Brazil was once an empire. And in
terms of economic, military, and social
​development it ranks as a golden age of
that country. Embodying this period of
progress was Emperor Pedro II (who I
will need to write a full profile of at
some point). Between suppressing the
slave trade, and eventually abolishing
it, he was also an ardent patron of the
arts and sciences. This would lead
Charles Darwin to comment, "The
Emperor does so much for science, that
every scientific man is bound to show him the utmost
respect". He was also somewhat curious about Canada.

The Emperor's attention would first turn to Canada in 1866
when the colonies of British North America sent a trade
mission to Brazil. At the time only Nova Scotia had any direct
trade with the country. When the trade delegation met with
the Emperor he questioned them about the future of the
Dominion of Canada, Montreal's Victoria Bridge, railways,
canals, the Canadian climate, agriculture and other topics.
Despite the warm welcome from the Emperor no agreement
for free trade between the Empire of Brazil and the future
Canadian Dominion was forthcoming. Back in Canada the
trade delegation concluded that the Canadian market was too
​small to develop direct trade with Brazil.

​In 1876 the Emperor embarked on a state visit to the United
States and Europe with a delegation that included members of
his family and court. His goals for the US leg of the trip was to
learn more about the country, improve economic ties, and
attend the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition. He would
then proceed onto the European leg of his trip.

The trip to Canada had an unofficial character and occurred
between the Emperor's arrival in the United States and his
​appearance at Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition. He
​crossed into Canada at Niagara Falls and on June 5th made
his way by train to Hamilton and Kingston. Apparently, his
arrival caused a fair amount of curiosity and his train car was
often surrounded by locals when it arrived at each station.
When the train arrived in Toronto the mayor of the city went
down to the train station and, after being granted an
audience, requested the Emperor stay and enjoy the
hospitality of the city. This offer was refused as he had already
made plans to head on to Montreal. At some point after
arriving in Canada the Governor General learned of the
Emperor's visit and sent his respects. 

On June 6th the Emperor departed for Montreal on the ship
Spartan. About one hundred people were on the Kingston
wharf to see him off. It is reported that the Emperor could
not be distinguished among the other passengers as a group
of men were inquiring about his travels and he in turn was
asking many questions about Canada. The captain of the
Spartan was unaware of his special passenger as the Emperor
had not allowed word to be sent ahead.

Upon arriving at Montreal the Emperor was the "recipient of
many cheers, which lasted until he entered a carriage, when
he responded by raising his hat". That evening the Emperor
went to the Academy of Music where he was received
warmly. June 7th had an intense schedule (for an unofficial
visit). He started at the Notre Dame Cathedral and then went
to Bonsecours Market at around 7am. The Emperor spent
some time examining the meat and poultry. This astonished
the butchers as they could not believe a living emperor would
visit their stalls, and at such an early hour in the morning.
Afterwards the Emperor visited many places in Montreal
including Bonsecours Church, Mount Royal, the Deaf and
Dumb Institute, the Natural History Museum, and McGill
College.

On June 8th the Emperor decided not to proceed on his
planned trip to Quebec City due to the poor health of the
Empress. It had been a good trip and the Emperor was left
with a positive impression of Canada. He is recorded to have
commented on the superiority of the Canadian political
system in comparison to the American system. But no closer
trade ties developed from this trip.

The imperial delegation made their way slowly back
​to ​Philadelphia where the Emperor officially opened the
​exhibition with President Ulysses S. Grant and joined by
another man they served as judges of the various scientific
exhibits present. At this exhibition was noted Canadian
inventor Alexander Graham Bell who was demonstrating his
newest invention; the telephone. The two men had met at
in Boston at an earlier date. It is fortunate that the Emperor
remembered him as the judges for the exhibition were about
to adjourn without having examined Mr. Bell's exhibit.

The Emperor insisted the judges see it. The
Emperor held the receiver up to his ear as
Mr. Bell recited a few lines of Shakespeare.
The Emperor exclaimed "It talks!" and it
made a great impression on the other
judges as well. It is impossible to say how
this chance meeting affected the future
prospects of the telephone but a mere 14
years later the Empire would have its first
telephone company. The Emperor and Mr. Bell would
continue to write each other and become friends.

Ultimately, the Emperor's visit to Canada would be forgotten
and it would not be until World War Two that the two
countries began seeking closer economic ties.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

I have spoken before of how much I like the
site openparliament.ca. There are few
better ways to keep track of what Canadian
politicians are actually saying. I used it a
great deal during my surveys of the
Conservative and NDP leadership
candidates. But then I didn't check it for
almost a year. And that is how I missed this
great comment by Liberal MP Alexandra
Mendès back in November: 

She had also made another comment in 2016 thanking Her
Majesty on her birthday stating: "Our Queen has devoted her
entire adult life to service, a word so often scorned and yet so
notably lived by a sovereign who brilliantly has reinvented
the role to which she was born." These comments are positive
to see when many politicians would not make it a point to
come right out and say they are monarchists. It is especially
rare for a Quebec politician to do so (which is unfortunate). I
will be watching Alexandra Mendès' career with interest going
forward.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

On September 14th former Conservative
Party leadership hopeful Maxime Bernier
announced the founding of a new party. 
This 'People's Party' still has not fully
defined its party policy. Mr. Bernier doesn't
give me much to go on either. As some
might recall I surveyed all of the
Conservative Party leadership candidates a
while back. Bernier's response left his
own feelings pretty much unknown. This is
of small, but persistent, concern to me.

I am concerned as he is essentially creating the new party's
identity himself. While, in the past, he stated he would not do
anything ​to change the position of the monarchy in Canada,
that was during a leadership race for a party that has a ton of
monarchist members. The makeup of this new party will also
be in flux for a while. With so many unknowns I have written
the party and asked for clarification on their stance. I will post
an update should I receive a response.

While this blog takes no stance on which
party people should vote for (there are
monarchists in every party after all), it
would be preferable for this new party to
have a strongly supportive stance in regards to Canada's
monarchy. As such, if you are a monarchist as well as a
member (or supporter) of the PPC consider making your voice
​heard that you want a party that respects Canada's
monarchical traditions.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

For those watching Australian politics
August was an exciting month. After
two leadership votes in the governing
Liberal Party Malcolm Turnbull has
​been turfed.

This is good news for all loyal subjects
of Her Majesty as Malcolm Turnbull
was a noted republican. He was
replaced by Scott Morrison who is seen
as being more monarchy-friendly. It 
should be noted that I haven't found
any public statement to that effect but
potential monarchist is still better than
confirmed republican. But, as exciting
as all this is its not the point of this
article. A reader has asked for my
thoughts on what effect Australia
becoming a republic would have on Canada. So as that ugly
possibility slowly ebbs away once again lets play a little game
of 'what-if'.

So the referendum results are in and Australia is on its way to
becoming a republic. The first thing you will likely see are
interviews with individuals associated with the republican
movement in Canada. They have been handed a free soapbox
and they will make use of it I'm sure. The only saving grace
being that in the interest of balance representatives of the
Monarchist League of Canada would also likely be
interviewed as well.

The media would simultaneously want politicians to weigh in
on the future of the Canadian Monarchy. This is a little bit
harder to predict the outcomes of. True, no party has ever
made abolishing the monarchy part of their platform and
outspoken republicans have tended to spiral away from the
center of power within their own parties rather than nesting
there. The default position of most MPs is one of 'polite
regard' for the monarchy without much in the way of passion.
There are exceptions, of course, but they don't tend to end up
near the center of power either.

This strategic neutrality likely arose due to:
1. Its unclear if there are any votes to gain from advocating
for a republic, and 
2. The process of becoming a republic, at best, consumes the
party's agenda for the term and gives them little to actually
run on other than having turned Canada into a republic. At
worst a great deal of political capital is spent, the effort fails,
and the party ends up like the Tories in 1993.

In short, party leaders don't, as a rule, see any good reason to
​pick this issue as the one they will champion. But unlike other
events that prods the media into talking about the monarchy
this is a story that would be alive for months. At the very least
you have a spike in media interest just after the referendum
as well as when Australia officially becomes a republic. The
media will poll Canadians at least once (likely more) on their
thoughts on the Canadian Monarchy. These polls generally
show strong support at either end of the debate with a large
section of Canadians not caring either way. I would predict at
least one politician calling for a republic. We might even see
noted republican John Manley give some interviews on the
issue.

If I might be a bit mean for a second I have to point out that it
would be in Canada's interest for Australia's transition to a
republic to be as chaotic and divisive as possible. Both
because it would confirm the political belief in Canada that
the issue isn't worth the trouble (and constitutional reform is
in fact more difficult in Canada than it is in Australia) and the
negative effect it would have on public opinion about trying to
​abolish the monarchy.

Even under a worst case scenario of wide public support for a
republic and political parties championing the issue it is still
likely to come to nothing. Changing Canada into a republic
requires the consent of every province. The provinces have
typically tried to get as much out of the federal government
as possible during these negotiations. Quebec in particular 
as a list of demands it wants implemented. It would be
somewhat ironic but the Canadian monarchy might be saved
by Quebec nationalists trying to blackmail the federal
​government.

But even if we somehow worked out
an agreement between all the provinces
there is an unofficial requirement (that
the government would ignore at its
peril) that the resulting agreement go to
a referendum. Referendums typically
favour the status quo and this one
would be no different.

So to sum up I think Australia becoming a republic would
create some chatter but would result in little success for
Canadian republicans. 

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Found this on the Monarchists Facebook page.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The New Brunswick election currently underway has me
thinking about voting. And while voting might seem like one
of those things that has nothing to do with monarchy, you'd
be wrong. Many monarchies had elections for a variety of
reasons. They differed from democratic elections in two key
ways: 1. The person elected typically served for life, and 2.
the electors tended to be a limited group (usually nobles). 

The reasons for voting for a monarch can be divided into
two rough categories as I have outlined below.

Choosing a new Dynasty
Sometimes royal families went extinct or the country never
had one to begin with. In these instances the nobility (or in
later periods, parliament) might elect a new monarch to start
a dynasty but keep it otherwise hereditary as long as a
legitimate claimant to the throne remained.    

The election of Hugh Capet is often seen as a classic case of a
royal line failing and another being elected to take its place. 
This isn't entirely true. When the last Carolingian king died
he still had members of his dynasty who were alive and would
have inherited the throne. But the power of the crown had
been weakening for sometime and the nobility increasingly
insisted on the monarchy being elective. Thus Hugh Capet
gained the throne (and immediately fell into war with the
surviving Carolingians). 

Or, as was the case in newly independent states of Eastern
Europe in the 1800s, the parliaments elected people (usually
nobles) from other countries in the hope that they would be
neutral arbiters of domestic factions and have the experience
at ceremonial duties the role required. Greece, Sweden,
Romania, and Bulgaria all took this route with varying
degrees of success.

Elective Monarchy
In other cases the monarchy was fully elective with every
monarch chosen by a vote. The two most famous examples of
this is the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The former case had the
emperor chosen by seven electoral-princes (pictured above)
while the latter case had the king chosen by a group of nobles
that could number in the thousands (the widest franchise in
Europe at the time). 

Both monarchies were elective because the nobility was very
powerful. And you could argue the nobility was powerful
because the elective nature of the monarchy made it too weak
to resist the nobility.

Generally speaking, if the monarch could limit the power of
the nobility they could make their position hereditary over
time. Even if they couldn't do so there was a tendency for the
elected position to become de facto hereditary. In some cases
the list of candidates was limited to the ruler's dynasty or his
legitimate children.

The Holy See (Vatican City)
Arguably the most well-known example. The Pope is elected
by the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church. At this point
it is one of the oldest elective monarchies in the world.

Malaysia
An example of an elective monarchy where the elections have
become more predictable than one might expect. The position
of Yang di-Pertuan Agong has to date rotated among the
country's nine rulers. Several of the lower positions are
themselves elective as well.

Cambodia
The successor to the throne is elected from all the candidates
of royal blood by the Royal Council of the Throne.

The Commonwealth of Nations?
Succession to the headship of the Commonwealth is not
defined with the leaders of the various member states acting
as ad hoc electors. But the position is likely to remain in the
House of Windsor for the simple reason no other candidate
​has ever shown themselves to be a better candidate. Although
the extent to which you can consider the Commonwealth to
​be a monarchy is questionable. 

Elective monarchy has typically served the interests of the
nobility and sometimes the people. Elected monarchs had a
hard time concentrating power and authority. This could
prevent tyranny but it could also paralyze a country and make
it easy prey for foreign aggression. But when used sparingly
elective succession did provide an answer to the thorny
question about what to do if a line of kings came to an end.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour 

Back in January I got wind of a new
study that was being put together on
monarchic vs. republican governance.
When I contacted the author I was
informed that the study was about to
undergo peer review and would be
available around the end of April. The
author was thoughtful enough to
remember my inquiry and send along
a PDF of the now peer reviewed study.
...And I promptly got swamped with political stuff and haven't
​been able to take a look at the study till now.

Symbolic Unity, Dynastic Continuity, and
Countervailing Power: Monarchies, Republics, and
the Economy is the study put together by Mauro Guillén of
the University of Pennsylvania and comes to four conclusions:
1. Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative
effect of internal conflict on property rights. 
2. Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative
effect of executive tenure on property rights.
3. Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative
effect of the discretion of the executive branch on property
rights.
All of which rely on the common economic argument that:
4. A greater degree of protection of property rights results in
better economic outcomes.

The first point should be familiar to any monarchist that has
argued having a non-partisan head of state is a good thing.
This is essentially what was tested. This study is exciting in
how it connects the dots with other studies. For instance the
study "Economic Growth & Institutional Reform in
Monarchies & Republics" came to the conclusion that
monarchies seemed to perform better at times of great
institutional change but couldn't narrow down why. This
paper provides a plausible answer as to why this might be. 

Now, this paper mainly helps constitutional monarchies.
While absolute monarchies did well on point one they were
shown to have the same problems as republics with points
two and three (I'm actually not sure whether absolutists or
republicans would be more upset with that comparison).

The study did provide some good news for republicans;
"The evidence that the effects hold relative to parliamentary
republics and democratic republics separately is consistent
with Weber’s theorizing as well, except that parliamentary
republics seem to be able to handle executive tenure as well
as monarchies, and democratic republics to address
executive discretion as effectively as monarchies."
So while republics can compete with constitutional
monarchies on certain points they can't on all points. This
study provides more backing for the argument that no good
can come from Canada becoming a republic.

As always, the new studies have been added to Useful Links.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

On Wednesday Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau attended a
youth forum in Toronto where
he was asked about the value of
Canada being a monarchy. His
​answer raises some questions.

The recording of the youth forum is available on CPAC with
the relevant section starting at the one hour mark: "What are
your thoughts on monarchy? And also, do you see us freeing
ourselves from paying the English Royal Family taxes in the
future?" Now, this is pedantic but since it comes up so much
I will again note that there is no 'English Royal Family' as
there is no government of England for there to be a royal
family of. It would be more correct to say the 'British Royal
Family', or even the 'Jamaican Royal Family', but in the
Canadian context it is most correct to say the 'Canadian Royal
Family' or simply the 'Royal Family' (since I think most
people will get what you mean). If I were a bit more cynical I
would assume the question is framed this way to deny the
Royal Family's legitimacy as a Canadian institution or to
imply it only matters to one of Canada's ethnic groups. But I
digress.

Trudeau's answer goes off the rails immediately, however.
"Canadians pay minimal amounts to the British Monarchy.
When the Queen is here she becomes the Queen of Canada
and there are costs associated with that." As I was about to
facepalm at the reference to paying taxes to the British
Monarchy Trudeau goes a step further and states that the
Queen somehow only becomes Queen of Canada when she is
here. That is false and Trudeau ought to know it is false. But
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since its the
last question of an hour-long Q&A session. He does point out
that he doesn't think eliminating the monarchy is an effective
cost saving measure. Ok, that answer was a little rough
around the edges but he might do better as he goes on.

"The question needs to be; do we need to eliminate the
monarchy from Canada in order to succeed more as a
country? Is the monarchy holding us back in things we
would like to do but are unable to do and succeed as a
country?" He then answers that he is a pragmatic in that he
doesn't see what benefits having a Canadian-born head of
state would bring. He then goes into the more standard
argument that having a head of state that does not involve
themselves politically is a good thing. He touches on how the monarchy's setup today is a tradition going back 150 years
and if we started up a new country today called Canada we
might choose to not have a head of state that lives in a
different country (interestingly he doesn't say he believes we
wouldn't choose to have a monarchy again).

"It isn't harming us or preventing our success." If you want to
listen to the full answer Justin Trudeau gave the link is at the
top of the article. Lets be clear, his answer was an argument
for Canada remaining a monarchy and I will give him credit
for that. But as the Monarchist League of Canada has
pointed out Trudeau seemed to rely more on negative
arguments for the monarchy's defence (ie. arguing against
change rather than arguing for monarchy in its own right).

This is unfortunate as there are a lot of positive arguments for
monarchy. People have made those arguments. Prominent Canadians have made those arguments throughout our
history. It shouldn't be too much to expect our prime minister
to be able to make a positive case for not only keeping our
​monarchy but celebrating it.

Perhaps more worrying is his final statements that future
leaders might decide to ending the monarchy is important. If
he made that statement at any other event I wouldn't raise an
eyebrow. But this was a youth forum which presumably has
those future leaders Trudeau was referring to. Was this
statement added in to encourage them to pursue this? I don't
know but the Prime Minister's answers should raise concern. 

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour   

Happy Victoria Day everyone!

This blog is now fours years old. Some goals that this blog set
when it was first started have been reached while others could
use a renewed focus in order to achieve. But overall, it is in
good shape.

There has been a three year gap in these blog updates so it is
perhaps necessary to talk about where this blog is going in the
​near future.

Hiring a summer student
One good thing to come out of the controversy surrounding
the federal government's attestation requirement for summer
job grants is that it got me thinking about the possibility of
hiring a summer writing position for the blog. Initial inquiries
have been promising and we may be able to hire a student for
the 2019 summer season.

A Kisaragi Colour is slacking off
At this point in time some may be noticing a decline in post
frequency. This is due to A Kisaragi Colour (who writes the
vast majority of posts) having thrown his hat into the ring to
win a seat in the upcoming New Brunswick provincial
election. As such there will be fewer posts until September
and potentially after.

Custom Logo
The way Weebly handles thumbnails on Facebook has never
been satisfactory. It essentially gives a choice of the pictures
in the blogs sidebar. This has led to the coat of arms of the
Monarchist League of Canada becoming this blog's de facto 
thumbnail image. While a great organization, this blog would
prefer not to rely on the League for its graphics. As such an
effort will be made this summer to create a unique logo for
​the blog.

Section Redesign
The Discussion Topic section never really worked as intended.
It has been redesigned and renamed the Special Projects
section. This will allow this website to better showcase its
advocacy roles.

Here is to hoping the next four years are even more successful
than the last four.

Loyally Yours,
The Maple Monarchists

It can sometimes be hard to review a book
where you are not the intended audience.
Either it will end up seeming too technical, too simple, or simply full of information
you already know. Battle Royal written by
David Johnson avoids the first two pitfalls
but toes the line on the third one for me.
It is nonetheless an interesting look at the
monarchist vs. republican debate in
Canada and the future of the Canadian
Crown. First, a look at the book's layout.

The third chapter begins looking at what is meant by the
'Crown' and the various offices connected to the monarchy.
Chapters four and five return to recounting history to explain
why the monarch is largely limited to 'soft power' and the
remaining bits of 'hard power' that are still a prerogative of
Crown. This includes an examination of the Prorogation Crisis
of 2008. Throughout the chapters mentioned both republican
and monarchist arguments are given in what I would call an
even-handed manner (although, throughout I think the
author gave the republican arguments too much credit though
republicans would likely say the same for the monarchist
arguments).

Chapter six looks at the alternative to monarchy (republic). It
is a fair overview of the history of republicanism. It includes
a good run-down of the dangers the monarchy faced in the
1970s as well as more indirect challenges in the 80s and 90s.
It also includes a good overview of public opinion polls up to
the present day.

Chapters seven and eight deal with the debate between the
republicans and monarchists with chapter seven dealing with
the monarchy as an institution and chapter eight having
more to do with the Royal Family. This is not a comfortable
read for a monarchist but arguably a necessary one. It is
important to know what your enemy's arguments are after
all. By this point David Johnson has asked open ended
questions in every chapter (not a style choice I really liked but
whatever) and it is here they start to be answered.

Chapter nine is where republics would likely shed salty, salty
tears as it deals with the constitutional hurdles of reforming
the monarchy. Not only does it explain the hurdles it looks at
every argument and plan republicans have made to overcome
or by-pass them and reveals them to be pure folly built on
ignorance and desperation. It is a beautiful chapter.

Chapter ten looks at the beginning of the future King Charles
III's reign. One prediction has already come true: Charles will
be the next Head of the Commonwealth. But while the various
speculations are fun there is a serious question asked (and
one of the few really interesting ones in the book):

This is the chapter where the author earns his self-proclaimed
title as a 'pragmatic monarchist' and dispelled my lingering
suspicion he might be a crypto-republican. The proposals are
ambitious, but doable if there is the political and royal will.

Overall, I found the last few chapters much more useful than
the entire rest of the book. But that is mostly because I was
aware of most of the information up to chapter eight. But it is
still nice to have the full set of facts and arguments in one
place. The book has an extensive bibliography and is scholarly
without being dry. Overall opinion: Its a decent little book.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour