after the Order of Canada.
If bestowed after June 1, 1972, the Governor General's site instructs that "Commonwealth orders, decorations and medals...are worn after the Canadian orders, decorations and medals..."
This would mean that the Order of Merit, the most exclusive non-titular honour the Queen can bestow upon Canadians (limited to 24 British and Commonwealth members), now ranks after the likes of the Alberta Centennial Medal, the Saskatchewan Volunteer Medal and a whole slew of U.N. medals, which are handed out ad infinitum.
But that would be absurd. Let's read that section again:
"Commonwealth orders, decorations and medals, the award of which is approved by the Government of Canada, are worn after the Canadian orders, decorations and medals..."
Yes, but the Order of Merit is not approved by the Government of Canada, it is awarded and approved by the Sovereign. Thus, it stands to reason that the Order of Merit and the Order of the Companions of Honour still rank ahead of the Order of Canada, until such time as an official pronouncement is made definitively declaring otherwise.
The Order of Merit is limited to 24, the Order of Canada has more than 4,000 members, so the O.M. is definitely a more exclusive honour, and therefore deserves to rank at or near the top.
ReplyDeleteWhen the new honours system was approved by the Government of Canada in 1998, ironically by Chretien himself, I think they purposely avoided dealing with the issue of precedence on the O.M. and C.H., and hoped it wouldn't be an issue. Well, now it has, so it would be interesting to see how this gets played out.
The CH (Order of the Comapnions of Honour) is not within the sovereign's personal gift. It is awarded at the behest of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. At one time the PMs of Australia and New Zealand also had the ability to make recommendations. It should not be compared with the OM as a personal Order of the Sovereing. Check out
ReplyDeletePeter Galloway, The Companions of Honour (2006)
C. McCreery, The Canadian Honours System (2005), The Order of Canada (2005) and On Her Majesty's Service (2007)
Interesting, seem the Canadian Honours Secritariat was rather myopic in compiling their order of wear precedence.
ReplyDeleteHere in NZ the distinctly NZ honours precedence were incorporated into the existing Imperial honours. Which clearly makes sense as a) NZ's would continue to wear the existing honours which had already been awarded and b)HM clearly remained our Soveriegn, so NZ's are obviouly eligably for awards such as the OM or RVO etc!
In NZ the OM immediately preceeds our highest honour, the ONZ (the equivalent to the Order of Canada, on which it was based). This is also the exact situation in Australia - so I would suggest that it sets a moral if not legal precedent!
Mac
Thanks for the correction on the CH.
ReplyDeleteBeaverbrook