Re: Commonwealth of Nations

On Jun 1, 4:52 am, Joseph McMillan <mcmillan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 12:48 pm, Breton <royalistper...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dominion is still the official style according to section 3 of the
Constitution Act (formerly the British North America Act):

"3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her
Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation
that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six
Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova
Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the
Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall
form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly."

This doesn't say that "dominion" is the official style, merely that
Canada is a one dominion (and not three separate ones).  Indeed, it
specifically says that the name of the country is "Canada."  Nowhere
in this section does the phrase "Dominion of Canada" appear.

(By analogy, Canada's southern neighbor is a republic, and a
federation, and a union.  But its official style includes none of
these words.)

It is well known that the form of polity to be established as a
consequence of confederation was discussed amongst the premiers, the
British and Queen V herself. Sir John A and many of the Canadians
preferred the new entity to be styled as a kingdom. But it was the
British legal officers who objected, largely on the then theory of the
indivisibility of the crown. So some genius fell upon "dominion", and
this was used as a legal designation for a polity for the first time.
One that was happily ambiguous enough to suit the purposes of both
parties.

None of the constituent territories were either a dominion or a
kingdom prior to confederation. They were a separate Crown Colony, a
legal term with certain specific attributes and connotations in
British law. As a consequence of confederation, they became Provinces.

As for analogies with the south, my experience of Canada and Canadians
is that they try to make things as unambigously NON-analagous with
their southern neighbour as they possibly can. It has always amused me
that so many of them go so far as to intentionally spell out words
such as "honOUrary", when the English spelling is "honorary".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tardy aid after Katrina
    ... Canada has been fostered for what it is, namely, all or nothing. ... > It is necessary to understand here, first, that Canada's constitution ... was the British North America Act. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Queen of Canada WHY?
    ... makes Elizbeth II of Canada - Elizabeth II of Canada ... Surely the matter was settled before the 1982 Constitution Act. ... might lie in the 1867 constitution, an act of the British Parliament ... it has evolved from British law. ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: Queen of Canada WHY?
    ... makes Elizbeth II of Canada - Elizabeth II of Canada ... change the succession or not. ... Surely the matter was settled before the 1982 Constitution Act. ... might lie in the 1867 constitution, an act of the British Parliament ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: Viceroys versus Governors General (was Re: Shocker as Betty takes the 10.59!!)
    ... Well, as far as Canada is concerned, merely signing to signify assent ... Actually, that Act having been an Act of the UK Parliament ... whereas before it had been a Dominion), ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: Queen of Canada WHY?
    ... makes Elizbeth II of Canada - Elizabeth II of Canada ... change the succession or not. ... Surely the matter was settled before the 1982 Constitution Act. ... might lie in the 1867 constitution, an act of the British Parliament ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)