Blog Archives

January Odds & Ends

1/30/2015

Sometimes I have a topic which really isn't big enough to warrant its own post. Other times there are things I want to add to an article when I'm writing it but I don't have immediate access to them. These are those things.

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Imperial Cypher

Back in November I wrote an article about two German cannons won by Albert County, New Brunswick. Above is a photo of Wilhelm II's cypher on the barrel of the smaller gun. The bottom portion was either worn off with use or not properly imprinted to begin with. I would have included a picture of the cypher in a different context but various Google searches have not turned up this exact variant.

Monarchy In Fiction

I read an article recently by Marie Brennan over at Science Fiction & Fantasy Novelists on why fantasy settings seem so dominated by monarchies. An interesting read.

MP Pat Martin's Views

Ever since MP Pat Martin announced he was considering proposing changes to the Canadian Citizenship Oath that would remove the Queen I have been contacting him off-and-on. Two letters I sent were not answered (although in fairness the second did not explicitly ask for a response) but his office assured me he had received them.

I did eventually talk to one of his aids about his views (funny aside: I actually attended the same classes as this aid in university. It's a small country). I was informed that he will not change his views but that he also isn't going to lead the campaign for a Canadian republic. Pat's main problem is that in situations where the interests of Canada and another Commonwealth Realm are in conflict the monarch cannot be solidly on our side. Other issues involved the British colonial legacy.

Queen Victoria

I was quite relieved Kevin Gillespie recently decided to submit an article on Queen Victoria. Previously articles had been done on her father, husband, and one of her daughters. Her absence was starting to become conspicuous. I wanted to add a photo of Queen Victoria's jubilee but after formatting the article I couldn't decide on a good place. I also wanted to add a good photo of the Queen smiling since it goes against the image many people have of her.

"Victoria, Our Queen"

"Her Majesty's Gracious Smile"

Changes On Reddit

Over at /r/monarchism a number of changes have been implemented. For starters it has a more complete list of royal claimants. The flairs have also been adjusted to allow for more variety. The subreddit has had some impressive growth over the last year and is starting to see an increase in activity to go with it.

Execution of Louis XVI

This January 21st marked the 222 anniversary of the murder of Louis XVI by the First French Republic.

According to Father Edgeworth the King's last words were:

"I die innocent of all the crimes laid to my charge; I Pardon those who have occasioned my death; and I pray to God that the blood you are going to shed may never be visited on France."

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Republicans & Curiosity

1/23/2015

"There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." ~Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Over the last few months of using the academic/empirical
evidence I've gathered to confront republicans I've noticed
something rather odd. The republicans I've talked to don't
seem to want to examine the evidence presented. There
appears to be the attitude that the evidence must be wrong
before they even see it. I find this odd as you would think
republicans would be interested in better understanding their
preferred form of government (the studies also have some
interesting things to say in regards to the potential differences
between legislative and presidential republics). I find this
attitude problematic as I hold to Aristotle's maxim that "it is
the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a
thought without accepting it." I would like to think that
republicans have come to hold their views after thorough
investigation of all options. But to hold this view raises the
question of why the attitude described above exists at all?

A recent book by Ian Leslie may provide some insight. Titled
"Curiosity: The Desire To Know And Why Our Future
Depends On It" it argues that certain circumstances can
kill off curiosity in people and that curiosity is a skill that
needs to be honed. I argue that the unique features and
history of republicanism make it a 'curiosity killer'.

Ian Leslie notes that curiosity can be killed by a lack of knowledge on a particular subject. Knowledge it seems is a starting point for further knowledge. We need to know just enough information to know there is something we don't know. People then naturally seek to close these information gaps. If people have no knowledge of the subject matter there will be little desire to learn more. Citizens of a republic, or even a monarchy where the role of the crown is ignored, can suffer from similar circumstances. Within republics it makes little sense to study monarchy as a system of government in a civics course since their system is not a monarchy. Likewise, within monarchies the view that the monarchy is irrelevant to civics leads to it being pushed aside. As a graduate of the New Brunswick school system I can attest to the lack of instruction on the role of the sovereign in government.

This leaves universities holding the ball. Here once again curiosity is strangled by a lack of knowledge. As I've noted before there is a lack of academic research on monarchy as a government form. The field has only been around for twenty years (and more realistically the last five). That said a few people do become monarchists in university (I did). These people tend to be from the fields of history or political science since it can be hard to discuss either without some knowledge of monarchy, at least in Canada. Within republics, however, political science has little reason to deal with monarchy which leaves history.

But being an expert in a field is no guarantee a person will be of a curious mind. As Ian Leslie argues we need to be T-shaped people. Not generalists or specialists but both. Deep knowledge of a single subject combined with broad knowledge of all subjects.

Republicanism has yet another advantage in the fight however. Republicanism is very thoroughly conflated with democracy. The Curiosity-Drive Model states that curiosity results from experiences that are novel and complex create a sensation of uncertainty in the brain, a sensation perceived to be unpleasant. Curiosity alleviates this by helping motivate us to find out more. The key word above is 'uncertainty'. So what happens if you are certain that some idea is right/wrong? Would you not be less curious as a result?

By conflating republicanism (which monarchists want to challenge) with democracy (which has a high certainty of being correct) republicans have made republicanism hard to challenge in their minds. Not only this but it makes defending monarchy more difficult as the conflation renders monarchy opposed to democracy even though it is not. Republics can make the situation worse by their habit of glorifying their revolutions. Certainly the stories of brave patriots fighting off evil foes and establishing a republic make for good reading. But they also make discussing ideas that may be counter to the narrative harder to do. If you strongly believe something is wrong or undesirable you are not going to be willing to look at it further in most cases.

Further problems arise when you consider that many consider monarchy irrelevant such as Prof. Kuehnelt-Leddihn who wrote in 1999 that monarchy is “a totally obsolete, even childish, institution”. All of which raises certainty that republicanism is correct and lowers curiosity about monarchy as a competing system. With republicanism as consensus for much of the world more than ever we should beware the obvious fact.

So what does this mean for us monarchists? It may mean we need to refine how we approach debating republicans. There is a divide that needs to be bridged. A start would be getting them to admit that democracy and republicanism are not the same thing. Anyways, I hope I gave you something to think about. Stay curious, my friends.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Queen Victoria’s Constitutional Monarchy

1/15/2015

By: Kevin Gillespie

Her Majesty Queen Victoria was born in 1819 and was barely 18 years old when she succeeded her uncle, King William IV, to the British Throne. The Victorian era was the name given to her nearly 64 year reign, which lasted from 1837 until 1901. It was the longest reign of any English or British Monarch in history, and it was possibly the greatest period of stability and progress that Britain* had ever known until the 20th
century. During this era, the British Monarchy remained relatively secure in its foundations. This, however, was not the case for much of the rest of the world; republican sentiment was growing and many foreign monarchies were falling. Royalty from 14 different monarchies visited London for Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee in 1887, only four of which have survived to the modern day.[1] Britain largely remained a
bastion of pro-monarchical sentiment in a world where the republican debate was becoming more and more prominent. Queen Victoria herself, along with the social, political and economic progress that was allowed to flourish under her Constitutional Monarchy, was an important factor contributing to this phenomenon. If not for her long reign, monarchism in Britain may not have been nearly as strong as it was at her death in 1901, and the 16 Commonwealth Realms in existence today might have had a completely
different history.

The British Monarchy, however, had not always enjoyed such widespread support among its people. It was widely acknowledged among British subjects that, with few
exceptions, Queen Victoria’s predecessors since the reign of Queen Elizabeth had been bad rulers who lacked moral character. The official biographer of Queen Victoria and
King Edward VII, Sir Sidney Lee, even called her three most recent predecessors “an imbecile, a profligate and a buffoon.”[2] In previous two reigns, the House of Hanover had been ripe with sexual, financial and personal scandals, and at Queen Victoria’s accession the popularity of the Monarchy was low and republican sentiment was increasing. As the popular Victorian writer, Charlotte M. Yonge, said of her accession:

Afterwards she went to St. James’s Palace to show herself at the window while
proclamation of her accession was made by the heralds, but there were no great
acclamations, and she was observed to look pale. Loyalty had been a good deal trifled away by the two latter kings, and she had to win it back again.[3]

And win it back again she did. By the end of her reign Queen Victoria had become the most popular Monarch since Queen Elizabeth I, as well as one of the best known people in the world. Frank Hardie writes that “in 1901 it [republicanism] not only ceased to be a faith, but had once again become a heresy.”[4] The following journal entry by Queen Victoria during the Golden Jubilee illustrates the incredible difference 50 years had made in the popular support for the Monarchy:

No one ever, I believe, has met with such an ovation as was given to me, passing through those six miles of streets… the crowds were quite indescribable, and their enthusiasm truly marvellous and deeply touching. The cheering was quite deafening and every face seemed to be filled with real joy… [5]

Queen Victoria’s accession marked the turning point in the perception of the Monarchy among British subjects. Up until that time, the popular assessment of the Royal Family had been one of “general moral squalor,”[6] but from the moment of her accession onwards, a change began to take place in the manner in which royalty was spoken of in Britain. It was Queen Victoria’s conduct, in public and in private life, which
was the main cause of this change.[7] There was, however, an exception to this trend which must be mentioned. In 1861, Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert, died of typhoid fever, and his devastated wife entered a state of mourning in which she wore black for the rest of her life. She also began a long period of self-imposed seclusion in which she continued her official duties, but stayed away from most public appearances. After the Prince Consort’s death, Queen Victoria expressed her strong sense of duty “in an aloof and private performance with no audience to encourage and appreciate,”[8] and this long withdrawal from public life fostered criticism and encouraged the growth of republicanism in Britain.[9] Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee, however, almost single-handedly wiped out the republican sentiment which had been allowed to cultivate during her seclusion. Forced to face the world once more, her subjects confirmed their love for their Queen through immense demonstrations of loyalty, and when the Jubilee was over,
she never again reverted to her former isolation.[10] As H. B. Brooks-Baker writes:

Queen Victoria’s subjects were also immensely loyal to her, not only because of their love and admiration for the monarch, but because the mystique of the crown had mesmerised them. When she returned to the Palace after her last Jubilee, she was choked with emotion by the demonstrations of loyalty manifested by her loving subjects. The success of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee would be remembered for ever. The Queen recognised that the republicanism which was rampant before 1887 had vanished for ever.[11]

In 1897, one of Queen Victoria’s subjects, Charles Bullock, B.D., writes that “Queen Victoria has remained the central, the most prominent, and permanent figure gathering to her, as the years passed, more and more of the loyalty and affection of the people over whom she rules.”[12] This increasing trend of pro-monarchical sentiments from the beginning to the end of Queen Victoria’s reign can largely be attributed to the Queen’s personal character. As was stated above, Queen Victoria was deemed by her subjects to be of a more scrupulous moral fibre than that of her predecessors. While the previous Kings had been considered licentious, deceitful or shifty, [13] Queen Victoria was viewed as their polar opposite. Charlotte M. Yonge praises the Queen in her book, “The Victorian Half Century,” writing:

May we be thankful that through this critical period, when every throne around us has been shaken, and many overthrown, that we should have been blessed with a Sovereign whose personal character commands not only loyalty, but love and reverence, whose heart beats for all that is high and noble, who sympathises with all suffering, guides all wholesome effort, and discourages all that is foul or cruel.[14]

But it was not only her perceived superior moral fibre that produced the admiration in her subjects; it was also the Queen’s extreme sense of duty. An article, written in 1900, and featuring in The Cosmopolitan, expresses this sense of duty nicely, stating that “Her Majesty… has taken a far closer, keener, more continuous interest in the government of her empire than any of her Ministers.”[15] And the Times writes, in 1887, that from the moment of her accession onwards “the Queen has been deeply impressed with the responsibilities of power, and has held her sovereignty to be a sacred trust for the benefit of the peoples under her rule.”[16]

Queen Victoria’s sense of morals and duty were important in the resurgence of the pro-monarchical sentiment that had dissipated under the rule of her predecessors. This personal character, when combined with the incredible length of her reign, helped her to become a living institution representing the glory and superiority of the British Empire. At the time of her accession, public support for the Monarchy was dwindling, but 60 years on, during her Diamond Jubilee, Queen Victoria had become the most significant symbol of Imperial unity in the British Empire.[17] As Herbert Tingsten puts it in his book, “Victoria and the Victorians”:

There were few among the thousands sharing in the rejoicing of 1897 who had not beheld the Queen for the better part of their lives as an enduring symbol of Empire, indeed, most of them had been born during her reign. Other public figures had shone for a while and then vanished, but the Queen lived on, the object from year to year of constant publicity, with the Court Circular and the newspapers announcing daily what she did and whom she received.[18]

It was only natural for Queen Victoria to be associated with her Empire in this way. By the time of her second Jubilee, few people in Britain, or indeed the world, could remember a time in which Queen Victoria had not reigned as Queen, and much of the Empire itself had been acquired after she ascended the throne. Eighteen territories in all, a quarter of the people in the world, and nearly a quarter of the land mass were under her rule. The Jubilee celebrations of 1897 were not merely celebrating the 60th year of Queen Victoria’s reign; they were, in reality, a demonstration of the might and importance of the
British Empire.[19] The Queen’s constant reign had transformed the Monarchy into the living embodiment of the British Empire; it was impossible for the people to take pride in one without the other. As the Times put it, “everybody feels that the Queen is something unique, something extraordinary, something of which all the world envies us the possession; and the multitude exults in possessing it.”[20]

Under Queen Victoria the Monarchy had become a National and Imperial symbol, but the symbolic nature of her reign was not the only reason for the popularity of the Monarchy in Britain. Absolute monarchy had been absent in Britain for many years, but at the time of Queen Victoria’s accession, constitutional monarchy was still in the process of evolving into what it has become today. By the end of her reign, however, it was widely believed by her common subjects, as well as by many politicians, that until Queen Victoria, “no constitutional Monarch [had] shown a more consistent respect for popular liberties or a clearer conception of royal duties.”[21] The Times writes that:

At the very outset, Her Majesty grasped the true idea of her constitutional position, and from that position she has never swerved. Her work has been neither to initiate
movements nor to resist them, but to moderate them. In her relations with her Ministers she has always maintained, and never overstepped, her constitutional rights; and her extraordinary knowledge of precedents—for her memory is as remarkable as her experience is long—has always given her a great advantage in any discussion.[22]

Many of her subjects viewed her like a mother to the people, “ready to do her people’s will when that will has been good,” but restraining them “from committing great follies and mistakes.”[23] Politicians might come and go, but it was the Monarch who remained the permanent guardian of Britain’s constitution.[24] One contemporary writer at the time compared Queen Victoria’s role as Monarch to the role of the editor-in-chief of a newspaper, writing that:

When the staff (as sometimes happens) differ among themselves, she can, and usually does, exercise the casting vote. In the times of political interregnum, while the nation is engaged in changing the temporary staff, she takes the whole control of the paper, and carries it on till her new assistant is appointed. Such an analogy at least enables us to form some idea of the immensely important part which the Queen had played in the government and development of the British Empire since she came to the throne.[25]

In other words, Queen Victoria’s role was believed to be of crucial constitutional importance. If a Prime Minister died or retired, or if no political party possessed an overall majority in the House of Commons, most politicians believed that an individual who was above party politics was required to arrange the consultations that might lead to a workable ministry.[26] Her life-long position as Monarch also gave Queen Victoria incredible insight and experience, giving her the ability to counsel and persuade her Ministers in affairs of state.[27] A letter written to the Queen in 1874 by her Prime
Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, exemplifies the important role that she was believed to play in the government:

Your Majesty has, sometimes, deigned to assist Mr Disraeli with your counsel, and he believes he may presume to say, with respectful candour, that your Majesty cannot but be aware of how highly Mr Disraeli appreciates your Majesty’s judgement and almost unrivalled experience of public life.[28]

It is undoubtedly true that Queen Victoria played a significant role in many of the political decisions of her day. Even if some of her subjects were not entirely happy with her interventions, most of them were willing to maintain the status quo, as no alternative form of government seemed appealing. Obviously there was no going back to the absolute monarchy of the past, and the other alternative, the Republican Movement, was
becoming less attractive every day. A stable constitutional monarchy—and Britain’s government was stable; there had been no constitutional crisis worth mentioning during
the whole of Queen Victoria’s 63 year reign[29]—was considered by many to be superior to a republic. Ever since the establishment of the French First Republic in 1792, France had become the epitome of governmental instability, systematically alternating between republic, empire and monarchy for most of the 19th century. The other large republic of the times was the United States of America, which was engaged in a bloody Civil War between 1861 and 1865. The republics of South America were shown to be even less
stable. Queen Victoria and the Monarchy, on the other hand, lived on as a symbol of Britain’s permanent institutions. Politicians might come and go, but the Queen was the
symbol of the state and its long and glorious history.[30] As Frank Hardie said, “it is now fairly easy to see why this Republican movement came to nothing. At that time the first French Revolution still spread alarm among conservatively minded people in the same
way as the Russian Revolution to-day.”[31]

Under Queen Victoria’s rule, Britain’s Constitutional Monarchy was allowed to evolve and flourish into the political system shared by the Commonwealth Realms today. This stable government helped foster political, economic and social gains that were unrivalled anywhere else in Europe, if not the world. During her long reign there had been progress in almost every field; democratic government had increased, and the standard of living among Queen Victoria’s subjects had risen. Charles Bullock, B.D. mentions some of these reforms in “The Queen’s Resolve”:

Political changes are almost impossible to chronicle. When the Queen came to the throne the first Reform Bill was only five years old. It was thirty years before the borough householder was enfranchised, and the complete enfranchisement of the county householder is now an accomplished fact. The Corn Laws have been abolished, Free Trade has been established, our financial system reorganised, and, greatest and most beneficial change of all, education has been made universal.[32]

Queen Victoria’s reign had been one of unequalled achievements, and her subjects had little reason to be discontent. As Charlotte M. Yonge says, “the Victorian era will be remembered as a period of great progress in all respects. Perhaps no fifty years in the whole history of the world has produced such changes, affecting all classes in their domestic life and prosperity.”[33]

The long reign of Queen Victoria had not only played an integral role in fostering the pro-monarchical attitude of her subjects, but it has helped to preserve the popularity of the future British Monarchy in the 20th century. The Queen’s exceptional character had helped to redeem the reputation of the Royal Family after it had been trifled away by her predecessors, and her long reign had transformed her into the living embodiment of the British Empire. Under Queen Victoria’s rule constitutional monarchy had evolved
into what it has become today, allowing democracy and a higher standard of living to flourish. The Victorian era had been one of tremendous progress, and by the time of Queen Victoria’s death in 1901, there was no republican movement of any significance anywhere in Britain. Queen Victoria’s subjects had learned to love the Monarchy while she reigned, and this did not stop upon her death. Tingsten writes that:

The personal devotion inspired by Queen Victoria in her subjects can be more fully
understood by comparing it with the similar, though less fervently expressed popularity of her successors to the throne. As if some of the Queen’s own popularity had rubbed off on her descendants, those of them who have reigned in the twentieth century have been accorded their own share of loyal admiration and homage at their accessions, coronations and jubilees.[34]

Queen Victoria’s influence has continued to live on long after her death, with all of her successors† enjoying widespread support in Britain, not to mention in many of the Dominions. Even today, the sense of duty and moral character which marked her reign is appreciated, with Tingsten saying that the current Monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, “seemed a sort of reincarnation of her great-grandmother as a young woman and a reminder that the figure of Queen Victoria is still at the heart of the persisting English liking for royalty.”[35] If not for the incredible reign of Queen Victoria, the monarchist cause would not have been in nearly as good a standing as it was at the beginning of the 20th century, nor as it currently is, at the beginning of the 21st century.

The Royal Christmas Message & Vice-Regal New Year's Greetings

1/1/2015

A tad late but here are links to the Queen's Christmas message and Canadian Vice-Regal New Year's Greetings in case anyone missed them.

Her Majesty on Reconciliation

"For me the life of Jesus Christ, The Prince of Peace, whose birth we celebrate today is an inspiration and an anchor in my life. A role model of reconcilliation and forgiveness he stretched out his hands in love, acceptance, and healing. Christ's example has taught me to seek to respect and value all people of whatever faith or land."

The Governor General's Greetings

"Each of us has something unique and important to offer and the New Year provides an opportune time to commit to giving back to Canada. It doesn't matter how you get involved, just do it."

As far as I can tell only the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario and Nova Scotia recorded messages among Her Majesty's provincial representatives.

Lieutenant Governor of Ontario
Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Blog Update: Two New Contributors

1/1/2015

Happy New Year everyone,

The Maple Monarchists are pleased to welcome two new contributors to the site. First we have Kevin Gillespie who also runs his own blog (Until Philosophers are Kings...). A law student with an interest in constitutional law, Kevin brings a new perspective to the blog. A little birdy tells us he has also recently been awarded the Monarchist League's Silver Badge of Service. Congratulations, Kevin!

Our other new contributor is Mr. Windsor of Alberta. He is a member of The Young Monarchists. We look forward to seeing his contributions to this blog.

There is a tradition in some legislatures and parliaments of placing importance on the first speech delivered by a member. This is called their maiden speech. In imitation of that tradition listed below are the 'maiden articles' of each member of the Maple Monarchists.

Mr. Windsor
Princess Alberta

Kevin Gillespie
The Royal Appeal of a Vice-Regal Decision

Barry R. MacKenzie
Cost of Crown Survey Released!

A Kisaragi Colour
Profiles of the Canadian Royal Family: Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn

Let us all redouble our efforts to defend our Canadian Monarchy in the New Year.

Loyally Yours,
The Maple Monarchists

January Odds & Ends

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Imperial Cypher

Monarchy In Fiction

MP Pat Martin's Views

Queen Victoria

Changes On Reddit

Execution of Louis XVI

Republicans & Curiosity

"There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." ~Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Queen Victoria’s Constitutional Monarchy

The Royal Christmas Message & Vice-Regal New Year's Greetings

Her Majesty on Reconciliation

The Governor General's Greetings

Blog Update: Two New Contributors

About

Archives

Categories