History of honours and titles UPDATED

History and historians are well represented in the February 2025 Literary Review of Canada: e.g., Jack Granatstein and Donald Wright (reviewing), Tim Cook and Richard White (reviewed). My fave is Patrice Dutil's lively review of David Roberts' Boosters and Barkers (noted here last March, may I say). It's a study of how Canada financed its immense First World War expenditures -- especially by inventing the concept of war bonds that were not addressed to banks and financial houses but to the great Canadian public as a patriotic duty.  

They were an enormous success. To the surprise of the bonds' inventors, Canada raised some $2.5 billion during the war (when a billion still meant something) from hundreds of thousands of individual Canadians.

Thomas White

Dutil admits reports that the book is an important study but not an "easy read." He focusses on the life and career of  one of its central figures, Thomas White, the Canadian finance minister during the war and the architect of the War Bonds -- and later of the income tax. Dutil, one historian who is unashamedly interested in Canadian politics and politicians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, observes that White is little known or remembered, and he uses the review to plunge into his life and its oddities: a Liberal and an Empire devotee who became a Conservative but could not stem the rising tide of Canada's ties to the United States. 

I liked it. If you don't read the book, read the review.

A peripheral thought: the article did get me thinking again about retrospective foreign honours. Should Canadian historians routinely note titles held by Canadians that they would not now receive? Dutil notes that White received a knighthood in 1916. No doubt White deserved recognition for his accomplishments as wartime Finance Minister, and "Sir Thomas White" makes the man seem dignified, and important. But by 1916 knighthoods and other titles had become controversial, even scandalous, in Canada. Joseph Flavelle, a non- politician made a baronet and then dubbed "the bacon baron," was pilloried for accepting the honour. The great corruption that too often surrounded the granting of titles would provoke the 1917-19 Nickle resolution against titles for Canadians, moved by one of White's fellow Conservative MPs.  

Long before then, it had become customary that most Canadian Liberal politicians declined knighthoods, while many minor Conservative luminaries continued to accept them. When historians juxtapose Sir Thomas White (knighted Conservative finance minister) against William Fielding (never knighted Liberal finance minister), are we putting a thumb on the scale by suggesting the former, by accepting a controversial title, was more worthy, more distinguished, than the latter who (according to his DCB biography) declined all such offers? 

Update, January 20: Charles Levi responds (and I thought I was the only one who might consider this an issue!)

Saw your post about "Sir Thomas White" and the telling comment "are we putting a thumb on the scale by suggesting the former, by accepting a controversial title, was more worthy, more distinguished, than the latter who declined all such offers."

Yes, we are, and the problem continues to plague the history of the University of Toronto. I've spoken about this before, but this thing has added to the problems of James Loudon, the under-rated first President of the University of Toronto (and third president of University College). He's sandwiched between "Sir Daniel Wilson" and "Sir Robert Falconer", both of whom received late 20th century full biographies and also was highly criticized by Baron Flavelle, so all three of those biographies (by Bliss, Greenlee and a committee) just piled on Loudon while privileging and minimizing the serious errors of all three of the nobles. So Loudon (who had real flaws, to be sure) has not been treated fairly or in context.

James Loudon apparently was never offered a knighthood, so he could not decline it. As far as I recall, neither Sir Daniel or Sir Robert was knighted BECAUSE they were U of T Presidents, but for other reasons. Still, the knighthoods seem to count in their favour and against Loudon.