The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (
-   Official Royal Jewels (
-   -   A New Crown for Canada? (

PrinceOfCanada 03-18-2008 01:41 PM

A New Crown for Canada?
So I was thinking the other night.. given that India, prior to repatriation, had its own Imperial Crown, should Canada also have its own crown for use within the country?

Yes, of course, St. Edwards' is used as the symbol of the Crown in Canada (coats of arms, etc), but as much as HM is my Queen as a British citizen, she is also my Queen as a Canadian citizen quite separately from the British Crown. I think it would be nice to have a specifically Canadian (designed and manufactured) crown for her (or Charles, eventually, God willing it's a long ways away) to wear on State occasions within Canada, for the Opening of Parliament (and even Provincial legislatures), to be used on coats of arms in place of St. Edwards', etc.

There have been references to the 'Maple Crown', though that refers to the abstract Crown entity, not the physical object. Of course, a crown design featuring alternating maple leaves and fleurs-de-lis would be wonderfully appropriate.

Then again, there's the issue of who would pay... but the opportunity to really showcase Canadian artisans would be worth it to the government.

What do you think?

(Posted here instead of in the Jewels forum b/c it seems to be more appropriate. Mods, pls correct me if I'm wrong.)

Elspeth 03-18-2008 02:03 PM

I think it'll be better in the Jewels forum, but I'll leave a redirect so that people can find the thread from here.

One argument in favour of a separate crown is that the Imperial State Crown can't be taken out of Britain, so it means that for opening Parliament or whatever, the Queen tends to wear one of her tiaras, which doesn't lend as much weight to the proceedings as a crown.

But with all this talk of republicanism in Australia and Canada, do you think this is a realistic idea?

PrinceOfCanada 03-18-2008 03:23 PM

Well, I don't honestly think that republicanism in Canada will be any more successful than in the UK--less, in fact, for the simple reason that the Crown is embedded very firmly in our Constitution (signed by HM in 1982). Amendment of the Constitution requires a whole lot of hoops to be jumped through, which given the inability of governments in the past (See: Meech Lake Accord, Charlottetown, etc) I think is unlikely to succeed.

Moreover, doesn't HM have to provide consent for Parliament to even discuss any issues which affect the Royal Prerogative? Abolition of the Monarchy would, I think, quite naturally affect the Royal Prerogative, so HM could quite easily tell Parliament that they can't even discuss the issue. As she did when she refused to allow consent for Parliament to discuss declaring war on Iraq unilaterally, without her approval. Well, I think that would work, anyway.
I mean, yes, there have been some quietly anti-Monarchist moves in Canadian policy over the past three-four decades: Letters of Accreditation are now in the Governor-General's name, and when our current GG (the wonderful Michaelle Jean) read the last Speech from the Throne, there were no references to HM in the preamble or indeed throughout the text (memory is failing me, but it was something along the lines of saying 'the' government as opposed to 'my' government, or something similar).

The only reason I could see republicanism being successful in Canada is on a financial basis; a Presidency (*shudder*) would cost just as much as HM and the G-G and provincial Lieutenants-Governor, if not more, without any return on revenue. In the UK, of course, the Crown Estate offsets all that cost (though I've wondered: if Parliament were to ever go ahead and tell the Monarchy to naff off, would HM be legally able to say "Right then, well, the Crown Estate is mine, so theres two hundred million quid annually you'll be losing, not to mention the several billion in land value"? The arrangement of the CE and the Civil List is by convention only; it's renewed by the Monarch at the beginning of each reign, and while experts seem to agree it would be constitutionally, ummmm... unwise for the Monarch to refuse to renew it, one has to wonder what the position would be if the Monarch were being deposed.)

Errr... this has all gone rather far afield. Let's talk about shiny glittery things! ;)

Huh.. just had a thought: one could probably argue that most if not all of the diamonds in the Crown Jewels (or, at least the more recent bits of bling like the ISC) are the products of slavery; 'blood diamonds'. Any diamonds in the putative Canadian State Crown would of necessity come from Canadian mines...

Claire 03-18-2008 03:29 PM


Huh.. just had a thought: one could probably argue that most if not all of the diamonds in the Crown Jewels (or, at least the more recent bits of bling like the ISC) are the products of slavery; 'blood diamonds'. Any diamonds in the putative Canadian State Crown would of necessity come from Canadian mines...
As a South African I am offended. South African diamonds are not blood diamonds.

BeatrixFan 03-18-2008 03:32 PM

"Blood diamonds" is a term used to describe wealth gained from slavery or colonisation. It's not a slur on South Africa, far from it.

PrinceOfCanada 03-18-2008 03:55 PM


Originally Posted by Claire (Post 743551)
As a South African I am offended. South African diamonds are not blood diamonds.

Um, sorry, but two things:

1) If anything, it was a slur against the British for purchasing diamonds obtained via slave (or close-to-slave) labour.

2) Actually, South African diamonds, like most diamonds worldwide, are the product of an industry whose brutality is eclipsed only by the mindboggling sums of money involved. I apologize if you find that offensive, and I know that many diamond producers have cleaned up their acts in recent years, but the fact remains: diamonds, for the most part, have a long and brutal history.

Elspeth 03-18-2008 05:28 PM

Just a reminder about our rules about limiting political discussion to matters directly related to royalty.

Are there serious efforts going on in Canada to create a Canadian crown?

PrinceOfCanada 03-18-2008 05:45 PM

Not my knowledge, no. Just something that popped into my head the other night. Perhaps it's not something that can be done in EIIR's reign; it might (if there were support for it) be more appropriate for CIIIR's Coronation. I think it would be an excellent symbolic gesture, though.

Thomas Parkman 03-20-2008 10:06 PM

But my goodness, good people. I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, that emeralds have been found in Canada??? How marvelous. And are there diamonds too. By all means let us scoop up lots of goodies from the snow clad north while it is still snow clad and create the Honours of Canada. Let us see, a crown with all kinds of diamonds, emeralds, pearls and sapphires with an occasionals ruby or maybe lots of rubies and diamonds with a few other goodies thrown in, an orb belted with rows of diamonds of the finest water with a large sapphire or emeralds on top, a scepter with the largest diamond that can be found , ring and of course a diamond dripping or diamond encrusted chain with a little Canadian gold or platinum to hold all those gorgeous stones together. Let us create the Order of the Morning Star as the Highest Order of the Dominion of Canada and have the chain and star as part of the regalia. I am positively drooling, figuratively speaking, at the prospect of all this. It is unsettling my nerves, I must go fix on chocolate. We should all send an Humble Petition and Loyal Address to Her Majesty and bombs away. Cheeers.

PS. Please do not report any of this to the men in white suits or they will have me committed.

PrinceOfCanada 03-21-2008 02:14 AM

Oh Thomas, you have warmed the very cockles of my heart.

I don't think, though, that an Orb would be appropriate. Canada is a vastly diverse, multicultural, -ethnic, and -religious (and, haha, -religious) society. An Orb is an un apologetically Christian symbol, which would not fit our national makeup.


If we were to create a non-traditional Orb, without the cross pattee on top, symbolizing the world (and one would hope, incorporating Aboriginal symbols of peace and unity), that I think would be quite lovely, and very fitting.

The sceptre, I think, wouldn't be necessary. We have the Mace that sits in Parliament; I think that would absolutely serve. HM is invested with the symbolic power of the Mace at coronation, and then the Mace itself serves in Parliament as a symbol of power and authority quite separate from the Sovereign. A powerful symbol, no? Because that's what the Monarchy is, after all; a symbol of power and authority. The power and the authority are vested in the office, not the individual holder of the office, which is really the basis of why monarchies still exist.

Thomas Parkman 03-22-2008 02:50 PM

Dh, no, no, no. NO ORB???? Horrors. Come, Come, Your Highness. You disappoint me. As symbols let them have a golden orb with belts of diamonds bedecked with various other gemstones. As for putting a cross on it. By all means. If anybody complains, just say it is another excuse to put more diamonds on the gorgeous contraption and be done with it. I think this diversity business has gotten to the point of the utterly ridiculous.

Just get your hands on Michael, Prince of Greece "The Jewels of the Tsars." Once you have lain your famished eyes on the orb in that little book of imperial trinkets you will say no more about no more orbs. And you will agree that if the diamonds are magnificent enough who gives a hoot if it is a cross. Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Atheists, aboriginal shamanists, agnostics and everybody else all the way up to High Church Anglicans, Greek Orthodox and Latin Mass Catholics can drool together on the sheer magnificence of it. And there is nothing so good for national unity as everybody getting together and having a good drool.

As for no scepter, really, that is a bit much. The British scepter is a sublime contraption. That enourmous diamond on the top of it is enough to stop traffic, which is what it is supposed to do. Take a look at the Russian one with the Orlov diamond. It is not as magnificent but will do in a pinch. Prince Orlov tried to buy his way back into the favour of Catherine II (the Great???) and she, being Catherine, took the diamond but did not admit him back to her favour or her bed. She then had the goodie mounted on her scepter, which I think is hilarious.

Surely somebody can go rummaging among the forrests and misquitoes of Labrador and find a decent diamond mine somewhere. A superb mass of glittering jewels held together with a minimum of gold and platinum will do nicely. And will serve perfectly to whack the numbskull politicians in Canada on the knuckles. What?? You have no numbskull politicians in Canada??? May I send you a list of recommendations you can invite to infest your country. Stupid politicians serve all kinds of wonderful social purposes. And one of the marvelous virtues of monarchy is that it detracts attention from the swollen egoists that constitute the great mass of the species. So crown, scepter, orb, collar, star, ring and ermine trimmed cloth of gold cape if you please. With diamonds, lots of diamonds and other wondrous goodies. After all diamonds everybody's best friend. Cheers.

wbenson 03-24-2008 01:14 AM

Perhaps there could be a maple leaf on an orb. Instead of Christ ruling over the world, it's Canada ruling over the world. That's a bit too nationalist, probably.

I would also like the badges for the Sovereign and Chancellor of the Order of Canada to have an optional sash (the collars, unfortunately, don't seem to be all that popular, and a neck or bow badge isn't striking enough; plus a sash looks nice), as well a star.

PrinceOfCanada 03-24-2008 02:43 AM

Ooh, yes. Sashes are lovely. The only problem is how it limits one's choice of outfit for the evening. That being said, the sash for the OC would need to be red and white, which does leave your options open.

Prince of Chota 03-25-2008 04:06 PM

The so-called "blood diamond" debate is quite immaterial. Who ever said a crown had to have diamonds. I think, more than their being of dubious extraction, it might appear too ostentatious and wasteful to create a Canadian crown covered in diamonds. I think it might be a more stately (and realistic) creation were it gold (or gilt) and enamel--something like that. Red enamel maple leaves and gold half-arches and all least, that's what I imagine. I would like to see something more original than the Durbar Crown, while still retaining the characteristic four half-arches and what-not.

Prince of Chota 03-25-2008 04:09 PM

Too much religious imagery might be too divisive. Canada is a diverse nation. Maybe the motif could incorporate the insignia of each province, rather like the unused crown created for Finland.

PrinceOfCanada 03-25-2008 04:28 PM

That's kind of what I was thinking. Hmm, perhaps instead of a cross on the Orb, an inukshuk would be appropriate. A nod to the aboriginal heritage of our fine country.

I was thinking on the crown as I mentioned above that alternating maple leaves and fleurs-de-lis would be most appropriate (and I love the enameling idea), but thinking further, the arches (or perhaps the.. circlet? the base, whatever it's called) should contain beautifully polished stone native to each province--granite from the Canadian Shield for Ontario, for example, would be both unusual and fitting. Whatever the case, it should be made only from materials mined within Canada.

The cap could be woven from wool from PEI sheep, maybe, or Canadian-farmed silkworms as a tribute to the countless Chinese immigrants who helped build the railways. Fur trim is of course intensely problematic. Can't use fake for obvious reasons, but can't really use real fur..

Wait.. aren't half-arches the symbol of Imperial crowns? or is it the way the arches are shaped?

Prince of Chota 03-25-2008 04:38 PM

Half-arches are for royal crowns. Imperial crowns are usually enclosed (India's is an exception, as it was designed more to mimic the British crowns)

Prince of Chota 03-25-2008 04:39 PM

Look at the examples of the Russian and Austrian crowns.

Much older crowns used half-arches for emperors (Crown of the Holy Roman Empire), but after the 16th century and the inflation of royal titles to "Majesty", this changed.

PrinceOfCanada 03-25-2008 05:17 PM

Ahh, thank you for the correction.

Prince of Chota 03-25-2008 06:14 PM

Of course, maybe HM could become "Empress of Canada"...have a Windsor be Queen-Empress again. Hahaha...Canada is the second largest country in terms of area, isn't it?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises