UNITED-EMPIRE-LOYALIST-L ArchivesArchiver > UNITED-EMPIRE-LOYALIST > 2001-05 > 0989875861
From: Brandt Zätterberg <>
Subject: Re: [UEL] U.E.L. is not a title
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 17:31:01 -0400
References: <00d801c0dc81$690374e0$4184b7d8@pig> <3B000C50.C1BA115C@sympatico.ca>
For those of you have not read the Proclamation in question a
transcription of the same can be found at
My questions are:
Is there evidence that King George III was aware of the Council's
Resolution? If so, did he rescind it? If he was aware and did nothing to
over-ride the Proclamation is this implied consent?
Did Lord Dorchester speak for the King before council? Is their
documentation illustrating the level of authority that King George gave to
There is no question in my mind that the primary objective of the
Proclamation was to distribute lands. Lord Dorchester wanted assurances that
settlers had been Loyal to Great Britain. I guess this is understandable
under the circumstances. The Proclamation does say that it was his Lordships
wish to put a 'Mark of Honour upon families who adhered to the Unity of
As such I am under no illusions when I use the 'U.E.' after my name. The
Mark of Honour does not get me invited to the palace for tea. The U.E. does
exactly what it is meant to and that is acknowledge the sacrifices of my
Brandt Zätterberg, U.E.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Eamer" <>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [UEL] U.E.L. is not a title
Here is an email I received from the Honours Information Officer of Canada
time ago reference this question. I hope it helps and please read the total
message as there is an entitlement to your coat of arms.
Michael C. Eamer CD,UE
Subject: Post-Nominal Letters
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 14:26:40 -0400
From: "Thorn, Marie-Paule" <>
To: "''" <>
Dear Mr. Eamer:
Thank you for your e-mail dated September 7, 1999, regarding
post-nominal letters UE.
The designation UE never has been a part of the national honours
system in Canada. As you are aware, the designation was proposed in late
1789 as a mark of honour by Lord Dorchester, then Governor-in-Chief of
Québec. It was proposed to be borne by Loyalists and their descendants.
The use of the mark of honour was never made official by King George III,
but the initial UE rapidly came to be used as an administrative convenience,
to ensure that Loyalists and their descendants enjoyed certain privileges
when receiving grants for Crown Lands.
Had George III, or one of his successors, subsequently made the
designation an official one, it would now contravene national honours
policy, which does not provide for hereditary honours of this type.
In these circumstances, the genealogical registries kept by the
United Empire Loyalist Association of Canada and the procedures which
support their creation and maintenance probably offers the best approach for
preservation of the Loyalist heritage in a particular family. You may also
wish to petition for a coat-of-arms, which, if granted, can include elements
honouring a Loyalist heritage. You may forward your request at the
The Canadian Heraldic Authority
The Chancellery, Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A1
Honours Information Officer
Judi McNairn wrote:
> I have to agree with Eric Knudsen, that UEL is not an honour or title,
> but at most an administrative convenience. Titled honours that pass on to
> descendants are a property right, and there is a lot of case law (volumes)
> on the British title system.
> I am in doubt whether Lord Dorchester's statement was a Royal
> Proclaimation, or merely a statement of his wish to have a honour created.
> However it is clear that Dorchester was not the King, only the King's
> representative (Governor of Quebec). Before I would accept U.E.L. as a
> title, someone will have to show me a grant of the right to Dorchester to
> create hereditory titles. As this right has been a closely guarded right
> monarchs alone, I can't see George III giving it to Dorchester.
> Any one therefore can use U.E.L.. This use of course does not mean
> they are descendants of Loyalists, only that there is no legal monopoly on
> its use.
> Bill Tooke U.E.L.
> Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 16:15:01 -0400
> In-Reply-To: <<>>
> > > I believe it was Lord Dorchester who invented the title in 1784.
> Lord Dorchester originated the practice of putting UE after the names of
> Loyalists and their descendants, but it is not certain is this was
> as an honour, or just an administrative convenience to help civil servants
> be aware of possible out land grant eligibility. I lean towards it being
> only intended as an administrative convenience, but I do not have any hard
> evidence to support this.
> Any opinions?
> Eric Knudsen
> ==== UNITED-EMPIRE-LOYALIST Mailing List ====
==== UNITED-EMPIRE-LOYALIST Mailing List ====
|Re: [UEL] U.E.L. is not a title by Brandt Zätterberg <>|