Flags Granted by the Canadian Heraldic Authority 39 Flags Granted by the Canadian Heraldic Authority: An Analytical Profile Auguste Vachon Saint-Laurent Herald of the Canadian Heraldic Authority Introduction Upon examining the flags of the provinces and territories comprising Canada, one is struck by the repetition of familiar patterns.1 Ontario and Manitoba have both retained a red ensign with the provincial shield in the fly inspired by the Canadianised red ensigns used as the national flag from circa 1870 to 1965. The provincial or territorial shield is also present: on a monochrome field for Alberta, on a Canadian pale for the Northwest Territories, on a regular pale for the Yukon and spread over the entire field (a banner of the arms) for Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and British Columbia. Newfoundland flies what can be viewed as a reworked version of the union flag (jack), its former provincial flag, while Québec has chosen a version of the mer- chant marine flag of Royal France. Saskatchewan only has opted for a somewhat less conventional design: the provincial shield in canton of a field parted per fess with the provincial flower over all.2 The present analysis is aimed at investigating similar familiar mod- els in the flag grants of the Canadian Heraldic Authority and theorising on the results which ensue. It is based on the contents of the three 1 The opinions expressed are my own and are not necessarily shared by other officers of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. 2 AUGUSTE VACHON, “Flags of Canada: an Historical Overview”, The Flag Bulletin, vol. 27, no. 3/126, (May-June 1988), p. 96-98. Raven, Vol. 8, 2001, pp. 39-72 ISSN 1071-0043 ©2001 NAVA 39 40 Auguste Vachon volumes of the Public Register of Arms, Flags, and Badges of Canada as of 8 September 1998, grants being distributed as follows: vol. I (50), vol. II (400), vol. III (224), a total of 674. Flags constituted 214 of these grants. Analysis The most striking aspect of the inventory appearing below is that 45% (96 out of 214) of all flags granted by the Canadian Heraldic Authority are banners of the arms. Since the grant of an armorial banner is auto- matically implied in any grant of arms by the Authority, it is interesting that so many municipalities, corporate-institutional bodies, and indi- viduals have requested that a banner be specified in their grant. Of these banners, 45% (43 out of 96) belong to municipalities although grants to municipalities represent only 17% of the total grants by the Authority. Since the choice of a banner of arms implies a certain degree of heraldic sophistication generally not found within town councils, one can only conclude that municipalities have received special guid- ance from the Authority. Of the 43 municipal petitions leading to the grant of a banner of the arms, 38 were processed by Robert Watt, Chief Herald of Canada, probably on the basis that dealing with municipal councils often re- quires a great deal of tact and persuasion, particularly if the process drifts into the political arena. The Chief Herald not only encourages municipalities to obtain a flag, but proposes, as a first choice, an armo- rial banner. This choice is appealing to many municipalities because they realise that having the same design on both their shield of arms and banner creates a sense of cohesion and unity, both emblems echo- ing a unique message and reinforcing one another. Moreover it is im- portant for some councils to acquire a flag in a quietly efficient way by including their flag in the grant of arms. When discussing why Canada acquired armorial bearings without fuss in 1921 while the flag question became inflammatory, Alistair Fraser, a NAVA member, remarked that national arms are generally viewed as emblems of government while flags are perceived as the true emblems of countries and nations. It seems that this astute remark can be trans- Flags Granted by the Canadian Heraldic Authority 41 Arms and flag of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Falls, Ontario. 42 Auguste Vachon ferred to the municipal level where arms are perceived as emblems of municipal administration while flags are seen as the true emblems of cities and their citizens. If a city publicly announces that it is in the process of acquiring a certain flag, inevitably various counter-proposals, expressions of opposition, and often caricatures appear in the local press. On the other hand, if the flag is derived from the arms or obtained along with a grant of arms, outbursts from the press, the opposition, or the public can usually be avoided. But is this not a most undemocratic, even underhanded, way of proceeding? If one refers to a recent article by Dr. Whitney Smith, it seems certain that such an approach would be condemned in the United States of America. “The fundamental American principle of popular involvement in the choice and even the designing of official symbols exists down to the present day. It expresses itself strongly in the feeling Americans have that authentic symbols can only be developed by, and utilized by those who are actually native to the area represented. Outsiders are generally not welcome in the process. Even heraldic and vexillographic experts— one is tempted to say especially experts—are looked upon with suspi- cion. Fundamentally, the unspoken American ethos denies the concept that there can be any expertise in matters of official symbolism. The design of a symbol, in the American view, is purely a matter of taste that is personal, local, and to be determined by vote. Democracy is seen not as the enemy of good heraldry but as its best guarantor.”3 Even as a herald, I do not view what is done in the USA as being condemnable. I do concur with another of Dr. Smith’s statements “The social context of every country determines the way in which its symbol- ism develops”.4 The right to freely adopt arms or flags without state or expert interference also exists in Canada and Canadian heralds are not 3 WHITNEY SMITH, “Some American Perspective on Heraldry and Vexillology”, Genealogica & Heraldica: Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Genealogical and Heraldic Sciences, in Ottawa, August 18-23, 1996 (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1998), p. 475. (Also published in Raven 6, 1999.) 4 Ibid., p. 373. Flags Granted by the Canadian Heraldic Authority 43 Arms and flag of NAVA Member Peter Brian Edwards, Toronto, Ontario. 44 Auguste Vachon known to interfere or to openly condemn existing assumed emblems. It is rather the municipalities that approach the authority wanting to know the source, status, and symbolism of the arms they have been using for years. Though the free adoption of armorial bearings by mu- nicipalities has been decreasing since the establishment of the Canadian Heraldic Authority in 1988, it is still going on and a majority of mu- nicipal arms remain assumed rather than granted.5 On the personal level, the usurpation of arms based on a name and fostered by commer- cial interests has also been going on in Canada since at least the 19th century. Many individuals ignore official heraldry and resort to ped- dlers of family plaques. Others who know of the Authority’s existence do not want to spend much money on their arms and even contend that an official grant is too pretentious. Usurped arms are sometimes found on bookplates, seals, rings, and other heirlooms that are pre- sented as proof of ownership and authenticity. If a herald demonstrates that the arms in question belong to an entirely different lineage, disap- pointment and sometimes anger result. While there is hope that granted arms will one day surpass assumed arms in the municipal and corpo- rate-institutional sector, one can hardly entertain the same hope in the personal sector. Petitioners to the Authority truly are seeking arms that are correct according to recognised heraldic standards and officially granted. Ex- cept for the occasional lecture and mention in publications, the Au- thority does not actively publicise its activities. Still, petitioners are so numerous that the Authority has a backlog of several hundred peti- tions. In Canada the first official municipal grant was to the city of Westmount in 1945. By the time the Heraldry Society of Canada was founded in 1966, 22 Canadian cities were in possession of official grants and, by June 1988, when the Canadian Heraldic Authority was estab- 5 A consultation of the following works makes this evident : CHARLES W. J EFFERYS, “Canadian Municipal Arms”, The Canadian Historical Review, vol. 18, no. 3, (Sept. 1937), p. 245-261; IAN L. CAMPBELL, The Identifying Symbols of Canadian Institutions, Part III: The Identifying Symbols of Canadian Municipalities (Waterloo: Renison College and Canadian Heraldry Associates, 1990), 685 p. 6 Ibid., p. 20-21. Flags Granted by the Canadian Heraldic Authority 45 lished, this number had risen to 84.6 While the vast majority of mu- nicipal arms were not official, the idea that officers “to whom the cogni- sance of matters of this nature [of an heraldic nature] doth properly belong”7 was slowly making its way. This idea was reinforced by the establishment of the Canadian Heraldic Authority on June 4, 1988 and has continued to progress ever since. The fact that the Canadian gov- ernment has established a Heraldic Authority without much public opposition reveals something fundamental concerning Canadian soci- ety. Canadians generally accept the existence of official heraldry and the appointment of specialists to manage the granting of armorial en- signs. Generally Canadian citizens also accept that their elected council should take on the task of providing the municipality with a suitable coat of arms.