I have an occasional interest in stories about Canadians and 
their interactions with the Royal Family. I don't think these 
stories are all that rare as even within the ranks of my 30, or 
so, coworkers two have shared stories about Royal Tours. The 
first is a story I have I may have already shared at one point.
 
When my coworker was a young girl she was part of an event 
in Riverview, New Brunswick. I believe this would have been 
the 1984 Royal Tour which celebrated New Brunswick's
bicentennial. While the Queen had gone to Sackville for an 
event, Prince Philip attended an event in Riverview. The local
school seems to have had their students attend. As it turns out
my future coworker was one of the few students who dressed
up for the occasion. Either noticing that she had put some
effort into her appearance or that she was somewhat self-
conscious about this fact, Prince Philip approached her and
remarked about the somewhat unkempt appearance of the
other attendees.

The second story was relayed to me recently by a second
coworker. His son is a member of the RCMP and when he was
a rookie he was assigned to be part of the Queen's security
detail while she was staying at a hotel in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Normally a rookie would not be given this job but it was found at the last minute that another officer assigned to the security
detail did not have a suit. My coworker's son was asked if he
did. He in fact did which got him added to the Queen's
security. That night he was assigned to the hotel grounds
where he chatted with a senior member of the security detail.
This man had an ear piece that was connected to microphones
in the Queen's bedroom so at the first sign of trouble he would
be alerted. The next morning the young rookie was assigned to the kitchen. The cook asked if he wanted a piece of
blueberry pie. He accepted and as he was eating he was made
aware of the fact that only one other piece had been served
from that pie which was the Queen's piece. I can only make
assumptions but it may well be that the Queen's food is kept
separate to avoid the potential for poisoning.

​Anyways, these have been two stories about Canadian Royal
Tours. I hope you found them at least a little bit interesting.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Canadian Monarchy has a long history with the original 
inhabitants of Canada. And despite the failures of successive 
elected governments to uphold promises made to these First 
Nations, the relationship between them and the Royal Family 
remains strong. One comparatively recent expression of this 
relationship is the giving of names by tribes to Royal Family 
members. Below are just the ones I was able to track down. 

Mother of All People

Her Majesty was given this name in
1959 by the Salish Nation. It actually
echos two names from the past. King
George III was referred to as the Great Father during negotiations with First
Nations and Queen Victoria came to be known as the Great White Mother.

Attaniout Ikeneego
(Son of the Big Boss)

Prince Charles was given this name in
1976 by the Inuit as a direct reference to
his position as heir. While this was the
first time Prince Charles was honoured
in this way it was not to be the last. He
has been given at least three other
names and titles.

Red Crow

In 1977 Prince Charles was granted a Kainai Chieftainship by
the Blood Tribe for his work advocating for First Nations
along with the name Red Crow which seems to refer to an
important chief in their history.

Leading Star

Given to Prince Charles in 1986 by Cree and Ojibwa students
in Winnipeg. 
​
Pisimwa Kamiwohkitahpamikohk
(The Sun Looks at Him in a Good Way)

Given to Prince Charles in 2001 by elders of the Northern
Plains people.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Recently a preposterous letter was printed in the editorial 
section of the local newspaper. The author stated that the 
reason you don't hear about Canada's 'founding mothers' is 
because there were none. He challenged his readers to name 
one. Challenge accepted. I will provide a short biography of 
one of them. But there are in fact a good number of women
who played a role in bringing about a united Canada. Their
stories can be found here. 

Queen Victoria: 
Mother of Confederation

While those who paid attention in
history class might know that
Queen Victoria chose the location
of Canada's capital, there are few
who know how extensive her role
really was.

As the details of Confederation were slowly hammered out it
soon became time for the delegates to head to London for the
final push to bring about the new union. Once there Queen
Victoria worked to shore up support for Confederation. She is
recorded to have told the Nova Scotian delegation that, “I take
the deepest interest in it, for I believe it will make the
provinces great and prosperous.” Extra attention needed to
be paid to the Nova Scotian delegates as anti-union sentiment
was already growing in the colony. In a private audience with
John A. Macdonald (the head of the conference) she thanked
him for his efforts and once again outlined how important it
was to bring about an agreement; “I am very glad to see you
on this mission. It is a very important measure and you have
all exhibited so much loyalty.”

Queen Victoria was asked to choose the capital of the new
dominion. This was a wise decision. The colonies each had
their own capitals and growing commercial centres, such as
Montreal and Toronto, coveted the prestige of such a
designation (along with the likely increase in funding). By
leaving the decision up to a respected neutral arbiter the
conference delegates side-stepped a potential landmine that
might have brought the conference to a halt. The Queen
likewise recognized in her decision a potentially imminent
threat (invasion by the Americans) and a hypothetical future
threat (national unity). The new capital was to be far from the
border with the United States, in a small logging town,
directly between the two most populous provinces. It was a
decision that favoured no one in particular and gave the new
​dominion the best shot at success. 

And indeed, Queen Victoria's status as a uniting figure should
not be underestimated. Before the Charlottetown Conference
few of the delegates from central Canada had even been to
the Maritime colonies and vise versa. There was a level of
distrust and difference in cultures that had to be overcome.
Perhaps this is why that one of the first things agreed upon
was that the new union would continue to be a monarchy.
This sentiment would be again reaffirmed during John A.
Macdonald's audience with the Queen where it is recorded he
declared,"We have desired in this measure to declare in the
most solemn and emphatic manner our resolve to be under
the sovereignty of Your Majesty and your family forever." 

Queen Victoria would also hold court with the wives and
daughters of the delegates. While at first glance this would
seem to be a rather unimportant event in the journey to
Confederation, I would have to disagree. Both the wives and
daughters were courted at each stage of negotiations to try
and sway delegate opinion. Some of the wives are known to
have influenced their husbands' opinions. Their diaries are
some of the only sources we have on what happened at these
conferences (especially the early ones) which clearly indicates
they were aware of how proceeding were going. By holding
court with them Queen Victoria could both subtly influence
opinion and ascertain how negotiations were going.

​In the end the British North American Act was given royal
assent by the Queen in 1867. She might not have known it but
her father had become equally enthusiastic about the idea of
uniting the colonies many years earlier after he spent time
living in Canada. Queen Victoria became known in her own
lifetime as the Mother of Confederation. It is a title that is
completely deserved.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Recently I've been in the process of de-cluttering my book
shelves of some of the hundreds of magazines I've bought over
the last few years. After keeping a few stacks of the more
useful ones I've been selling/donating the rest. And while I
have a good collection of books on monarchs I don't have any
by monarchs. But that doesn't mean they never wrote any.
The following is a not-at-all exhaustive list of English
monarchs who had a literary bent.

King Henry VIII

Defence of the Seven Sacraments (1521)
A Catholic polemic against the early
Protestant writers. Link 

The Glass of Truth (1532)
This work was published anonymously
and argues the king's case for an
annulment of his first marriage. Link

King James VI & I

Some Reulis and Cautelis to be observit
and eschewit in Scottis poesie (1584)
Published by the 19-year old King of
Scotland and deals with poetry in the
Scottish tradition.

​Daemonologie (1597)
A Socratic Dialogue on the topics of black
magic, demons, and witch hunting. It is
possible this work had an influence on
Shakespeare's play Macbeth. Link 

The True Law of Free Monarchies (1598)
This work explains the king's views on absolute monarchy and
is thought to be a rebuttal to social contract ideas circulating
​at the time.

Basilikon Doron (1599)
This book deals with what needs to be done to be a good king
and is written as a private letter to his son and heir. As such
this work it is part of the mirrors for princes literary
genre. Originally only seven copies were printed but a second
​printing in 1607 sold in the thousands. Link

A Counterblaste to Tobacco (1604)
Perhaps one of the oldest anti-tobacco publications. The king
criticizes tobacco for being harmful to the lungs and hateful to
​the nose. Link

King Charles I

Eikon Basilike (1649)
Allegedly written by the king himself. It 
was published ten days after his murder.
The book both justifies royalism and asks
for leniency the king's executioners. The
book would remain popular throughout the following years
much to the Protectorate's chagrin. So much so that a book
countering the arguments put forward Eikon Basilike was
commissioned. This effort failed and sympathy for the king
continued well into the Restoration period. If it indeed was
Charles I who wrote this work (and there is some dispute on
this point) it means that even in death he continued to
frustrate his enemies. Link

Queen Victoria

Leaves from the Journal of our Life in
the Highlands (1868)
Queen Victoria is estimated to have
written about 2000 words per day, or
sixty million words during her lifetime.
Mostly these were personal letters with
some collections being published during
her lifetime. Link 

The Letters of Queen Victoria (1908)
A posthumous publication of her letters from 1837 to 1861.
Link

The Adventures of Alice Laselles (2015)
One of Victoria's earliest writings is also one of the last to be
published. This is a children's book written when Victoria was
still a young princess. Royal Central has an excellent article
on the background of this work.

Prince Charles

The Old Man of Lochnagar (1980)
Prince Charles has continued the literary
tradition of his ancestors. His first book
is for children and contains elements of
Scottish folklore. He apparently
entertained his brothers with the story
when they were younger.

A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture (1989)
Prince Charles gives his opinions on the architecture of the
United Kingdom.

Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World (2010)
This work looks at how the problems associated with climate
change, architecture, and agriculture ultimately come back to
humanity's growing disconnect with nature. Link  

There are of course many other monarchs who have taken the
time to put pen to paper. A short list of such works was put
together on Reddit a number of years back.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

"A king is a king, not because he is rich
and powerful, not because he is a
successful politician, not because he
belongs to a particular creed or to a
national group. He is King because he is
born. And in choosing to leave the
selection of their head of state to this
most common denominator in the
world -the accident of birth- Canadians
implicitly proclaim their faith in human
equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political
manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory
of the human person." 

~Jacques Monet, historian and author

"I can safely say that on most policy
issues, there are probably no two people
in the House who agree less than Peter
and I. However, we found a sense of
camaraderie... There are two things on
which we do share agreement. One of
those is the importance of Canadian
history. I thank Peter for his constant
reminders of the importance of
Canadian history in this House. The
second, strangely enough, is the
monarchy. Peter and I share being
monarchists. I believe the constitutional
monarchy is one of the foundations of our democracy,
because when one is from my community, one knows it is
hard to upstage a queen."
​
~Randall Garrison, politician and human rights activist

"The Globe and Mail stated last July
that “The monarchy is the bedrock of
Canada's constitutional order.” I firmly
agree, and I have always believed that.
I am proud to be a strong monarchist,
holding firm to the belief that historical
continuity is the best anchor for bold
and progressive governance. I would
like to express my sincere hope that Her
Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh will
continue to be beacons of love and
devotion for years to come."

~Alexandra Mendès, politician

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Earlier this month Prince Reza 
Pahlavi, claimant to the throne of 
Iran, addressed a meeting of 
international academics, scientists,
strategists, researchers, artists,
authors, entrepreneurs, and other
intellectuals gathered in the City of
Toronto. The gathering was of
supporters of The Phoenix Project
​of Iran.  

This was the first research conference the group has put
together. The group itself was only founded in September of
last year by Dr. Alayar Kangarlu, a professor at Columbia
University. So far the organization seems to be gaining a lot of
​support.

Donald Trump's state visit to the 
United Kingdom should be winding 
down by the time this article is 
posted. It has been an interesting 
spectacle to watch. The Queen 
once again proved she can perform 
as national hostess to whatever guest
pays her a visit. And for Donald
Trump's part he seems to have
brushed up on royal protocol for
the visit which is itself a surprise
given ​his iconoclastic view of
tradition.

Meanwhile, Prince Charles did not let a golden opportunity to
champion one of his oldest causes go to waste. The Guardian
is reporting that a 15 minute chat turned into a 90 minute
discussion on climate change. That Prince Charles was unable
to change Donald Trump's mind on this issue is perhaps not
surprising. Afterwards Trump summed up the meeting thus;

I would hazard to guess this is one of the longest meetings on
climate change the president has ever had. If there was going
to be a chance to change his mind on this issue a face-to-face
meeting was the way to go about it. Trump famously has little
use for the written word. 

In the end Trump blamed other countries for the problem and
stated they should be the ones to fix it. Not a great result but
credit should be given to Prince Charles for making a
passionate case for action. The Prince of Wales often gets
criticized for meddling but I feel it is these instances where
the prince can use his unique position to try and do some
good that he really values.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Victoria Day long weekend was somewhat busier than 
normal this year. There was also some news I wanted to touch
on that didn't warrant their own posts.

As in previous years I
treated my coworkers
to cake on Saturday. I
also had the chance on
Friday to listen in on
some of the newer hires
talking positively about
​the Royal Family.

On Saturday I learned that Australian
Prime Minister Scott Morrison, leader
of the right-leaning Liberal/National
Coalition, had won the election over
Bill Shorten of the Labor Party. Bill
Shorten has since resigned as leader.
From a strict monarchist perspective
the end of Mr. Shorten's leadership is
welcomed. He had proposed a binding
plebiscite on the future of the monarchy if he won (followed
by a referendum on the specific type of republic to be
adopted). His defeat makes this plan much less likely to
happen. Especially as Prime Minister Scott Morrison has
declared himself to be a monarchist. This would be a
good time for Australian monarchists in the Labor Party to
start encouraging a leadership candidate more friendly to the
​Australian Monarchy to step forward.

On Victoria Day I hosted a meeting
of the New Brunswick branch of the
Monarchist League of Canada in
Fredericton at the Maverick Room
(pictured). I had re-activated the
branch in October of last year
following a two year hiatus that
resulted from the previous chairman
stepping down. Despite the rainy weather we had ten people
show up. After a brief update on the branch's status and a
social time over dinner we discussed what initiatives we
should pursue as a branch going forward. One new member
was signed up at the meeting and a good time was had by all.

An interesting post showed up on the
Monarchists Facebook page stating that the
UK pressure group Republic no longer has a
functioning organization. The investigation
of this claim does provide some solid
evidence that something is wrong. This year
only three press releases have gone out. This
is paltry when compared to previous years. Their social media has likewise been much reduced in volume. This kind of
slowdown can often be attributed to a lack of volunteers
which stems from a demotivated base. However, the
slowdown does coincide with executive board elections held at
the start of the year so internal conflicts can't be ruled out.
The organization still exists but if it can't find a new strategy
beyond being snarky killjoys they are ​doomed.

I hope everyone had an enjoyable Victoria Day (whatever the
weather might have been).

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Royal Prerogative refers to the powers Her Majesty wields,
either of her own accord or under advice from her ministers.
They are vast and somewhat poorly understood. They are also
rarely used unilaterally. Even so, their mere existence has at
times led to calls for them to be taken away or modified in
some way.

In Canada the most obvious examples of powers that some
want limits placed on would be the power to prorogue
parliament, dissolve parliament, and call by-elections. As it
happens Britain has modified some of these powers so it
might be instructive to look at what results it has produced.

Westminster is known as the Mother of all
Parliaments. It is what our parliament and
many others base their structure on. This
can sometimes obscure the fact that the
British Parliament didn't stop evolving in the meantime. The
Westminster Parliament our own sought to emulate is very
different these days. One of the ways it has become different
only ​went into effect in 2011. The Canadian Crown may
dissolve Parliament (usually on the advice of the prime
minister). The British Crown has lost this ability. In technical
terms those powers were put into abeyance. James Bowden
over at the Parliamentum blog has an in-depth look at the
Fixed-term Parliament Act (the legislation that now governs
when parliament is dissolved in Britain).

The act was passed so that prime ministers could no longer
time elections in their favour. Now, this strikes me as a bit of
a solution in search of a problem. After all, their is good
evidence that voters punish politicians who blatantly try to
​game the system in this way. Which is something the British
Prime Minister ought to have kept in mind back in 2017 when
she used the act (and a willing opposition) to get an early
election called and returned to parliament politically
weakened.

You might expect this to mean the government would have a
short life. Normally, you would be right but the most
immediate effect of the Fixed-term Parliament Act has been
to make it harder for governments to be defeated. It is no
longer the case that merely losing a vote is seen as a matter of
confidence, it has to be explicitly stated in a separate motion.
Which means MPs can vote against a bill while later voting to
keep the government alive. And even if a confidence motion
does succeed parliament still has 14 days to find a new prime
minister and avoid an early election.   

This has had some pretty nasty effects on good governance.
The British Conservatives have been able to remain in
government while engaged in a civil war within their own
party. With both the Conservative and Labour Parties
statistically tied since the end of 2017 the Conservatives
want to avoid an election if possible. It has gotten so bad the
Queen has started to have to gently remind MPs to do
their job.

This means that MPs never face a reckoning for how they
vote in Parliament. Had the previous method still been in
effect Britain would likely by now have gone through an
election ​and a new parliament would have been sworn in. This
would have had two positive effects;
1. It would calm demands for a second referendum since
there is little chance the election campaign wouldn't become
an unofficial referendum on Brexit. 
2. Having just fought an election the various factions in
Parliament would be in no condition to fight another one.
This is part of the reason why new governments are given a
bit of leeway in setting the agenda.

Would this have prevented the Brexit votes from reaching the
heights of absurdity that they have now? It is a definite
maybe. At the very least it would avoid the deadlock I often
​decry in the American system. An important safety valve has
been removed from the British state and one would hope it is
restored promptly.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Perhaps it is because I lived 
in Alberta a number of years 
ago or maybe it is because I 
still have family living there 
​but I find it very easy to get 
dragged into their political 
discussions. The recent 
Alberta election  has not been 
any different. And, as is my 
tradition, I began surveying 
various candidates on 
where they stand on the
Canadian Monarchy.

As always the question asked was simple:
What are your views on the monarchy?
​
​Follow-up questions were not asked. Each candidate was
permitted to say as much or as little they wanted on the topic. 

Contacted via: Facebook

"Hi, the monarchy and Canada's
relationship with it, is of federal
concern, and the Alberta New
Democratic Party has no position
on it."



(Full disclosure: This is a friend of a friend of mine)
​I'll note this is not entirely true. Her Majesty also serves as
Queen in right of Alberta. Much as federalism splits the roles
of government between federal and provincial levels, the
office of the Crown can also be said to be split. As such the
monarchy functions in Alberta in much the same way as it
does at the federal level. It should also be noted that I didn't
ask what the NDP's views on the monarchy are.

Contacted via: Facebook


"The monarchy is symbolic in
Canada."





A tad short but it will do. Often this type of comment is made
as a criticism (perhaps not in this case though). It shouldn't
be. Symbols are an important part of governance. When the
government invited the Queen to address the legislative
assembly during the 100th anniversary of Alberta's entry into
Confederation it was a symbol of the provincial pride in all it
has accomplished.

Contacted via: Telephone

"I like the tradition of it. I swore an
oath to defend Queen and country
when I was in the Canadian Armed
Forces"




(Full disclosure: I am related to this candidate)
I think this is where many Canadians stand. They don't have a
great appreciation for the constitutional and legal roles of the
monarchy but they like that it makes Canada a little bit
different. I have also noticed that those who have actually
gotten to see how the monarchy infuses our system first hand
of government are the ones who have a stronger support for
it.

Contacted via: Email

"To be honest - given the
circumstances that we find
ourselves within Alberta - I have
not even considered a position on
the Monarchy and the impact the
Monarchy may or may not have on
our every day lives." 

​Mr. Raincock's first email to me actually asked what he should
consider in regard to Canada's ties to the monarchy. And if I
wasn't collecting survey responses at the time I certainly
would have. But I held back. Maybe I'll send him some links
to arguments in favour of the monarchy. Maybe I'll
send him some quotes by prominent Canadians. Or
maybe I'll just recommend an interesting book I've read.

I think this pretty much wraps up this blog's coverage of the
Alberta election. It has been an enlightening, if not always
comfortable, experience.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour