Preface
A push to obtain a distinct coat of arms for Canada arose after the First World War, though it was not evident to everyone that Canada needed its own emblem. Many believed that Canada had been granted proper arms in 1868; namely, a shield on which were combined the arms of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and designated for use as a common seal for the new Confederation. For them, it was just a matter of adding the heraldic devices of other provinces to this shield as they joined Confederation, and making the whole more representative of Canadian identity by adding the royal crown above the shield, branches of maple on either side, and a beaver on a log underneath. The decision to give Canada proper arms was largely a response to the need to bring order into the heraldic chaos that existed since Confederation. The strongest critics of the multi-province shield were among the general public, both individuals and organizations. But only action from government could bring about changes. When the government decided to tackle the problem, there was no lengthy debate, but rather the appointment of a committee to get the task done.
At the time, Canada was a self-governing Dominion with respect to all internal matters, though not yet independent in matters of foreign policy. Having participated in the Great War, the country was in no mood to be dictated to. This newly acquired sense of self-reliance was soon put to the test when the committee discovered that the arms they wanted for their country did not meet with the approval of Garter King of Arms at the College of Heralds in England. How these differences were resolved is an important aspect of the story of Canada’s arms.
The committee wanted to preserve the existing links with the Crown and the empire and, at the same time, to express Canada’s increasing importance within the Commonwealth. It was mindful of European Heritage and also looking for something representative of the country. Would the matter have benefited from a more democratic approach? Was the committee itself representative of the composition of Canadian society at the time? Did it make the right choice? These are questions that this work attempts to answer while providing insight into the mentality of a period that seems very remote from present day preoccupations. Canadians today are accustomed to live in an independent country, which has also attained its own heraldic independence with the establishment of a Canadian Heraldic Authority in 1988 and the appointment of Canadian heralds.
A word on heraldic terminology is in order. While most heraldic terms have remained specific over the years, the meaning of some of the generic terms has become confusing. The shield with its figures and colours, called “arms” in a strict sense, is the main and essential component of an achievement of arms, which may include accompaniments to the shield such as crest, motto and supporters. In its original meaning, “coat of arms” referred exclusively to the colours and figures on the shield (arms in precise terminology) because these same elements also appeared on the coat (a garment of cloth) worn over metal armour. Today coat of arms is widely used to refer to the full achievement of arms and has commonly become synonymous with achievement of arms, armorial bearings or simply arms, which is a short form for the other terms. Because coat of arms is more familiar to the general public, its use as a generic term seems entirely appropriate in the title and body of this work, which is meant for a broad readership. At times I have used the other terms as well for precision or simply to avoid monotony. A.V.
At the time, Canada was a self-governing Dominion with respect to all internal matters, though not yet independent in matters of foreign policy. Having participated in the Great War, the country was in no mood to be dictated to. This newly acquired sense of self-reliance was soon put to the test when the committee discovered that the arms they wanted for their country did not meet with the approval of Garter King of Arms at the College of Heralds in England. How these differences were resolved is an important aspect of the story of Canada’s arms.
The committee wanted to preserve the existing links with the Crown and the empire and, at the same time, to express Canada’s increasing importance within the Commonwealth. It was mindful of European Heritage and also looking for something representative of the country. Would the matter have benefited from a more democratic approach? Was the committee itself representative of the composition of Canadian society at the time? Did it make the right choice? These are questions that this work attempts to answer while providing insight into the mentality of a period that seems very remote from present day preoccupations. Canadians today are accustomed to live in an independent country, which has also attained its own heraldic independence with the establishment of a Canadian Heraldic Authority in 1988 and the appointment of Canadian heralds.
A word on heraldic terminology is in order. While most heraldic terms have remained specific over the years, the meaning of some of the generic terms has become confusing. The shield with its figures and colours, called “arms” in a strict sense, is the main and essential component of an achievement of arms, which may include accompaniments to the shield such as crest, motto and supporters. In its original meaning, “coat of arms” referred exclusively to the colours and figures on the shield (arms in precise terminology) because these same elements also appeared on the coat (a garment of cloth) worn over metal armour. Today coat of arms is widely used to refer to the full achievement of arms and has commonly become synonymous with achievement of arms, armorial bearings or simply arms, which is a short form for the other terms. Because coat of arms is more familiar to the general public, its use as a generic term seems entirely appropriate in the title and body of this work, which is meant for a broad readership. At times I have used the other terms as well for precision or simply to avoid monotony. A.V.