This is the first leadership race for the Liberal Party of Canada
since I began carrying out these surveys in 2017. As I have 
detailed over the years, the Liberal Party of Canada has 
dealt with the matters of the Crown in a decidedly uneven 
manner. That is why I was really interested to see if the 
current crop of candidates had anything interesting to say 
​regarding the monarchy.

Spoiler: for the first time since I began carrying out these
surveys in 2017 I have received no responses at all from any of
the candidates. This has made the typical Crown & Cap
Scoreboard somewhat more research-intensive to fill out.
While I have sent a final appeal for responses the results
below are probably final. As always, if I receive a reply I will
create a separate post going into their views more fully.

​The questions that were posed to the candidates are below.
They are largely the same as in previous leadership surveys.

​Here I have ranked the candidates support for, or opposition
to, the monarchy. Keep in mind this is only my assessment
and your mileage may vary. Also, note that changes may occur
as the campaign goes on.

The crown score is out of five crowns with each candidate
receiving one crown for stating support for the monarchy
in their reply, one crown for having defended the monarchy
in Parliament, two crowns for outlining how they would
improve the monarchy's role in the future, and one crown for
having spoken in support of the monarchy outside of 
Parliament. 

The cap score is likewise out of five caps with one cap given to
a candidate for being opposed to the monarchy in their reply,
one cap for desiring a referendum on the monarchy, one cap
for opposing the monarchy in Parliament and two caps for
making the establishment of a Canadian republic a part of
their policy platform.

Having now carried out seven of these surveys a worrying
trend has begun to appear. The first survey in 2017 received
13 out of 17 replies. Both leadership races in 2020 still had a
majority of candidates responding. 2022 saw that number
drop to a minority for the first time and 2024 didn't see the
sole candidate respond until after they were already leader. 

It is tempting to chalk this up to campaigns operating on
tighter timelines with bigger financial hurdles (this one had
both) but it would be foolish to ignore the cantankerous mood
the public has gotten into. A mood which I feel has led
politicians to raise the drawbridge. You can't be attacked if
you don't put yourself out there in the first place. Better to say
nothing rather than lose a potential vote (or say something
that can be twisted out of proportion). Now, this isn't exactly
new in politics; some elected officials have made a career out
of skipping town hall meetings and debates. Likewise,
frontrunners having a post-it note for what policies they
support is a recurring theme. However, its bad for democracy
and we have an example down south of what happens when
democracies go bad.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

All men think about the Roman Empire is a meme I've 
covered before. This comic takes things a bit further and 
implies all men have a particular empire they obsess over. 
For me, a medievalist, its obviously the Holy Roman Empire,
even if some critics didn't consider it an empire (ahem,
Voltaire).

The comic has a few layers. The guy in the red shirt wants to
be assigned Rome, perhaps because it is one that a lot of
people know about. He is instead assigned the Achaemenids
which is somewhat more obscure (hint: Alexander the Great
beat up one of their members). Interestingly, 'Achaemenids'
applies more to the family than to the empire which implies
he has an interest in the dynasty's later activities in Pontus -
which would put him on the opposite side from the Romans.
The fact the guy who was happy to be assigned the Mongol
Empire says the Mughals aren't bad plays on the fact the
Mughals were partly descended from the Mongolians. 

The final line about someone being assigned the Aztecs plays
on there being some empires that are more socially acceptable
to be obsessed with and one dedicated to human sacrifice
probably isn't it. Although their capital city was a feat of
engineering that rivaled anything Europe was doing at the
time...

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

This post is a bit late as the Canadian 
Future Party has already chosen their 
leader at their founding convention. I 
did still want to do a profile on Dominic 
Cardy's views as he will likely be a
contender at any leadership review after
the election. The hold-up in posting this
article was getting him to answer the
survey I sent him. I have finally received
an answer to the first question which
indirectly answers the others. 

Combined with Cardy's previous statement a few things
can be deduced;

- He likely won't seek to diminish the monarchy but he also
won't repair any of the damage that has been inflicted over
the last decade.

- He is, nominally, a monarchist.

- He is interested how the monarchy might be used to benefit
Canada.

This final point is interesting as a big problem over the years
has been political leaders not wanting to involve the
monarchy at all. Someone who is willing to try make use of
the monarchy to strengthen Canada has potential to be a net
positive as the Royal Family has always been ready to serve. 

Mr. Cardy has not really said much on the monarchy
unprompted. He did criticize the Yukon municipal councilors
who refused to swear an oath to the Crown but that was more
​for rule of law reasons.

Overall, the score of one crown given to him during the lead
up to the party's founding convention, is to me, fair.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Donald Trump has made repeated
statements in recent months about
the desirability of Canada becoming
a state in that most disreputable of
republics. This is besides Trump's
threats to impose eye-watering 25%
tariffs on all Canadian exports.
These threats have led to a degree of
unity across political and social lines
rarely seen in Canada. The prime
minister has called for help from
political leaders at both the federal
and provincial level to oppose two existential threats. The
prime minister has also called on Canada's First Nations for assistance (it is interesting how the more historical
circumstances change, the more they stays the same).

With this show of Canadian unanimity it has been noted that
the King has not yet weighed in on what are essentially
threats to his Canadian realm. Now, there are very good
reasons for why this might be the case. This is after all a
political issue which the Crown tends not to weigh in on
unless asked. Whether ​Justin Trudeau has asked the King is
not knowable at the present time. Given Trudeau's at times
uneven support for the Crown there is reason to believe
he hasn't. But this is all rather immaterial to the question
posed in the title of this article. If King Charles III were going
to join the 'Team Canada' effort against Trump what is the
best way for him to do so? 

This is perhaps the closest to 'normal procedure' we are going
to get on this list. The King adds his voice to the chorus of
Canadians who are dead-set against what Trump is planning.
However, it also makes His Majesty's voice just one among
many and while it would be good to see, and would generate
some headlines, I don't feel its the kind of thing that would
have much effect. The Crown traditionally uses such releases
to either express solidarity with Canadians going through
hardships or to congratulate a person or organization on some
achievement. The closest example to this sort of intervention
is one that did not even occur: During the last Quebec
Succession referendum a Quebec radio host managed to make
it through the Palace switchboards to talk to Queen Elizabeth
II. During this impromptu conversation the radio host
(masquerading as Prime Minister Chretien) asked if the
Queen might issue a statement in favour of Quebec remaining
in Canada. The Queen agreed to this. This just underlines that
the monarch is willing to intervene but his or her elected
government needs to want them to.

Perhaps the King, wishing to be more discrete, pulls Trump
aside at some international meeting and has a private chat.
This has some precedence. During Trump's 2019 state visit to
the United Kingdom the then-Prince Charles turned a 15
minute chat into a 90 minute discussion on climate
change. It is easy to imagine the King being able to arrange
such a meeting. However, much like being lectured for 90
minutes didn't sway Trump to climate change I have my
doubts a talking-to on Canadian sovereignty would do much
better - regardless of Trump's seeming affection for the
Royals.  

Perhaps the King need not speak directly at all. A royal tour of
Canada underlines the King's support for Canada without
saying as much. There would also be plenty of times where the
King could obliquely reference Trump's threats. For instance,
visiting War of 1812 battle sites or visiting military bases (perhaps all of them). The main issue with this idea is lead-
time (of which we have none). Which brings us to...

A working visit is a bit easier to organize and in this case
would comprise of opening Parliament after the coming
election. Queen Elizabeth II opened Parliament twice in 1957
and 1977 which might indicate its a bit easier to pull off short
notice. In this instance you'd definitely want to pull out all the
stops in an effort to basically awe Trump with majesty. A
footnote to this is that the styling 'My government' when
reading the Speech from the Throne has fallen out of favour in recent years. This would be the time to bring it back.

The Crown has an important role to play in confronting
Trump's provocations but the Crown always takes pains not
to over-step into the realm of politics uninvited. So, if the
Crown is going to join the anti-Trump effort, the government
is going to need to ask for its assistance. 

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

On the 26th, the Monarchist League of Canada shared a letter
from one of its members with practical ways the monarchy
could be better highlighted to Canadians. The text of that
​letter has been reproduced below with commentary following.

​I would very much like to commend you on your important
work and also for your very impressive, and motivational,
website. As a former aide-de-camp to the Lieutenant-
Governor of Nova Scotia, I think of myself as a proud
Canadian monarchist. I thoroughly enjoyed perusing your
website and was happy to learn more about your ardent
advocacy role in our country. I also very much enjoyed the
suggestions we as ordinary citizens can do to advocate for our
monarchy.  With this in mind, I thought I might offer a few
additional suggestions you might wish to consider.  These
ideas are intended to help close the gap in many people’s
thinking that our Royal Family are British and therefore not
Canadian.  Some thoughts follow:

a. Improve Parliamentary and Rideau Hall Tours. As a
resident of Ottawa, I can confirm that Parliamentary tours, of
the House of Commons and Senate, as well as Rideau Hall,
provide little real context for these important institutions. A
substantial portion of the explanation provided during the
visits is focused upon architecture. At most the fact that
Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and that King Charles
III is our sovereign, is mentioned in passing. The expectation
is that visitors will know what this means, which sadly is not
usually the case. These tours should provide a more fulsome,
yet concise, explanation of our form of government, the
difference between the institution of the Crown and the Royal
Family members, the uniqueness of our Canadian system, and
the benefits of such a system compared to other models. Such
an approach would provide context for the institutions being
visited. We need to advocate for our system of government.

b. Explain Why We Take The Loyal Oath. Similar to the
above, there are times and institutions, such as when recruits
join the Canadian Armed Forces, where people are required to
take the loyal oath. Regrettably, there is never an explanation
of why this is required, or why it is important.  Such an
explanation would make the oath more meaningful and
hopefully produce better informed advocates for our system.      
c. Conduct Easily Achievable Royal Visits To Canadian Units
Visiting Or Near The United Kingdom. Propose that HRH
Prince William routinely visit Canadian service personnel as
they train or transit near the UK.  Prince William is ideal for
this role considering the current health challenges of HM
King Charles III; this will establish a longstanding connection
with our future monarch and Canadian service personnel.
Such visits could be accomplished with minimal disruption to
the Prince’s calendar. A visit to one Navy, Army, and Air Force
unit annually, with appropriate media coverage in Canada,
would be ideal and would not be overly intrusive in the
Prince’s annual duties. For example, the Royal Canadian Air
Force (RCAF) currently has an entire Canadian crew posted to
Lossiemouth, Scotland, undergoing training with the Royal
Air Force on the P8 Poseidon aircraft. Imagine the delight of
the crew if HRH Prince William were to conduct a short
notice, unannounced to the outside world, visit and draw
attention to their important work and make some
congratulatory remarks about the 100th anniversary of the
RCAF.  It would be magic if an article appeared in a major
Canadian newspaper and other news. Similarly, His Majesty’s
Canadian Ships routinely participate in both the NATO
Standing Naval Force Atlantic and Standing Naval Force
Mediterranean formations, which regularly brings them to UK
ports. It would be easy to visit one of these ships during a stop
over. Or the ship’s helicopter could fly the Prince onboard.
Under OP UNIFIER, there is a Canadian Army detachment in
the UK to train Ukrainian soldiers. Also, there is a Canadian-
led brigade forming in Latvia with routine re-supply flights
from Canada which transit near/through the UK. It would be
easy for HRH to be flown to the brigade and back. Most of
these examples are short duration visits that could be
accomplished within a day, often less, and if carefully planned
would result in no, or negligible, additional incremental cost
to the Canadian taxpayer. Although it would be ideal if HRH
Prince William performed the first round of visits, he would
not need to conduct all subsequent events. Through these
routine visits, i.e. three a year, Canadians would become
familiar with members of the Royal Family taking a regular
interest in Canadian service personnel.

d. Conduct Mirco-Royal Visits To Canada. We are fortunate
that Canada is relatively close to the UK.  Despite the
proximity, Royal visits to Canada tend to be long in duration
and include many elements; their very nature has become
complicated and as a result are infrequent. Imagine if a
member of the Royal Family, preferably HRH Prince William,
our future King, conducted one or two ‘surgical’ micro-visits a
year. These visits would be short duration, e.g. one day on the
ground, and very limited in scope but would be designed to
form a routine link to the Canadian people. For example,
consider the NHL playoffs last year, the last game played in
Edmonton (the second last game of the entire season where
Edmonton represented the only remaining Canadian team
vying for Lord Stanley’s Cup). There could have been so much
good public relations generated if Prince William were
discovered spectating the game. Such a visit would need to be
carefully choreographed with appropriate media coverage and
security, of course. Given that the UK’s largest training area is
in Alberta and serviced with support flights, a very low-cost
visit could have been designed. This is just one example of
how such routine micro-visits could increase the bond
between our future monarch and the Canadian people.
                                                                                                                  In closing, I hope you find the above ideas useful; they are not
intended to be all encompassing, but rather to provide
examples of what might be possible.  I am sure there are many
other great ideas out there. The proposals above are designed
to improve the knowledge and pride of Canadians in our
unique form of government, establish a routine, visible link
between Canadian service personnel and our Monarchy, and
finally, generate regular contact between our future Monarch
and Canadian society.  Wishing you continued success in your
vital work.

​John in Ottawa

John's first and second suggestion touches on a topic that has
bedeviled Canada for much of the last 50+ years; a lack of
knowledge about Canadian institutions and history combined
with a tendency to focus on the place rather than what goes
on at the place. It really can't be taken for granted anymore
that Canadians would know much of anything about their
country.

John's third suggestion is easily achievable. It is about as
easily achievable as the Royal Family advocating for Canadian
businesses while in other countries in much the same way
they do for British businesses. Which is to say, the only thing
stopping it from happening is the political will of the
government of the day asking the Royal Family to do this.

I'm somewhat in disagreement with the final point. I don't
think current royal tours are long enough. Not to say micro-
tours aren't a useful concept - the Prince of Wales attending
the Stanley Cup playoffs is a good one - its just that I would
hate for them to become the norm. Because once the length is
the norm, cutting down the number of them becomes far too
easy. The problem we face is that the monarchy is seen as
separate from Canadian identity. I want a member of the
Royal Family here so long they become part of the furniture,
so to speak. This is why I have long advocated for a member of
the Royal Family taking on the position of governor general.

That said, these are achievable goals and worth Canadian
monarchists looking into.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour 

Below are links to each candidate's reply and a short look at
any previous comments they may have made in regards to the
monarchy. Candidates who failed to qualify or withdrew are
included for historical reference.

Qualified to appear on the ballot
​Dominic Cardy

​Here I have ranked the candidates support for, or opposition
to, the monarchy. Keep in mind this is only my assessment
and your mileage may vary. Also, note that changes may occur
as the campaign goes on.

The crown score is out of five crowns with each candidate
receiving one crown for stating support for the monarchy
in their reply, one crown for having defended the monarchy
in Parliament, two crowns for outlining how they would
improve the monarchy's role in the future, and one crown for
having spoken in support of the monarchy outside of 
Parliament. 

The cap score is likewise out of five caps with one cap given to
a candidate for being opposed to the monarchy in their reply,
one cap for desiring a referendum on the monarchy, one cap
for opposing the monarchy in Parliament and two caps for
making the establishment of a Canadian republic a part of
their policy platform.

"Regarding the monarchy, I don't have a solid answer. I do know that the monarchy contributes significantly more to the UK economy than it costs the UK taxpayer. If something similar is here in Canada, where at the very least it is break even for the taxpayer, and their position of power is only ceremonial, then I have no issue with the monarchy remaining the figureheads of Canada." 
~Zbig Strycharz, 2024 by-election candidate

Some may wonder why I am polling a minor party with no
seats in Parliament. Basically, it has to do with the voter
support free fall the Liberal Party is in. Its not inconceivable
the Liberal Party could collapse entirely without the NDP or
Greens being able to capitalize. If this were to occur the
Canadian Future Party would be well-positioned to take over
which makes them important, at least for now. For this reason
its good to know where the party candidates stand on the
monarchy. And if Dominic's support is too tepid for your
liking, well, as far as I know you can still run for leader if you
are a member and attend the convention. 

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Over on the Monarchism subreddit user Derpballz posted the 
above image with the caption "This is the ideal monarchist 
state of affairs. You may not like it, but this is what peak 
family, property and tradition preservation looks like."

The Holy Roman Empire may well be the first meme to be 
personified as a country. Certainly, Voltaire with his witty 
description of it being "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an 
empire" had no respect for it. Although, it should be noted he 
also described Canada as being "a few acres of snow".

The empire met its end in 1806. This date is weird to think
about as the empire was a quintessential Medieval creation.
It was, after all, still carrying on while the American traitors
were establishing their republic to Canada's south. It ended
only 50 years before the colonies of British North America
got their act together and united.

Unlike its neighbours (and some of its component states) the
​HRE was not a centralized state. It was highly decentralized
and only became more so as time went on. As the map makes
clear, it had a lot of microstates within its borders. Of these
only Liechtenstein remains as the sole reminder of the
beautiful mess that once took up most of central Europe.

1356 is a good date to pick to highlight the empire's many
eccentricities. It was at that point too decentralized to expand
its borders and too internally divided to reform. It still held on
to lands from a time of earlier centralized authority and the
office of emperor still held a great deal of prestige in Europe.

There is an argument that the HRE had to exist or no one
would have believed such a thing possible. Indeed, no other
region in the world had such an entity. No one would set out
to create such a circumstance either; it is the result of natural
evolution rather than statutory creation. This map captures
the HRE in all its beautiful ugliness.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

In the decade since my first post on 
this topic there has been an explosion 
in interest regarding whether having 
a monarchy has tangible effects on a 
country's development. As it turns out 
a growing body of research says it does
(sometimes to the surprise of the 
researchers themselves). Today I
wanted to highlight two studies I've
recently come across regarding the nurturing of good
economic institutions and results.

Republics and Monarchies: A Differential Analysis of
Economic Growth Link is a study published in 2019 by 
Professors Collins C. Ngwakwe and Mokoko P. Sebola of the
University of Limpopo, South Africa. The study notes that
economic growth between constitutional monarchies and
republics is not statistically significant. However, it was
found that, even if not statistically significant constitutional
monarchy did still edge out republics slightly in mean GDP. 

The primary finding of the paper was that constitutional
monarchies had a lower variance statistic (a measure of
instability) than republics and seems to indicate they are
more economically stable. Readers might recall that one of
the first studies I looked at (The 2008 study by Christian
Bjørnskov & Peter Kurrild‐Klitgaard) noted that over short
time frames republics handle institutional reforms poorly
before 'bouncing back'. This would account for a higher
instability score at a more zoomed out time frame. The
explanation they provide is also interesting;

Readers will also note that my last article I published on this
topic in 2018 had a study by Mauro Guillén that found pretty
much the same thing. The mechanism for encouraging less
messing around in the economy for economic gain are not
fully understood but I will provide one theory of my own.

When traditional monarchies were in the process of turning
into constitutional monarchies, perhaps the aim of parliament
was to prevent the monarchy from interfering in the economy.
But once the politicians were in control, the very same limits
that they had created now limited them in this regard.
Republics have had no such incentives as the presidency is an
institution they hope to one day hold and placing limits on it
may be seen as self-defeating. As such, economic interference
by the executive is allowed to continue unabated.

Disclaimer: This theory is just based on what evidence I
have from these studies and my own knowledge of history, it
could be completely wrong.


The next study was published in 2018 before I had written my
last article but it was published in an off-line economics
journal in Scotland. So it was a bit harder to get ahold of. I've
recently discovered the joys of inter-library loans so don't be
surprised if more studies are highlighted from similar
sources. 'God Save The Queen, God Save Us All? Monarchies
And Institutional Quality' by Prof. Sebastian Garmann is a bit
more beefy and had numerous conclusions. Note that due to
this study being a bit harder for people to get ahold of
themselves I've quoted far more of the results than I
otherwise would have. Also note that this researcher didn't
separate constitutional and absolute monarchies and applies
to both.

1. Base line results:
"Most importantly, I find highly significant (at the 1% level)
effects of monarchy on institutional quality for all six
indicators. In most cases, the t-statistic exceeds five. As the
indicators have been normalized to a standard deviation of
one, the coefficients can simply be interpreted in terms of
standard deviations. The maximum effect is found for
“Control of corruption”, for which the estimate suggests that
monarchy is associated with an increase in approximately
one standard deviation. The lowest effect, which is found for
“Voice and accountability”, still suggests an increase in more
than 0.4 standard deviations. The effects are thus of a very
large magnitude."

2. Mediating Factors:
"In the robustness checks, I show that the results still hold
when all control variables are included simultaneously."

3. Geographic Mediators
"While the coefficients of main interest slightly drop in size,
they all stay statistically significant. With the exception of
“Voice and accountability” as the outcome, all monarchy
effects are even significant at the 1% level with large t-
statistics. Thus, geographical factors cannot explain away
the positive association between monarchy and institutional
quality."

4. Historical Mediators
"From the historical variables, the legal origin indicators
show that all legal origins perform better than Socialist legal
origin. However, only Scandinavian and German legal
origin is significant in most specifications. The other control
variables also seldom show any significant effects.
Importantly, the monarchy effects stay highly significant
and of a very large magnitude. Thus, historical factors
cannot explain away the association between monarchy and
institutional quality."

5. Socioeconomic mediators
"From the control variables, GDP per capita has – as
expected – a highly significant positive influence on
institutional quality. The same is true in some cases for
population density, which obviously seems more important
than population size per se. ... Most importantly, monarchy
is still significantly associated with most indicators, and the
magnitude of the coefficients stays roughly the same. The
only exceptions are the outcomes “Political stability and
absence of violence” as well as “Voice and accountability”,
for which the monarchy effect is marginally insignificant (p-
values 0.126 and 0.138). However, the magnitude of these
effects is comparable to the magnitudes seen in Tables 1–3
and the marginal insignificance therefore was likely caused
by the strong decline in the number of observations (and
thus also in the available degrees of freedom). ... It is
interesting to assess the magnitude of the monarchy effect.
For example, consider the outcome “Government
effectiveness”. Going from a republic to a monarchy
increases this indicator by approximately 0.4 standard
deviations. As a comparison, an increase in the Polity2 index
of 1 point increases this indicator by approximately 0.025
standard deviations. Thus, taking these estimates at face
value, a change in the constitutional form from a republic to
a monarchy would have, ceteris paribus, the same effect as
an increase in the polity2 index of 16 points. As the polity2
index ranges from -10 to 10, this would imply that a change
from a republic to a monarchy would have approximately
the same effect on “Government effectiveness” as going from
a (moderate) autocracy (“anocracy” according to Fearon
and Laitin, 2003) to a full democracy. Thus, the estimated
monarchy effects are extremely large and meaningful."

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

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Tomorrow will mark ten years of this blog being active. Sure, 
pedants will note that the first article was published the 14th 
of May, 2014 but that was an introductory post so let's ignore 
it.

This post is a bit of a reflection on how the blog has changed
over the years. It might also be an excuse to post some of the
​articles I most enjoyed writing.

While the concept of a weekly compilation of royal news was
good in theory, in practice this feature lasted only as long as
I had a working laptop and worked the night shift. The death
of my laptop made this format simply too time-consuming. It
​also had the distinct problem of being time-sensitive.

June 8-14th
June 15-21st
​June 22-28th
June 29th-July 5th
July 6-12th
July 13th-August 19th

When I posted the first one of these articles I had but a pious
hope that there would one day be an evidentiary argument
against republicanism. As it happens this article was well-
timed as the coming decade would see the study of monarch
undergo something of a renaissance. And while its been 2018
since the last entry in this series I do in fact have two more
studies I want to highlight (if inter-library loans ever gets
back to me).

Article One
Article Two
Article Three
Article Four
Article Five
Article Six  

Meme culture has this way of getting into everything. The first
one posted to the website was really just a self-deprecating
look at online monarchism but later additions would slowly
add more discussion to the ideas behind the memes as a semi-
regular section of the blog. 

I'd rank this as the most important initiative this blog has
carried out. Starting in 2017 this blog began surveying
leadership candidates of the major federal parties. While the
rate of reply has varied from contest to contest it has served
to give a wider picture of what the prominent members of
each party thing about the monarchy.

Leadership Surveys

The Grand Chief and Grand Council of the Mi'kmaw 
-Written as part of my look at native kingship. While this
tribe lives in my area of Canada I had never learned any of
the information that comprises this article in school. On that
point alone it was interesting to research. I've done a few
different articles on native kingship and in fact was alluded to
in an article from the first year of this blog.

Crown Jewels of Canada Society
-This article was fun to write because it was stumbled upon
completely by accident. I was looking to do an article on the
Crown Jewels of Canada (which I eventually did) when I
found out Canada has a lady's social group called that.

My Reply to John Boyko
-I am willing to admit that I enjoy tearing poorly constructed
arguments to shreds. If that is a character flaw then so be it.
Boyko's argument had so many holes I was infuriated no one
called him on it before it was published. But if no one else was
going to, I sure as hell was.

The Erin O'Toole Article
-Even if leadership contests are a good time to get candidates
to open up about what they think on an issue, you are still
sending multiple messages to get a reply. And if this kind of
project is going to be of any use it has to be done long before
the leadership convention. In this specific case a staffer took
liberties with his bosses views which caused him, me, and the
Monarchist League of Canada a bit of trouble. I've been more
diligent with double-checking things since then but the article
is still embarrassing.

Henry VIII's Caesaropapism and its Modern Effects
-Its with the advantage of hindsight that I declare this article
complete drivel. An article so bad its second part was never
written. Its not that any of its individual parts are untrue but
the conclusion I drew from those parts most certainly is. This
is why I haven't removed it (and have never removed any
​article); its still informative even if flawed.

Shortly after I started this blog I developed the idea of it
having multiple writers. From time to time I have invited (or
been offered) help writing this blog. None have stayed around
for very long but I do want to highlight their contributions.

Mr. Windsor (2014-2015) 3 Articles
Barry MacKenzie (2014-2015) 4 Articles
Kevin Gillespie (2014-2015) 3 Articles
Lord Ludichris (2022) 2 Articles

Honestly I worried I would run out of topics after the first
year but there has always been more to discover about the
Canadian Monarchy in particular and the institution of
monarchy in general. Who know? Maybe in twenty years I'll
find that I haven't written about everything there is to know
about the monarchy either.

Loyally Yours,
The Maple Monarchists

Across Canada sports events are held every 
year which have a royal connection or an 
award connecting back to the monarchy. I 
wrote about one such event last September, 
The Royal Saint John's Regatta. 

Sports bring people together in a shared 
activity. This smooths over differences and
provides a positive means of channeling 
rivalries. This is perhaps why the former
King of Afghanistan considered one of his
greatest achievements to be getting all
ethnic groups playing the sport of Buzkashi. 

While not the oldest sports trophy in Canada (we'll get to that
one in a moment) the Stanley Cup is the most well-known
(pictured above - but you likely knew that).

The Stanley Cup is named for the individual that conceived of
the idea of having an award for championship hockey; the
Lord Stanley of Preston, who had been named Canada's third
Governor General in 1888. While known now as the 'Stanley
Cup' its original name, still engraved on the side, is 'Dominion
Hockey Challenge Cup'. It was also originally intended by
Lord Stanley to be for amateur hockey (a role that would be
taken over by the Allen Cup in 1908).   

What is crazy to think about is that the Stanley Cup predates
hockey being Canada's national sport. At the time the cup was
commissioned hockey was only really played in Ottawa and
​parts of Quebec.

Leaving behind the top award for Canada's national winter
sport we will now look at the top award for Canada's national
summer sport; the Minto Cup for professional Lacrosse. In
1898 the Earl of Minto was named Governor General of
​Canada. Much like his predecessor, the Earl enjoyed ice 
skating but also Lacrosse.

Lacrosse had been played for thousands of years by Canada's
First Nations but a set of standardized rules had only been
penned in the 1860s. Its name shares an origin with the
French term for field hockey (le jeu de la crosse).

In 1901 the Earl donated the Minto Cup. Like the Stanley Cup it was supposed to be an award for amateur play but this
lasted for an even shorter time than the Stanley Cup - three
years.  

The Earl Grey was an interesting man,
an aristocrat and reformer who may 
have disregarded the non-partisan role
of his office more than any other
governor general before or since.

Appointed in 1904 to replace the Earl of
Minto (who was his brother-in-law) as
Canada's Governor General, he
supported prison reform, electoral
reform, and decried the Chinese Head
Tax to a degree unthinkable for a
governor general in modern times.

The chalice was commissioned in 1909 and was to be awarded
to the amateur hockey champion (I'm seeing a trend here) but
with the Allen Cup having just taken on that role Lord Grey
instead donated the trophy to Canadian football as its award
​for championship play. 

Lady Byng was the wife of Viscount Byng
of Vimy (who had taken on the role in
1921) and another avid hockey fan.
Unlike the previous trophies this one is
presented to the one individual each
season felt to have demonstrated the
most 'gentlemanly conduct'. The first
winner was Frank Nighbor in 1925. In a
bit of a cute story Lady Byng invited
Nighbor to Rideau Hall, showed him the
trophy, and asked him if the NHL would
accept it as an award for its most
gentlemanly player. When Nighbor said
he thought it would, Lady Byng, much to Nighbor's surprise,
awarded him the trophy.

Going back to the year 1860 we have an award that has an
even closer association with the monarchy; the King's (or
Queen's) Plate for thoroughbred horse racing. In 1859 Sir
Casimir Gzowski petitioned Queen Victoria to donate the first
trophy for the new competition. Since then royals and vice-
regal appointees have frequently been guests at the race.

The race's name changes based on the title of the reigning
monarch, who also serves as patron of the event.

Clarkson Cup - Women's Hockey (currently not awarded)
Vanier Cup - College Football
Willingdon Cup - Amateur Golf 
Dufferin Medal - Award for excellence in academics or
athletics. This medal was awarded between 1872 and 1878. 
The Governor General's Award is its spiritual successor.

If you go looking you will find even more examples of the
monarchy encouraging excellence in sport and other areas of
Canadian life. It is just one of the many ways the monarchy
helps form the foundation of this country.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour