Conclusion
A first question raised in the preface was whether the coat of arms of Canada was chosen democratically? A completely democratic approach would have been to initiate a contest and declare a winner, but this approach rarely works and can lead to less than satisfactory results. While public suggestions are good to glean ideas and to know what the most popular symbols are, the real design process usually follows such a contest. A panel is needed to choose the best ideas and to incorporate them into a first design which respects rules of heraldry such as symmetry and simplicity. This normally leads to a second design, a third one, and so on. This was in essence the course followed to choose Canada’s national flag.
The committee established in 1919 to give Canada proper arms invited suggestions from the public, but did not pay much attention to the proposals received. In the final design, which mostly replicated the arms of the United Kingdom, Canadian symbols were kept to a minimum. The maple leaf which had been for many years recognized as an emblem of the country was retained in parts of the emblem, and the motto, A Mari usque ad Mare (from Sea to Sea), was also a Canadian addition. The crown and the spray of floral badges to represent the founding nations had been part of the country’s heraldic history for some years. The crown was widely used shortly after Confederation above the Dominion shield and those of provinces and cities. Floral badges were proposed by Edgar J. Biggar, a professor of Spanish from Toronto, but had been around since the nineteenth century (chapter 3, fig. 8).
A second question raised in the preface was whether the arms committee was representative of the country? In the first place, the members were all government employees. Thomas Mulvey was there because the role of negotiating with the College of Arms in England was traditionally that of the under-secretary of state. Joseph Pope was chosen because he had negotiated the arms of several provinces as former under-secretary of state, and because he could be influential in his new position as under-secretary of state for External Affairs. Arthur G. Doughty, as Dominion Archivist, was able to ensure that any symbol chosen was historically correct, and Major-General Willoughby Gwatkin of the Department of Militia and Defence represented the military which had shown an interest in Canada’s emblem for several years.
All the members of the committee were Anglophones, although some of them were well acquainted with French culture. Arthur Doughty was bilingual and had served as joint librarian of the Legislative Assembly of Quebec. He could also rely on the advice of his equally learned colleague Gustave Lanctot, a Rhodes Scholar who had studied at Oxford and the Sorbonne and who would eventually replace him as Dominion Archivist. Sir Joseph Pope was author of Jacques Cartier, his life and voyages (1890) and was married to Henriette, daughter of Sir Henri Taschereau. Still to be representative, there should really have been a French Canadian member. The heraldry scholar Victor Morin would have been ideal, but he lived in Montreal and this could have been an inconvenience since the committee was sometimes required to react quickly. Moreover, he was not an employee of the federal government, and this was important to Pope who wanted to avoid opening the door too wide, for instance to societies with a specific but narrow orientation. Another heraldry scholar, Régis Roy, was co-author of Armorial du Canada français, worked for the federal government in Ottawa and was a cultured and knowledgeable man. But the fact remained that the input of heraldic experts was not deemed necessary. From the start, the committee’s orientation was political and the view was taken that matters of heraldic details could be left to the heralds in England. Major-General Eugène Fiset, deputy minister of the Department of Militia and Defence, would have been a logical choice, although his strong personality might have clashed with that of Pope. It is also clear that Fiset exercised some influence on the process through Gwatkin.
There can be little doubt that the choice of the basic elements in the composition was largely influenced by Pope. In many instances, the committee’s original design was challenged and on the brink of being abandoned, but Pope always managed to bring the committee back to its original intentions. His way of thinking was complex. He no doubt wanted a status that went beyond colonialism for Canada but could not tolerate anything that weakened the British Empire. He took steps to replace the “canadianized” version of the Red Ensign on the tower of the Parliament Building by the Union Jack and was known for such statements as: “the ‘Union Jack’, pure and simple is good enough for me.” His stance was not just a personal preference: “A flag, as I understand it, is the emblem of sovereignty, and so long as we are part of the British Empire surely, we must fly the British Flag! I have no patience with those persons who would endeavour to rob us of this glorious inheritance.”[1] As under-secretary of state for External Affairs, he had introduced the royal arms of the United Kingdom on his department’s letterhead and encouraged other government departments to do the same.[2] He surely would have promoted this practice for the entire country had he not been convinced for many years that Canada was granted a coat of arms in 1868, namely the arms of the four original provinces on one shield. This dubious notion was widespread and had given rise to overcrowded shields as new provinces joined Confederation, an unsatisfactory arrangement that brought home the urgent need to come up with something more appropriate.
Pope’s statements at times smacked of racism, as when he rejected First Nations supporters as being “two ragged looking Indians.” In that case, he seems to have been referring to the way they were depicted, but more to the point, he saw them as one more assault on British heritage in favour of regional symbolism. As a booklet to introduce the 1921 arms was being prepared, he refused to be associated with a statement that placed Canada on the same level as the old Kingdom of Scotland: “... the Dominion of Canada being on equality of status with the ancient Kingdom of Scotland. I do not wish to be associated with any such statement and I would suggest that the simplest way would be that my name might be left out.” His observation surely had some influence, since this assertion did not appear in the early publications on the arms of Canada by the government.
A 1925 letter to his son Maurice gives us further insight into the relation he favoured between the Dominions and the empire: “How are we going to get on when every member claims an equal status with the rest; where each Dominion shall have . . . not only an army and navy, but also a diplomacy of its own? To my way of thinking such an Empire is an impossibility. I must leave the solution of the problem to younger and more vigorous minds than mine.” One author evaluates his contribution as follows: “Pope was the quintessential civil servant – capable, careful, perceptive – but by the 1920s he was felt to be old-fashioned and stiff. Indeed, he had become Ottawa’s arbiter of diplomatic niceties and social forms.”[3]
Pope wanted a version of royal arms for Canada, and that was what he got. His tenacity in pushing this through in spite of strong opposition and his unflinching conviction that he was on the right track are praiseworthy. If he had accepted arms with more Canadian content, he would have been in line with the way of thinking of Sir Henry Farnham Burke, Garter King of Arms, and would have met with the approval of many Canadians and members of his own committee, such as Gwatkin and Mulvey. A single leaf would have been ideal since it was already a strong Canadian symbol and would have become a unique Canadian emblem long before the adoption of a Canadian National Flag in 1965. But even those, such as Fiset who proposed the single leaf, came to believe in retrospect that it was too simple.
Garter was probably a little too officious in his opposition to royal arms for Canada, something which did not seem to bother Ambrose Lee, York Herald and later Norroy King of Arms. On the other hand, his strong reaction is not that surprising. What he saw before him was a design that closely resembled some versions of the royal arms as they existed before 1801 and where the inclusion of fleurs-de-lis signified a claim to the French throne. The request for the grant of this emblem came from a country which, legally at least, was still a colony of the empire. The number of names quoted as taking a dim view of Garter’s position virtually takes on imperial proportions, but if Garter had endorsed the grant and serious criticism had followed, it is likely that he would have received more than his share of blame.
As secretary of the committee, Doughty was not very vocal except for verifying the historical accuracy of components. At one time, he approached the Countess of Minto to solicit her support for the Canadian cause. Gwatkin was the one, probably influenced by Fiset, who pushed for Canadian content and proposed many of the additions to the design such as the crown and floral badges. Mulvey at one point joined forces with him in an attempt to satisfy Garter, but Pope again managed to convince the committee to stick to its original course. At the time, though he was increasingly viewed as being out of touch with the times, Pope still held an important position in the government. Moreover, the other committee members did not necessarily disagree with his stance, provided they could overcome Garter’s objections.
One severe criticism of Canada’s emblem comes from the heraldic art historian, Carl-Alexander von Volborth. He calls the arms pompous, as it seems, because they almost replicate the arms of Great Britain in content and style, including the presence of floral badges which are typically British. He considers poor heraldry the lion resting directly on the helm rather than positioned on the crown.[4] Although the preceding chapters explain how the content and style came about, one cannot help being struck by the positioning of the crown in isolation above the crest, looking a little divorced from the rest of the composition.
In a more positive vein, the well stylised animals taken from England’s arms confer an air of dignity and propriety to Canada’s emblem. This would have been difficult to achieve with Canadian animals, which likely would have been drawn much as they look in nature. Achieving the proper stylization of animals is a subtle matter which usually involves many years of experimentation. Another difficulty, which the committee touched upon, was finding a means of making a noticeable distinction between the arms of a country and those of a more regional entity such as a city. While it is true that any design would have inevitably acquired a royal status along with the title of Queen of Canada in 1953, the inclusion of predominantly Canadian animals would not have conveyed the sense of decorum that such heritage symbols as the lion and unicorn have imprinted in the minds of viewers over centuries.
In many ways, Canada’s arms anticipated future developments. With the 1931 Statute of Westminster, Canada became a sovereign country and its relation with the Crown became a direct one. This was clearly expressed by replacing the arms of the United Kingdom by those of Canada on the country’s Great Seal. After 1953, the notion of royal arms for Canada was given more tangible expression by including them with the title “REINE DU CANADA - ELIZABETH II - QUEEN OF CANADA” in the country’s Great Seal. A Canadian royal standard created in 1962 was based on Canada’s arms. Surely Pope would not have been comfortable with these later developments, but he did not witness them, having passed away in 1926.
The maple leaves in base of the shield were changed from green to red in 1957. In 1996, the motto of the Order of Canada was added around the shield, the sprig of maple was given more prominence and the tips of the mantling took the shape of maple leaves. All these changes complied with the heraldic description in the original proclamation of 1921. The question arises whether the design of the present arms should again be modified?
While it is certain that placing a single red leaf on Canada’s shield would give further strength to this symbol as the country’s identifier, another development should be examined before considering such a change. The battle to give the maple leaf the place of prominence it deserves was won by the adoption of a national flag in 1965. It no longer has to be fought on Canada’s armorial shield. Presently the red maple leaf has become synonymous with Canada, not only on the flag, but in all sorts of commercial applications in Canada and abroad. Over the years, the symbolism of Canada’s arms has evolved from emphasizing stronger ties with the empire to being entirely centered on Canadian realities: a constitutional monarchy in which the Crown is the Crown of Canada, European heritage, and symbols of the land. Placing a single leaf on Canada’s shield would mean removing the homage to the European pioneers who laid the foundation of the country.
Now that the maple leaf has triumphed and become emblematic of a multi-cultural society, it seems more important than ever to preserve the remaining national testimony to the country’s European roots. It should also be kept in mind that emblems tend to grow on people, to become cherished like family heirlooms. The arms of Canada have done what they were expected to do for close to a century. They are likely to continue doing so for many years to come.
The committee established in 1919 to give Canada proper arms invited suggestions from the public, but did not pay much attention to the proposals received. In the final design, which mostly replicated the arms of the United Kingdom, Canadian symbols were kept to a minimum. The maple leaf which had been for many years recognized as an emblem of the country was retained in parts of the emblem, and the motto, A Mari usque ad Mare (from Sea to Sea), was also a Canadian addition. The crown and the spray of floral badges to represent the founding nations had been part of the country’s heraldic history for some years. The crown was widely used shortly after Confederation above the Dominion shield and those of provinces and cities. Floral badges were proposed by Edgar J. Biggar, a professor of Spanish from Toronto, but had been around since the nineteenth century (chapter 3, fig. 8).
A second question raised in the preface was whether the arms committee was representative of the country? In the first place, the members were all government employees. Thomas Mulvey was there because the role of negotiating with the College of Arms in England was traditionally that of the under-secretary of state. Joseph Pope was chosen because he had negotiated the arms of several provinces as former under-secretary of state, and because he could be influential in his new position as under-secretary of state for External Affairs. Arthur G. Doughty, as Dominion Archivist, was able to ensure that any symbol chosen was historically correct, and Major-General Willoughby Gwatkin of the Department of Militia and Defence represented the military which had shown an interest in Canada’s emblem for several years.
All the members of the committee were Anglophones, although some of them were well acquainted with French culture. Arthur Doughty was bilingual and had served as joint librarian of the Legislative Assembly of Quebec. He could also rely on the advice of his equally learned colleague Gustave Lanctot, a Rhodes Scholar who had studied at Oxford and the Sorbonne and who would eventually replace him as Dominion Archivist. Sir Joseph Pope was author of Jacques Cartier, his life and voyages (1890) and was married to Henriette, daughter of Sir Henri Taschereau. Still to be representative, there should really have been a French Canadian member. The heraldry scholar Victor Morin would have been ideal, but he lived in Montreal and this could have been an inconvenience since the committee was sometimes required to react quickly. Moreover, he was not an employee of the federal government, and this was important to Pope who wanted to avoid opening the door too wide, for instance to societies with a specific but narrow orientation. Another heraldry scholar, Régis Roy, was co-author of Armorial du Canada français, worked for the federal government in Ottawa and was a cultured and knowledgeable man. But the fact remained that the input of heraldic experts was not deemed necessary. From the start, the committee’s orientation was political and the view was taken that matters of heraldic details could be left to the heralds in England. Major-General Eugène Fiset, deputy minister of the Department of Militia and Defence, would have been a logical choice, although his strong personality might have clashed with that of Pope. It is also clear that Fiset exercised some influence on the process through Gwatkin.
There can be little doubt that the choice of the basic elements in the composition was largely influenced by Pope. In many instances, the committee’s original design was challenged and on the brink of being abandoned, but Pope always managed to bring the committee back to its original intentions. His way of thinking was complex. He no doubt wanted a status that went beyond colonialism for Canada but could not tolerate anything that weakened the British Empire. He took steps to replace the “canadianized” version of the Red Ensign on the tower of the Parliament Building by the Union Jack and was known for such statements as: “the ‘Union Jack’, pure and simple is good enough for me.” His stance was not just a personal preference: “A flag, as I understand it, is the emblem of sovereignty, and so long as we are part of the British Empire surely, we must fly the British Flag! I have no patience with those persons who would endeavour to rob us of this glorious inheritance.”[1] As under-secretary of state for External Affairs, he had introduced the royal arms of the United Kingdom on his department’s letterhead and encouraged other government departments to do the same.[2] He surely would have promoted this practice for the entire country had he not been convinced for many years that Canada was granted a coat of arms in 1868, namely the arms of the four original provinces on one shield. This dubious notion was widespread and had given rise to overcrowded shields as new provinces joined Confederation, an unsatisfactory arrangement that brought home the urgent need to come up with something more appropriate.
Pope’s statements at times smacked of racism, as when he rejected First Nations supporters as being “two ragged looking Indians.” In that case, he seems to have been referring to the way they were depicted, but more to the point, he saw them as one more assault on British heritage in favour of regional symbolism. As a booklet to introduce the 1921 arms was being prepared, he refused to be associated with a statement that placed Canada on the same level as the old Kingdom of Scotland: “... the Dominion of Canada being on equality of status with the ancient Kingdom of Scotland. I do not wish to be associated with any such statement and I would suggest that the simplest way would be that my name might be left out.” His observation surely had some influence, since this assertion did not appear in the early publications on the arms of Canada by the government.
A 1925 letter to his son Maurice gives us further insight into the relation he favoured between the Dominions and the empire: “How are we going to get on when every member claims an equal status with the rest; where each Dominion shall have . . . not only an army and navy, but also a diplomacy of its own? To my way of thinking such an Empire is an impossibility. I must leave the solution of the problem to younger and more vigorous minds than mine.” One author evaluates his contribution as follows: “Pope was the quintessential civil servant – capable, careful, perceptive – but by the 1920s he was felt to be old-fashioned and stiff. Indeed, he had become Ottawa’s arbiter of diplomatic niceties and social forms.”[3]
Pope wanted a version of royal arms for Canada, and that was what he got. His tenacity in pushing this through in spite of strong opposition and his unflinching conviction that he was on the right track are praiseworthy. If he had accepted arms with more Canadian content, he would have been in line with the way of thinking of Sir Henry Farnham Burke, Garter King of Arms, and would have met with the approval of many Canadians and members of his own committee, such as Gwatkin and Mulvey. A single leaf would have been ideal since it was already a strong Canadian symbol and would have become a unique Canadian emblem long before the adoption of a Canadian National Flag in 1965. But even those, such as Fiset who proposed the single leaf, came to believe in retrospect that it was too simple.
Garter was probably a little too officious in his opposition to royal arms for Canada, something which did not seem to bother Ambrose Lee, York Herald and later Norroy King of Arms. On the other hand, his strong reaction is not that surprising. What he saw before him was a design that closely resembled some versions of the royal arms as they existed before 1801 and where the inclusion of fleurs-de-lis signified a claim to the French throne. The request for the grant of this emblem came from a country which, legally at least, was still a colony of the empire. The number of names quoted as taking a dim view of Garter’s position virtually takes on imperial proportions, but if Garter had endorsed the grant and serious criticism had followed, it is likely that he would have received more than his share of blame.
As secretary of the committee, Doughty was not very vocal except for verifying the historical accuracy of components. At one time, he approached the Countess of Minto to solicit her support for the Canadian cause. Gwatkin was the one, probably influenced by Fiset, who pushed for Canadian content and proposed many of the additions to the design such as the crown and floral badges. Mulvey at one point joined forces with him in an attempt to satisfy Garter, but Pope again managed to convince the committee to stick to its original course. At the time, though he was increasingly viewed as being out of touch with the times, Pope still held an important position in the government. Moreover, the other committee members did not necessarily disagree with his stance, provided they could overcome Garter’s objections.
One severe criticism of Canada’s emblem comes from the heraldic art historian, Carl-Alexander von Volborth. He calls the arms pompous, as it seems, because they almost replicate the arms of Great Britain in content and style, including the presence of floral badges which are typically British. He considers poor heraldry the lion resting directly on the helm rather than positioned on the crown.[4] Although the preceding chapters explain how the content and style came about, one cannot help being struck by the positioning of the crown in isolation above the crest, looking a little divorced from the rest of the composition.
In a more positive vein, the well stylised animals taken from England’s arms confer an air of dignity and propriety to Canada’s emblem. This would have been difficult to achieve with Canadian animals, which likely would have been drawn much as they look in nature. Achieving the proper stylization of animals is a subtle matter which usually involves many years of experimentation. Another difficulty, which the committee touched upon, was finding a means of making a noticeable distinction between the arms of a country and those of a more regional entity such as a city. While it is true that any design would have inevitably acquired a royal status along with the title of Queen of Canada in 1953, the inclusion of predominantly Canadian animals would not have conveyed the sense of decorum that such heritage symbols as the lion and unicorn have imprinted in the minds of viewers over centuries.
In many ways, Canada’s arms anticipated future developments. With the 1931 Statute of Westminster, Canada became a sovereign country and its relation with the Crown became a direct one. This was clearly expressed by replacing the arms of the United Kingdom by those of Canada on the country’s Great Seal. After 1953, the notion of royal arms for Canada was given more tangible expression by including them with the title “REINE DU CANADA - ELIZABETH II - QUEEN OF CANADA” in the country’s Great Seal. A Canadian royal standard created in 1962 was based on Canada’s arms. Surely Pope would not have been comfortable with these later developments, but he did not witness them, having passed away in 1926.
The maple leaves in base of the shield were changed from green to red in 1957. In 1996, the motto of the Order of Canada was added around the shield, the sprig of maple was given more prominence and the tips of the mantling took the shape of maple leaves. All these changes complied with the heraldic description in the original proclamation of 1921. The question arises whether the design of the present arms should again be modified?
While it is certain that placing a single red leaf on Canada’s shield would give further strength to this symbol as the country’s identifier, another development should be examined before considering such a change. The battle to give the maple leaf the place of prominence it deserves was won by the adoption of a national flag in 1965. It no longer has to be fought on Canada’s armorial shield. Presently the red maple leaf has become synonymous with Canada, not only on the flag, but in all sorts of commercial applications in Canada and abroad. Over the years, the symbolism of Canada’s arms has evolved from emphasizing stronger ties with the empire to being entirely centered on Canadian realities: a constitutional monarchy in which the Crown is the Crown of Canada, European heritage, and symbols of the land. Placing a single leaf on Canada’s shield would mean removing the homage to the European pioneers who laid the foundation of the country.
Now that the maple leaf has triumphed and become emblematic of a multi-cultural society, it seems more important than ever to preserve the remaining national testimony to the country’s European roots. It should also be kept in mind that emblems tend to grow on people, to become cherished like family heirlooms. The arms of Canada have done what they were expected to do for close to a century. They are likely to continue doing so for many years to come.
Notes
[1] Library and Archives Canada, MG 30, E1, 86, vol. 20, no. 231, Pope to Smith, 13 February 1908. See also ibid., vol. 19, no. 120, Pope to Pottinger, 25 January 1907.
[2] Ibid., vol. 17, no. 131, Pope to Jarvis, 2 December 1905.
[3] See his biography by P.B. Waite in Dictionary of Canadian Biography online: http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/pope_joseph_15E.html, consulted 11 April 2014.
[4] Carl-Alexander von Volborth, L’Art héraldique, styles et formes (Bruxelles : Hervé Douxchamps, 1982) p. 98, plate 34.
[1] Library and Archives Canada, MG 30, E1, 86, vol. 20, no. 231, Pope to Smith, 13 February 1908. See also ibid., vol. 19, no. 120, Pope to Pottinger, 25 January 1907.
[2] Ibid., vol. 17, no. 131, Pope to Jarvis, 2 December 1905.
[3] See his biography by P.B. Waite in Dictionary of Canadian Biography online: http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/pope_joseph_15E.html, consulted 11 April 2014.
[4] Carl-Alexander von Volborth, L’Art héraldique, styles et formes (Bruxelles : Hervé Douxchamps, 1982) p. 98, plate 34.