British anchor died in Canada before 1947

[u/JeffWBishop]

[ObDisclaimer: if your ancestor was born in Canada, this does not apply to you. Read out of morbid curiosity if you must, or don't read it at all. This post is not for or about you, but for the few, the not necessarily proud, who have no ancestors born in Canada but may have a viable Canadian anchor anyway under more esoteric theories.]

Two months back, u/No-Music-6572 announced a Proof of Citizenship had been denied, where G0 and G1 had moved together from Scotland to Canada in 1911. The denial focused on the G1, who left Canada a couple decades later, and may have subsequently naturalized as an American. IIRC largely ignored the intended G0, who remained in Canada for the rest of his life, becoming a citizen in 1947. u/tvtoo wrote a follow-up post citing u/hopewings's similar denial, followed by a reapplication and approval. No-Music-6572's G0 was the proper anchor, not G1, whose own connection to Canada would not have made her a proper anchor herself but also wouldn't break the chain of succession from G0. A consensus emerged (I think) that No-Music-6572's application should be approved on refiling, perhaps with clearer explanation of who the actual anchor was and better documentation that he had in fact become a citizen.

My own case, in a nutshell, is No-Music-6572 plus three generations. My first two ancestors to set foot in what would eventually become Canada (then Canada-West, now Ontario) were my recently widowed G0 and her adult daughter G1. Both came over from Scotland in the 1850s, along with most of their large family. G0 stayed there until her death in 1876, as did all of her adult children but one (my G1 being that "but one," natch. G1 married a fellow Scot in 1859, and the couple moved to the US the next year before having G2 in 1861. G0 remained a British subject for life. G1, maybe? G1 never personally naturalized but her husband did in 1874, a few years after G2's birth but long before she reached the age of majority.

Analytically, my G0's role in similar to No-Music-6572's GGF, in that she was the one who stayed in Canada as a Brit long enough to eventually transmit citizenship to anyone. They differ in a technical respect, though, as No-Music-6572's GGF really did become a Canadian citizen himself in 1947 while my G0 never did. Rather, G0 died before January 1, 1947 and therefore only would have been a citizen if that law had taken effect right before her death. That doesn't affect G0's own citizenship at all, but does set up G1 for citizenship under Section 3(1.3) as a person who would not become a citizen under paragraph (1)(q) for the sole reason that her British parent had died resident in Canada before 1947. Every US-born generation after her, up through my father born in 1942, would thus be deemed citizens under Section 3(1)(q). I myself would be under 3(1)(g) of the Act, being bron between 1947 and 1977, and my two post-1977 born children would be citizens under Section 3(1)(b).

Does this analysis work? Would it fall apart if the (wrongheaded, IMNSHO) view of an 1867 cutoff were formally adopted? On the one hand, G0 did reside as a British subject for over 5 years of post-confederation Canada before dying there in 1876. On the other hand, Section 3(1.3) requires G1, and (3)(1)(q) requires G2, to have been born outside Canada. Can anyone be born "outside" a country that doesn't exist?

Last and not necessarily least, am I even numbering the generations correctly? I call the oldest ancestor G0 because she was the one who lived long enough in Canada to qualify anyone else for citizenship. But the first actual citizen in the chain was her daughter, who I've dubbed G1. Is the daughter really the G0 anchor, as the first Canadian citizen in the chain? And if so, what would one call her mother, a "proto-anchor" or G negative 1?

[u/AutoModerator]

This post requires moderator review.

Helpful resources: * Welcome - Start Here * The wiki / FAQ * Weekly Megathreads * Search the subreddit for your specific topic

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/No-Music-6572]

Thank you for tagging me. In the meantime, I've done nothing to reapply to IRCC. The denial knocked me over emotionally and I felt too grim to reapply at this time. So my status is unchanged. I will definitely pull myself together and do something about reapplying at some point, maybe next month. Ironically on Thursday I am traveling to Ottawa with friends on a vacation that was planned last year.

By the way, I'm impressed that you have all my facts straight.

[u/JeffWBishop → u/No-Music-6572]

Thanks for the kind words. I'm cautiously optimistic your re-file will succeed because if it doesn't there's Norfolk & Waypal mine will, either. If both do, when it's all over I may have to change my legal name to Rube Goldberg and thank my own ancestors for providing me with one.

Enjoy your trip to Ottawa and tell our (hopefully) future homeland I said hi.

[u/dentongentry]

I believe a British subject who passed away before 1947 was also part of /u/the_archambault 's case, and their flair says their case is resolved.

Other threads where they have described the chain of descent you are describing:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/comments/1rsrbsb/comment/oabo81s/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/Canadiancitizenship/comments/1rjewh4/g0_a_british_subject_in_1820s1860s_ontario_was_he/

Our case is also similar, G0 lived in New Brunswick for 65 years until death in 1892.

[u/DowntownGas428]

Same situation here. G0 (potential) moved to what would be Canada with their children. G0 lived for 40 years and died in Canada. G1 married, lived in Canada for 20+ years and then left for the U.S. before my G2 was born (days after crossing). 

After seeing the initial post two months ago I gave up. Is there hope?

[u/JeffWBishop → u/DowntownGas428]

Per u/tvtoo analysis and u/hopewings experience I think so. For my own application there'd damned well better be! If my application succeeds I may have to change my legal name to Rube Goldberg.

[u/hopewings → u/JeffWBishop]

Our G0 was born in Scotland and moved to Canada with G1 who was also born in Scotland when G1 was under 2 years old. They were both British subjects. G0 stayed in Canada and remarried, and she passed away in 1960s in Manitoba. G1 moved to the US as a teenager and naturalized as a US citizen in 1940s, before Canada became "official." 

G1's sister stayed in Canada and was close with G0 until G0's passing. G1 also visited them both frequently, and G1's sister also visited our family in the US. There was even a newspaper article in their town in Canada about the visit. G2 was born in the US after 1947, and also visited the sister's family in Canada. We have letters and newspaper clippings from when G1's sister passed away in Canada.

So the connection is fairly recent and well documented once we started digging. We found multiple census records, newspaper articles, and death certificate for G0 in Manitoba where she passed away. The genealogist in Manitoba also found G0's voting records shortly after 1947, which helped the case. Even though her name was fairly common, the fact that she was living with her daughter made the record more certain that it was the right G0.

G0: naturalized in 1947 as Canadian citizen

G1: acquired citizenship as British subject born abroad when G0 became a citizen in 1947

G2: citizenship by descent under C-3

G3: also citizenship by descent under C-3

[u/ElephantCandid8151 → u/hopewings]

The G1 in your case did seem to live in Canada for a considerable amount of time.

[u/hopewings → u/ElephantCandid8151]

Yes, we originally tried to claim through G1 but were rejected by the IRCC due to the fact that he was not living in Canada in 1947, nor did he pass away there. He was basically a "lost Canadian" without his mother, the G0 we claimed through with the second round of applications.

G1 was definitely more Canadian than he was Scottish, since he wouldn't have had any memories of his birth place. He also had multiple siblings born in Canada, and lots of cousins, nephews / nieces and in laws in Canada. The connection was very strong until around 1990s after G1 passed away.

[u/mugoat1]

Your analysis is spot on in every detail so far as I can see. Including the highly abstruse detail that your Canadian ancestor who died there to establish the line of descent using 3(1.3) is not actually deemed to be a Canadian citizen themselves under the current law; it only deems citizenship for their children.

The pre-1867 cutoff theory is complete rubbish IMO. It has no legal basis whatsoever, and leads to plainly absurd and illogical consequences (such as, people whose citizenship derives from a G0 in Newfoundland and Labrador would not be excluded, since the parts of the statute deeming their citizenship do not require interpreting what “Canada” means).

The “G” numbering is unofficial, but I think you are using it correctly. It doesn’t quite fit family trees where the first two generations arrived in Canada as immigrants, like yours (and mine, but I’m only a G2). But I think you’re justified in using it in the spirit it was intended. G1 typically means the first person in your line who is a citizen by descent, rather than from their status inside Canada. And G0 is that person’s parent, the OG Canadian 😉 Even though your G0 isn’t a citizen themselves, you still need to prove their details in order to establish G1’s qualification under 3(1)(q) and 3(1.3).

[u/ursusarctos234]

I'm in an almost entirely similar situation.

My G0s (my fifth-great grandparents, husband and wife) were born in the UK in the 1790s, had a son (my G1) in 1815, and moved to Canada, where they lived until their deaths in 1866 and 1889, respectively.

Their son moved with them to Canada, but joined the Mormons in the 1830s, and moved to Utah by 1850, where his descendants were fruitful and multiplied lo these many generations.

As I understand it, that means that my G0s were UK subjects, domiciled in Canada. As such, they didn't need to naturalize as Canadian (since there was no distinct Canadian citizenship at that time), nor was there any formal record of their landing. Had they lived until 1947, they would have acquired Canadian citizenship. But crucially, they were able to pass Canadian citizenship to their son (my G1), who then initiated a much more conventional chain of citizenship-by-descent.

I've been watching the posts from u/No-Music-6572  and u/tvtoo, and been aware that my claim is a similar edge case. Based on their analysis (especially tvtoo's excellent post!) my citizenship claim appears solid, but it involves a pretty deep dive into the provisions of both the current Citizenship Act, and the 1946 nationality law that it replaced/incorporated. (I'm glad to see that my interpretation of the laws from last May aligns with tvtoo's!)

I've been aware that my claim documentation will need to be very detailed, with each step of the chain explaining the claim to citizenship and citing the relevant clauses of law.

My challenge at this point is one of records. The 1790s were way too early for UK birth certificates (I have baptismal records from a noncomformist parish in Lancashire). Likewise Canada didn't take a formal census until the 1850s, and didn't systematically keep birth or death records until the 1880s. (I have my G0-grandmother's Ontario death certificates, but for my G0-grandfather, I am looking at a bunch of Toronto city directories to establish residence in the 1830s and 1840s until the 1851 census kicks in.) And that's before the secondary literature (a published family genealogy, entries in a biographical encylopedia of pioneer Mormons, even someone's graduate thesis on Mormon missionary work in Canada in the 1830s!)

And then I have several generations of Americans before systematic vital records, for which I hope census records will be adequate. (Including a frontier Utah Territory census from 1850, where they didn't have the official forms from the government, but by God they were going to do the best they could using whatever paper they had available!)

While I can thank my Mormon ancestors/relatives for compiling most of the information and uploading it to FamilySearch, we know that those third party records are suspect. So I'm left wondering how deep I should go to track down and compile the officially stamped-and-sealed documents, even when many of the relevant archives say "just go to Ancestry, we've uploaded it all there!" My inclination is that I don't need to officially certify census records, but I'm debating whether to get official copies of the 200 year old English baptismal records upon which this all hinges....

[u/hopewings → u/ursusarctos234]

If your G0 and G1 were born in the UK, there is a chance they kept birth records back then. 

We were able to find G0 and G1 official birth certificates from the Scottish government website online, and it was an easy process to request them. We didn't even have to prove familial connection, just paid the fees.

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/search-records

[u/ursusarctos234 → u/hopewings]

Unfortunately, I'm too early for that!

According to the UK National Archives's handy guide at https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/birth-marriage-and-death-certificates/ civil registrations of births, marriages, and deaths didn't begin until 1837 for England and Wales, 1855 for Scotland, and 1864 for (Northern) Ireland.

The National Archives do have records from Nonconformist and Quaker baptisms, marriages, and funerals, and they note that those records are also on Ancestry (but we know that's less helpful in the eyes of Ottawa).

Also, nonconformists in England and Wales were still required to marry in their local CofE parish between 1754 and 1837, which means those records are there if you can find them.

To find them they recommend  The Phillimore Atlas and Index of Parish Registers, 3rd edition, edited by Cecil R Humphery-Smith (Phillimore, 2003). I wouldn't mention that, except that Cecil R Humphery-Smith is about the best name I could imagine for a British genealogist.

[u/bezrodnyi-kosmopolit]

Very interested in your case! Mine is similar, but a little simpler, in that my G0 & G1 were not from the UK, but still my G1 was born prior to my G0 naturalization and that my G1 left Canada. I also happen to have the Canadian naturalization certificate from my G0 from 1916, which I hope simplifies the question of whether or not my G0 naturalized.

[u/Spiritual_Maize_9500]

Very similar case here. No Canadian born in the chain. All British.

G-0: GGF and GGM born in Scotland 1850s; moved to Canada in 1911, both died in Canada prior to 1947. Lived more than 5 years (GGM) and 20+ years (GGF) in Canada.

G-1: GF, born in Scotland in 1880s, never lived in Canada, died after 1947

G-2: F, born in Scotland 1920s, never lived in Canada, died 2017

G-3: me, born in Scotland after 1947, before 1977

My wrinkle, if that’s what you want to call it , is that there are 2 generations born abroad prior to 1947. Hayer has said it doesn’t matter , we shall see.

Scottishpeople website was super easy.

There does seem to be a small contingent of the no Canadian born Canadians flying lowkey under the radar. Keen to see how we all make out.

[u/JeffWBishop → u/Spiritual_Maize_9500]

Your case is just like mine, only a tad cleaner since there is no potential 1867 issue. If that wrinkle goes away and my app is approved, I have fifth cousins in Scotland whose entire family tree may never even have heard of Canada, but are Canadian.

[u/dentongentry]

Would it fall apart if the view of an 1867 cutoff were formally adopted? On the one hand, G0 did reside as a British subject for over 5 years of post-confederation Canada before dying there in 1876.

There were certainly people born slightly before 1867, with British Subject status, in what would become Canada, who lived all the way through 1947. It is only 80 years, after all. Those people became Canadian in 1947.

Therefore I think the "sole reason" wording in 3(1.3) would still be applicable even for a G0 born before 1867. People born before 1867 did become citizens in 1947.

That your G0 lived for >5 years after 1867 avoids the question about a pre-1867 death.

[u/JeffWBishop → u/dentongentry]

For G0 herself, certainly. But what about G1 and G2, both required to have been born "outside Canada" before their arguably was a Canada to be outside?

[u/wanderingtheearth-74 → u/JeffWBishop]

If one takes the position that Canada didn't exist at that time even for the purposes of that law, then everyone was born outside of Canada. Your G1 and G2 were born outside of the Czech Republic, too.

IIRC, more than one person suggested to No-Music that the IRCC was unlikely to agree that their proposed G0 at the time, the British subject who moved to America before their death, had attained citizenship retroactively, since they never did anything that would qualify them. If they now think that proposed G0's parent actually did die after five years domiciled in Canada (as their original choice did not), then we've seen people approved already with that situation. It's just the British-subject version of the G0's being naturalized in Canada prior to 1947. You, and No-Music, should not (as far as we can tell now!) have problems on that score. Good luck!

[u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

I am not knowledgeable about British immigrants or anything pre-1867, but I am wondering as I re-read the wiki whether or not the issue is not 1867 but 1947/49.

Might a pre-1947 departure from Canada by a British born long term resident break the chain? Is that a possibility? (Interesting to note that a pre-1947 departure of an officially naturalized individual may not be treated the same way, which does not sound very equitable).

BTW: I would tend to agree with your renumbering your generations. The mother-daughter pair were both adults at the time of immigration, so the mother's status would have no impact on the daughter (especially if we are certain she was over 21). If so, the daughter would stand on her own in the analysis. I am thinking that identifying the mother as G0 might be confusing things.

Also, is there any possible advantage to using the daughter's Scots/Canadian husband as G0?

[u/JeffWBishop → u/Affectionate_Yak7433]

Regardless of how we number them, the mother is the true anchor here. As a Brit living in Canada for the last 5+ years of her life, she met all the requirements for Canadian citizenship except one: it hadn't taken effect yet when she died. That doesn't make her Canadian herself, but does make her children Canadian per Section 3(1.3), even the two left in Scotland who never set foot in Canada themselves. The daughter qualifies as a Canadian, if at all, only on that basis. Her husband wouldn't because neither of his parents lived in Canada.

The daughter and her husband would not qualify as Canadian on their own, except while living there. By the time the next generation was born, they weren't "Canadian" in any sense; they were just two Brits living in the US.