Category: British Monarchy

Celebrating Our Queen

9/8/2015

Cross-posted from monarchistnb

Tomorrow, September 9th, our Queen will become the
longest-reigning Sovereign in modern Canadian history, and
the longest in all of British history. For nearly 64 years,
Elizabeth II has reigned over a diverse and sometimes
troubled Commonwealth of Nations, and somehow she has
only become more beloved over time.

For her part, Her Majesty seems not likely to mark this
historic milestone in an official way. That said, celebrations
are taking place across the Commonwealth. In Canada, we
have a particularly unique set of celebrations scheduled in
municipalities from coast to coast. Thanks to the tireless
efforts of our Dominion and Branch officers, and with the
cooperation of municipal representatives and employees, well
over 125 towns, cities and villages will be hosting a simple
commemoration tomorrow in their communities. The
municipalities range in size from Flowers Cove, NL, to
Mississauga, ON.

In New Brunswick, at least nine municipalities will be hosting
celebrations, and at Government House in Fredericton several
events, including a stunning exhibit on the province’s
connection with the Crown, will highlight the significance of
the day.

Elizabeth II has given her entire adult life in service to her
people. In her 90th year, she seems well poised to continue, as
long as her excellent health should continue. May she
continue to reign, gloriously, over each and every one of us.

God Save the Queen!

Loyally Yours,
Barry R. MacKenzie

Republicans & Democracy

8/10/2015

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

So the Canadian election is underway (number 42 for those
keeping track). The candidates are slowly revving up their
campaigns and the media has gone into full election mode. I thought this might be a good time to get into a topic I've
mulling over for some time.

Republicans like to say that the monarchy is an undemocratic
institution. I would like to dissect that claim.

When To Elect

For starters republicans tend to base their claims on the
position being unelected. The monarch/governor general is
neither the only unelected position in the government nor the
most common. That distinction goes to the entire judicial branch. They have even rejected laws passed by a democratic
Parliament (something the Monarch of Canada has never
done). And yet I don't see anyone clamoring to elect the
Supreme Court. And why would they? There is understanding (based in part on observing our neighbors to the South) that
electing members of the judiciary would not help the courts
do a better job and might in fact damage them through
partisanship. There is an understanding that, under specific
circumstances, it is not desirable to elect a position.

We choose to elect Members of Parliament because we
recognize that partisan competition fuels debate and helps
keep everyone on their best behavior. We do this with the full knowledge that said competition can, and does, create
divisions in society (as the last 10 years makes clear). The
office of the monarch is not a position that requires elections
as it is not a position that crafts policy. The Crown is there to
provide stability, non-partisan leadership and to represent
Canada. It is also the hidden emergency button in case
Canada goes off the rails. None of these roles are enhanced
by elections.

And, as I have noted before, directly-elected heads of state
have been shown to cause a 5-7% decrease in voter turnout
for legislative elections. Indirectly-elected presidents also
have difficulties it has been found.

When To Inherit

Another claim that republicans make is that the monarchy
is somehow undemocratic by virtue of being hereditary. This
is expressed as the monarchy being an "anachronism" or
"medieval" institution. You want to know what other
position is hereditary? Citizenship. Once gained, citizenship
is passed on regardless of qualifications or behavior. It also
confers specific rights on its holders (voting rights for one).
But citizens don't hold a place in government, I can hear you saying. Don't they? The republican ideal is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. In the republican
ideal the people are central to the formation and execution of government. And a government based on the people's
participation cannot escape being based on the hereditary
rights of citizenship.

The monarchist ideal is different. Coming out of the Medieval
period there was an understanding within English practice
(and to a degree, in all of Europe) that the monarch must
consult with the people in governing the country. In Canada
we have a supreme right to be consulted as subjects of Her Majesty. Incidentally the monarch shares this right to have
consultation. In fact the monarch's rights are often a mirror of
the people's rights. Another example is the coronation oath
and the citizenship oath. The monarch promises in the
coronation oath to reign in accordance with Canada's laws
and customs while in the citizenship oath the people promise
much the same towards the monarch.

So why is this important? Because a government that can
reject the monarchy on the basis of its hereditary nature can
reject a citizen's unqualified right to vote on the same
grounds. We use hereditary selection when we want to
prevent an office, group, or position from becoming
monopolized by interest groups. The citizenship can never be
cut down to only people who believe the same things because
it is hereditary. The monarchy cannot become a prize for a
specific partisan viewpoint to capture for the same reason.

The Will Of The People

Some knowledgeable republicans object to monarchy based
on its association with divine right. While divine right did
play a part in the monarchy's history, it was neither a primary
justification for monarchical rule or even an uncontested one.

It is also not a current justification. Monarchs in Britain or in
Canada have never reigned by divine right. This is because in
1688 the Glorious Revolution occurred. It fundamentally and
definitively changed the monarchy from being based on
divine right to being based on the consent of Parliament.
While certain phrases such as 'by the grace of god' have been
kept they hide the fact that the monarch reigns by the consent
of Parliament, not the authority of God.

While the Rob Fords of the world can cling to power through
appeals to their democratic selection the monarchy is in a far
more precarious position. A monarch who tried to abuse power would simply be gone. Without democratic legitimacy
the monarch is counterfactually more accountable to the
people.

A related difficulty is when two democratically-elected offices
come into conflict. With both able to claim to represent the
people the argument can become messy and often boils down
to who can better use the powers of the state. The monarch
has no such recourse and must acquiesce to the democratic
office.

Republicans should not be allowed to get away with using
appeals to democracy to shut down debate. Monarchists can,
and should, make the argument that, far from being an undemocratic institution, the monarchy is Canada's most unappreciated democratic institution.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Summoning the Magnum Concilium

7/17/2015

In my short history on the
origins of Parliament I
also briefly discussed the
Magnum Concilium. While an
important part in the story of
Parliament in the course of
my research I have come to
the conclusion it may have a
part to play in the present.

While it is easy to think of the
Magnum Concilium as just
being what Parliament used
to be called that would be
incorrect. The Magnum Concilium was strictly an advisory
body that could loan the king money from time to time it had
no power to legislate. This fact was confirmed in 1640 when
the Magnum Concilium summoned by King Charles I refused
to take on the legislative powers of Parliament.

When the Magnum Concilium last met it had been dormant
for generations and it is in the same situation today. But its
unique character makes it ideally suited for a revival. The
House of Lords is increasingly not what its name implies.
'Democratic' reforms have turned the House of Lords into a
chamber of partisan appointment. Britain's nobility have
found themselves in the situation of not having an official
means of contributing to the country's well-being.

In 2008 Christopher Russell Bailey, 5th Baron Glanusk,
suggested the Magnum Concilium be summoned. However,
the purpose of this gathering would be purely social. I have
another idea. The Magnum Concilium should be summoned
for the purposes it once was; discussing national issues and
funding royal initiatives. The former duty could be carried out
as a sort of 'national think tank'. The realm's barons gathered
together discussing the issues of the day without the worries
of partisan politics interfering. Sounds almost noble (terrible
pun is terrible). The latter duty has even more intriguing
potential.

Prince Charles is widely known for
his work with charities. The nobility
is seen as having a lot of wealth (this
is not entirely true since a great deal
is tied up in land rather than in coin
but its still a pretty penny). A part
of a restored Magnum Concilium's
duties might be the funding of
charity and infrastructure projects.

I mention Prince Charles specifically
since he is currently in a tough spot.
He is passionate about a great many
worthy causes but restricted by the mistaken belief that to be
neutral he can't be political. A revived Magnum Concilium
would allow the future king the ability to continue making a
difference without being seen as being tied to a single party.
He might not even need to take a public stand. Simply set the
process in motion by recalling the Magnum Concilium and
laying the ground rules. I'm sure Charles would be happy to
see worthy causes supported even if he can't publicly say
anything.

As for the nobility the new emphasis on public service will
restore the rusted value of noblesse oblige. Who knows, the
Magnum Concilium might even become more popular than
Parliament.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Song of Defiance

6/15/2015

On October 19th, 1781 Lord Cornwallis surrendered Yorktown to the French and Americans. Legend has it the British drummers and fifers played The World Turned Upside Down to demonstrate the confusion at this turn of events. Loyalists maintain the British instead played When The King Enjoys His Own Again (which has the same tune) to demonstrate the British surrendered with a defiant spirit. When The King Enjoys His Own Again had by 1781 a long history of expressing loyalist sentiment.

Published in 1641 by Martin Parker it was associated with the Cavaliers, supporters of King Charles I & King Charles II. After the restoration of King Charles II to the Throne of England it was sung in celebration.

Later the Jacobites would adopt the song as well in their, ultimately futile, attempt to get their candidate on the throne.

Lyrics:

Let rogues and cheats prognosticate
Concerning king's or kingdom's fate
I think myself to be as wise
As he that gazeth on the skies
My sight goes beyond
The depth of a pond
Or rivers in the greatest rain
Whereby I can tell
That all will be well
When the King enjoys his own again
Yes, this I can tell
That all will be well
When the King enjoys his own again

There's neither Swallow, Dove, or Dade
Can soar more high or deeper wade
Nor show a reason from the stars
What causeth peace or civil wars
The man in the moon
May wear out his shoon
By running after Charles his wain
But all's to no end,
For the times will not mend
Till the King enjoys his own again
Yes, this I can tell
That all will be well
When the King enjoys his own again

Full forty years this royal crown
Hath been his father's and his own
And is there anyone but he
That in the same should sharer be?
For better may
The scepter sway
Than he that hath such right to reign?
Then let's hope for a peace,
For the wars will not cease
Till the king enjoys his own again
Yes, this I can tell
That all will be well
When the King enjoys his own again

Though for a time we see Whitehall
With cobwebs hanging on the wall
Instead of gold and silver brave
Which formerly was wont to have
With rich perfume
In every room,
Delightful to that princely train
Yet the old again shall be
When the time you see
That the King enjoys his own again
Yes, this I can tell
That all will be well
When the King enjoys his own again

Then fears avaunt, upon the hill
My hope shall cast her anchor still
Until I see some peaceful dove
Bring home the branch I dearly love
Then will I wait
Till the waters abate
Which now disturb my troubled brain
Then for ever rejoice,
When I've heard the voice
That the King enjoys his own again
Yes, this I can tell
That all will be well
When the King enjoys his own again

---

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Black Spider Memos

5/19/2015

The British Government has at
last published the 'Black Spider'
memos (so called due to the
margin notes and underlining the
Prince adds in black ink). To the
disappointment of republicans
and conspiracy theorists the
memos did not include;
demands, threats, plans for one
world government, partisan
attacks, gibberish, or political
sensitive issues. What the memos
did reveal is the Prince's concern for issues not likely to be on the
government's radar. In short they show Prince Charles
making appropriate use of The Right to Encourage & The
Right to Warn. Others have already done a good job of
outlining the importance of these letters so I will (try) not re-tread here. Instead, here are the direct links to each piece of
correspondence.

Correspondence with the Prime Minister

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Education

Correspondence with the Minister for Environment

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Health

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Office

Correspondence with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

The Prince has every right to make his views known. His
involvement in each area discussed has been long-term and
hands-on. It is no exaggeration to say he has far more expertise on some cabinet portfolios than the ministers themselves. Indeed, the turnover in cabinet has been a source
of frustration for the Prince as each new minister comes into
the job with little knowledge of what work has already been
done and what still needs attention. Much like the Queen, the Prince is a valuable source of institutional knowledge that ministers have always been appreciative of.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Monarchist Book Recommendation

2/13/2015

By: Mr. Windsor

It has become so cold in Edmonton that I’m debating whether it is worthwhile to go skating or not. Staying inside with a good cup of tea and a great book suddenly seems like the better option. As a matter of fact, I recently read quite an educational book that changed my perception of our Queen. I’d like to briefly talk about Her Majesty: Sixty Regal Years (Published in 2012) by Brian Hoey. Maybe after this you may decide to read this wonderful book.

The biography starts off by introducing a typical day of Queen Elizabeth II and later on describes her early life as a Princess, making sure to acknowledge her war effort during the Second World War. It describes how people had doubts about Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark who later became the Queen's husband in 1947. Afterwards, Brain Hoey comments on how the tragic events involving Diana but later writes about the engagement to Camilla and how both events greatly affected our Queen.

It mentions Her Majesty’s role in politics and remarks upon the constant relationship between her Prime Ministers and Ministers of her parliaments. However, my favorite section of the book is the chapters dedicated to talking about her duty to the Commonwealth of Nations. The chapters mentions her great admiration for the many countries involved in the Commonwealth.

Another noteworthy section in the book debunks many common myths of the “Cases against Monarchy” and talks about the cost of the monarchy in Britain including the many bonuses and benefits of having their Head of State.

So just in case the Canadian winter weather has hit your humble abode, I recommend reading a good book on our Queen.

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 Monarchs of Canada: A Timeline

11/25/2014

Monarchs have ruled Canada since before Canada was a recognizable entity. This article is an overview of Canada's monarchs which is, as I will explain in a second, by necessity incomplete. Note that below if both the king and the queen are listed it means they ruled as co-sovereigns. Also note that I am defining 'Canada' as the geographic area of the current country. Finally, note that I have used the dates for the reign of each monarch rather than birth-death.

Pre-Contact North America

It is often overlooked that many of the aboriginal tribes that inhabit Canada at one time had hereditary chiefs. In fact some still do on a formal or informal basis. However, with 600+ recognized nations and fragmentary records from pre-contact civilizations it is nearly impossible to include a complete overview of native kingship in the context of this article. In the future I will attempt an article outlining a history of Canada's hereditary chiefs. Sufficed to say at present that hereditary and elected kingship has a long history in Canada.

Our French Monarchs (1534-1763)

The French Crown ruled over the parts of Canada now comprising of the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, & Nova Scotia. Two French dynasties ruled Canada before the colony was ceded to the British in 1763.

Francis I (1534–1547)
House of Valois

Henry II (1547–1559)
House of Valois

Francis II (1559–1560)
House of Valois

Charles IX (1560–1574)
House of Valois

Henry III (1574–1589)
House of Valois

Henry IV (1589–1610)
House of Bourbon

Louis XIII (1610–1643)
House of Bourbon

Louis XIV (1643–1715)
House of Bourbon

Louis XV (1715–1763)
House of Bourbon

Our English/British Monarchs (1497-1931)

The English Crown ruled parts of what would become the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and northern Ontario. It would gain areas ruled by the French Crown in 1763.

Until 1707 it is correct to refer to the English Crown. After March 6th of that year England and Scotland united into a single kingdom called Great Britain.

Henry VII (1497–1509)
House of Tudor

Henry VIII (1409–1547)
House of Tudor

Edward VI (1547–1553)
House of Tudor

Mary I
(1553–1558)
House of Tudor

Philip II of Spain
(Co-sovereign)
House of Habsburg

Elizabeth I (1558–1603)
House of Tudor

James I (1603–1625)
House of Stuart

Charles I (1625–1649)
House of Stuart

Charles II (1670–1685)
House of Stuart

James II (1685–1688)
House of Stuart

William III
(1650–1702)
House of Orange-Nassau

Mary II of England (Co-sovereign)
House of Stuart

Anne (1702–1714)
House of Stuart

-Kingdom of Great Britain established, 1707

George I (1714–1727)
House of Hanover

George II (1727–1760)
House of Hanover

George III (1760–1820)
House of Hanover

George IV (1820–1830)
House of Hanover

William IV (1830–1837)
House of Hanover

Victoria (1837–1901)
House of Hanover

-Dominion of Canada established, 1867

Edward VII (1901–1910)
House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

George V (1910–1931 as British sovereign)
House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Our Canadian Monarchs (1931-Present)

The Canadian Crown became separate from the British Crown in 1931 due to the Statute of Westminster. More than 3/4th of the intervening period has been reigned over by a single sovereign.

George V (1931–1936 as Canadian sovereign)
House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (until 1917)
House of Windsor (after 1917)

Edward VIII (1936)
House of Windsor

George VI (1936–1952)
House of Windsor

Elizabeth II (1952-Present)
House of Windsor

Well I hope you enjoyed this timeline as much as I enjoyed putting it together.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Forward>>

Celebrating Our Queen

Republicans & Democracy

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

When To Elect

When To Inherit

The Will Of The People

Summoning the Magnum Concilium

Song of Defiance

The Black Spider Memos

Monarchist Book Recommendation

Queen Victoria’s Constitutional Monarchy

The Monarchs of Canada: A Timeline

Pre-Contact North America

Our French Monarchs (1534-1763)

Our English/British Monarchs (1497-1931)

Our Canadian Monarchs (1931-Present)

About

Archives

Categories

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, orshould be. But appeals to democracy areusually designed to shut debate down,not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

When To Elect

When To Inherit

The Will Of The People

Pre-Contact North America

Our French Monarchs (1534-1763)

Our English/British Monarchs (1497-1931)

Our Canadian Monarchs (1931-Present)

About

Archives

Categories

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells