Foreword
The usefulness of creating a pictorial record of the transformations in the arms of sovereignty pertaining to Canada became evident by the number of inquiries I received on the subject while I worked at the Public Archives of Canada (now Library and Archives Canada) and as Saint-Laurent Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority (Government House, Ottawa). I dreamt of compiling this information for many years, but now seems the most appropriate time for several reasons. My wife and I have assembled a large collection of Canadian heraldic ceramic (now in the Canadian History Museum) and a more modest collection of heraldic postcards. These two collections illustrate most of the variations that have occurred in the arms of the Dominion as well as those of its provinces and territories. Moreover, a number of changes to the arms of the country and its provinces have taken place within the last few decades.
A word should be said regarding the expression “arms of sovereignty” which appears in the title. In his work An Heraldic Alphabet, J.P Brooke-Little defines arms of sovereignty as being synonymous with arms of dominion and describes them as “those borne by a sovereign in respect of the territories he rules rather than his own family arms.” In A New Dictionary of Heraldry, Stephen Friar offers an analogous definition and also views the two expressions as being equivalent. For the title, I have preferred to use ‘arms of sovereignty” rather than arms of dominion because of the confusion the latter can create with Dominion of Canada which is derived from Psalm 72: “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea.”
From sea to sea implies a geographical area, but arms of sovereignty or dominion, although often associated with a territory, are linked to a less concrete notion. In Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty, (pp. 3-4), Conrad Swan demonstrates eloquently that such arms express “that intangible supreme authority – sovereignty vested in one person, persons or institutions of the state concerned, depending upon its particular constitution.” He provides examples where the boundaries of a country have been modified without the need to alter the existing emblems which “relate primarily to authority and not to territory.” In Canada, geographical extensions have prompted the public to add heraldic devices to the four-province shield granted by Queen Victoria in 1868 to serve as a common seal for the new Confederation. Rather than forming the basis of a seal, the arms of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick on one shield were adopted as the arms of the country. As new provinces joined Confederation, their emblems, official or not, were added by public consent to the aggregate, thus creating a heraldic free-for-all and a very busy design.
The concept of “arms of sovereignty” applies very well here since the arms that France and England displayed in Canada were arms of sovereigns in relation to the European countries over which they reigned. Likewise the arms of Canada are those of the sovereign in right of Canada and those of the provinces and territories are also in right of the sovereign. To differentiate arms representing Canada from those designating its provinces, Dr. Swan used the expressions “arms of general purpose” and “arms of particular purpose.” In a similar manner, general purposes and particular purposes were obviously guiding principles in establishing federal jurisdictions as opposed to provincial ones in the British North America Act of 1867.
Swan (p. 3) extends the meaning of “arms of dominion and sovereignty” to any sovereign state which bears such arms “to identify armorially their authority and jurisdiction” and, as already stated, he applies such arms to the supreme authority vested in a person, persons or state institutions depending upon the country’s constitution. This seems both correct and refreshing in light of the fact that the emblems of so many republics throughout the world are necessarily emblems of sovereignty because they identify sovereign nations.
The shield of the Dominion of Canada, which began being charged with both granted and freely adopted devices shortly after Confederation, did not express dominion or sovereignty because the resulting design received neither royal nor national sanction. The same was true when such unauthorized devices were used individually to represent a province or territory. They are, nevertheless, an important part of the emblematic history of Canada and are still found on many objects or documents in museums and archives. They are seen in public places such as government buildings, banks, churches, and other buildings as well as on plaques and monuments. They were, moreover, instrumental in convincing authorities, Sir Joseph Pope in particular, that something had to be done to bring order into the chaotic situation created by multiplication of emblems on one shield. Also, in some cases, elements of unofficial creations were retained in the granted arms.
The many variations in the composition of arms can help date and provide important information concerning the artefacts or places where they appear. When the arms themselves come as individual objects, as sculptures or paintings for instance, they are artefacts in their own right that merit examination.
This pictorial overview looks at manifestations such as the many supporters and sometimes crests that were added spontaneously to the Dominion shield, the appearance together of British and Canadian emblems which reveal a dual allegiance, the use of the Dominion shield in the fly of the Red Ensign as well as aberrant redesigns of the Arms of Canada after they were granted.
The raven had been a symbol of the Norse before their settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, around year 1000. Did the Norse display the raven for identification on what is now Canadian soil? We really don’t know. Of course Spain did establish a settlement at Nootka from 1789 to 1795 and Russia also claimed the coastline of what is now British Columbia in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, but this is only worth a mention, all the more so that no variations in the arms of the two countries occurred during the period involved. The subject is also well covered in Swan, Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty, pp. 179-80, 247-54, plates 7-8. Although the arms of Newfoundland and Nunavut underwent no modifications after they were granted, they are included to produce a complete record.
Creating this pictorial panorama has involved much the same efforts as mounting a large exhibition. Once the pictures are displayed with general information and captions, the exercise seems deceivingly easy.
A word should be said regarding the expression “arms of sovereignty” which appears in the title. In his work An Heraldic Alphabet, J.P Brooke-Little defines arms of sovereignty as being synonymous with arms of dominion and describes them as “those borne by a sovereign in respect of the territories he rules rather than his own family arms.” In A New Dictionary of Heraldry, Stephen Friar offers an analogous definition and also views the two expressions as being equivalent. For the title, I have preferred to use ‘arms of sovereignty” rather than arms of dominion because of the confusion the latter can create with Dominion of Canada which is derived from Psalm 72: “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea.”
From sea to sea implies a geographical area, but arms of sovereignty or dominion, although often associated with a territory, are linked to a less concrete notion. In Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty, (pp. 3-4), Conrad Swan demonstrates eloquently that such arms express “that intangible supreme authority – sovereignty vested in one person, persons or institutions of the state concerned, depending upon its particular constitution.” He provides examples where the boundaries of a country have been modified without the need to alter the existing emblems which “relate primarily to authority and not to territory.” In Canada, geographical extensions have prompted the public to add heraldic devices to the four-province shield granted by Queen Victoria in 1868 to serve as a common seal for the new Confederation. Rather than forming the basis of a seal, the arms of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick on one shield were adopted as the arms of the country. As new provinces joined Confederation, their emblems, official or not, were added by public consent to the aggregate, thus creating a heraldic free-for-all and a very busy design.
The concept of “arms of sovereignty” applies very well here since the arms that France and England displayed in Canada were arms of sovereigns in relation to the European countries over which they reigned. Likewise the arms of Canada are those of the sovereign in right of Canada and those of the provinces and territories are also in right of the sovereign. To differentiate arms representing Canada from those designating its provinces, Dr. Swan used the expressions “arms of general purpose” and “arms of particular purpose.” In a similar manner, general purposes and particular purposes were obviously guiding principles in establishing federal jurisdictions as opposed to provincial ones in the British North America Act of 1867.
Swan (p. 3) extends the meaning of “arms of dominion and sovereignty” to any sovereign state which bears such arms “to identify armorially their authority and jurisdiction” and, as already stated, he applies such arms to the supreme authority vested in a person, persons or state institutions depending upon the country’s constitution. This seems both correct and refreshing in light of the fact that the emblems of so many republics throughout the world are necessarily emblems of sovereignty because they identify sovereign nations.
The shield of the Dominion of Canada, which began being charged with both granted and freely adopted devices shortly after Confederation, did not express dominion or sovereignty because the resulting design received neither royal nor national sanction. The same was true when such unauthorized devices were used individually to represent a province or territory. They are, nevertheless, an important part of the emblematic history of Canada and are still found on many objects or documents in museums and archives. They are seen in public places such as government buildings, banks, churches, and other buildings as well as on plaques and monuments. They were, moreover, instrumental in convincing authorities, Sir Joseph Pope in particular, that something had to be done to bring order into the chaotic situation created by multiplication of emblems on one shield. Also, in some cases, elements of unofficial creations were retained in the granted arms.
The many variations in the composition of arms can help date and provide important information concerning the artefacts or places where they appear. When the arms themselves come as individual objects, as sculptures or paintings for instance, they are artefacts in their own right that merit examination.
This pictorial overview looks at manifestations such as the many supporters and sometimes crests that were added spontaneously to the Dominion shield, the appearance together of British and Canadian emblems which reveal a dual allegiance, the use of the Dominion shield in the fly of the Red Ensign as well as aberrant redesigns of the Arms of Canada after they were granted.
The raven had been a symbol of the Norse before their settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, around year 1000. Did the Norse display the raven for identification on what is now Canadian soil? We really don’t know. Of course Spain did establish a settlement at Nootka from 1789 to 1795 and Russia also claimed the coastline of what is now British Columbia in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, but this is only worth a mention, all the more so that no variations in the arms of the two countries occurred during the period involved. The subject is also well covered in Swan, Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty, pp. 179-80, 247-54, plates 7-8. Although the arms of Newfoundland and Nunavut underwent no modifications after they were granted, they are included to produce a complete record.
Creating this pictorial panorama has involved much the same efforts as mounting a large exhibition. Once the pictures are displayed with general information and captions, the exercise seems deceivingly easy.