Category: Education - The Maple Monarchists

Names & Titles Given to Members of the Royal Family by Canada's First Nations

8/18/2019

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

The Mother of Confederation

7/29/2019

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

The Royals Who Wrote

7/16/2019

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

Candidates in Airdrie-Cochrane on the Canadian Monarchy

4/2/2019

Airdrie-Cochrane is just north of Calgary

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.

Steve Durrell (NDP)

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.

Peter Guthrie (UCP)

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.

Matthew Morrisey (FCP)

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.

Vern Raincock (AP)

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

Alberta's Freedom Conservatives and the Canadian Monarchy

3/18/2019

As regular readers of this blog already know I often survey
political parties and their candidates to discovery their views
on our monarchy. The focus has often been on the federal
level but on occasion I have also surveyed provincial
politicians as well. Over the last month I have surveyed the
Freedom Conservative Party of Alberta to get their views
on the Canadian Monarchy.

The FCA is a right-wing, autonomist
party operating at the provincial level
in Alberta.

I sent the current slate of party candidates* the following two
questions. Their replies are below in roughly the order they
were received.

Question 1: What are your views on the monarchy?
Question 2: If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving
Canada happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?

*I was unable to find a contact for Regina Shakirova of the
Calgary-Bow riding.

Matthew Morrisey (Airdrie-Cochrane)

I contacted this candidate before I had decided to write this
article and is the only one contacted via phone. I believe his
views can be summed up as liking the 'tradition of the
monarchy'. Matthew noted that he swore an oath to defend
Queen and country while in the Canadian Armed Forces. He
was also kind enough to check with the party to see if they had
any official or unofficial stances. He relayed these to me via
Facebook:

"Yes, they want an autonomous Alberta in a united Canada.
So, we are not Republicans. Monarchy is safe."

How happy I would be if most of the other candidates reached
even this baseline of support.

Full disclosure: Matthew is my cousin and we have helped
out each other's political campaigns in the past. So while I
have serious reservations about this party having any political
success, my personal view is that he should win his riding.

Jeff Rout (Leduc - Beaumont)

What are your views on the monarchy?
"I tend to feel that we should respect traditions unless those
traditions are harmful. Therefore I tend to respect the
tradition of the monarchy. That being said, I dislike how it
has the ultimate power over law, even if that is symbolic. As
to my own preference, something of a republic while
honouring the monarchy without granting it final power
over law would be my choice. But that's a pretty specific
idea."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"I am not sure what the people of Alberta would prefer. We ought to be what they prefer."

Steve Goodman (Drayton Valley - Devon)

What are your views on the monarchy?
"My personal views as I explained to our party leader was
that I personally believe that the Monarchy is out dated and
has nothing to do with our daily lives. Under the Monarchy,
Canada has to pay the Royal family millions of dollars a
year for the figure head. I believe that times have changed
and the true meaning of the Monarchy has been lost in
today’s society. These are my beliefs and not necessarily that
of the parties."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"In a hypothetical independent Alberta or west, that would
be a question TBD in a referendum."

To Mr. Goodman's credit he also asked what my views were
on this issue (he was the only one to do so). This I did...along
with my reasons why. Which resulted in this follow up reply:

"Wow! I want to thank you for the enlightenment. Honestly
you have given me food for thought. My ignorance has
narrowed my views on the Monarchy and what role it plays
in Canada besides a figurehead. Thank you again for being
passionate and believing in a huge part of our history. You
make some valid points to consider when it comes to
Alberta’s future."

It is refreshing to see a politician who is both curious about
other views and willing to question their own beliefs. This was
a rare high point of working on this article.

Malcolm Stinson (Fort Sask - Vegreville)

What are your views on the monarchy?
"I have sentimental attachments to the British monarchy..
Sue me. We are fortunate in that the present monarchy is
benign."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"I think a republic is the way to go."

Rick Northey (Airdrie - East)

What are your views on the monarchy?
"The FCP has no official position on the monarchy. Canada is
actually a constitutional monarchy, even though most
Canadians don't realize it and the Crown had delegated most
of its powers to our elected leaders. This means we don't
have a system of proper checks and balances like our
American neighbours. My personal feeling is that the
monarchy is obsolete and should be abolished for a more
Republican system of accountability to the people. Canada is
a very weird country in the sense that we have a hybrid
system of a written constitution and a lot of unwritten
inherited British rules. Personally, I'm a big fan of actually
writing down the rules. In my experience people in power
don't always choose to act honorably."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"In the specific case of Alberta leaving, there would have to
be a discussion about what form it's government would take
on. Keeping the monarchy in the short term would allow for
the continuity of laws and governance. But once traditions
are broken by an act of succession, I think it's highly unlikely
that the people of Alberta would choose to continue as things
are."

Sheyne Espey (Calgary - Peigan)

What are your views on the monarchy?
"For the first one I am of Irish heritage(The republic not
Northern) and grew up among a family that was not a fan of
the monarchy or British Government for that matter, where
Michael Collins was considered a hero. So me personally I
would cut all ties with the monarchy."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"For your second question I have always believed in the
power of the grassroots so i would support whatever form
that the people of Alberta wanted. But there is a growing
feeling that it if we did separate it would be as a republic."

Cam Khan (Calgary - Northwest)

What are your views on the monarchy?
"Republic, we love Canada but on equality ..."

Ok, then.

Derek Fildebrandt (Party Leader)

What are your views on the monarchy?
"I’m honestly divided on the issue, but I believe it should be
up to a constitutional convention to decide if we went down
that road."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"I view this as an academic question at this point. In the
event that Alberta moved to become independent,
constitutional questions such as this should be decided by a
constitutional convention."

"In any case, I hope you’ll join our party."

No, no, no.

Concluding Remarks

Overall, I was disappointed in the responses from the FCP
candidates. With the exception of a couple bright spots most
respondents were negative towards the monarchy.

Despite the preference expressed for either a constitutional
convention or a referendum on the monarchy I don't think
they have the numbers on their side to actually get a republic.
Recent polling has continued the trend of Alberta having
some of the highest levels of support for the monarchy in
Canada. Given how support divides pretty equally along the
ideological spectrum there is a good chance that the same
people whose support they need to separate are the same ones
who support the monarchy.

Their responses are also useful for pointing out a possible
deficiency in the Monarchist League of Canada's out-reach
efforts. We still have Canadians who incorrectly believe that
we send the Queen millions of dollars. We have Canadians
that are not aware of, or look down on, the constitutional
protections of having a monarch. The League should consider
this a strong indication that it is not reaching all the people it
needs to. After all, many of these candidates would have come
to age after the League's founding.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Canada has had a Female Head of State for One Hundred and One Years of its One Hundred and Fifty-two Year History

3/8/2019

I am told that today is International Women's Day. So it is
fitting I post a photo of an international woman.

Oh, and so far We've had a female prime minister for a grand
total of five months of that time.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

That Time Economists Apologized to the Queen for the 2008 Financial Crisis

3/1/2019

In November of 2008 Her Majesty was
visiting the London School of Economics.
The financial crisis was well underway and
the Queen took the opportunity to pose
a question about the scale of the disaster
that everyone had been thinking; "If these
things were so large, how come everyone
missed them?" It was a fair question that
deserved a proper response.

And on July 22, 2009, the Queen received one. A group of
experts had gathered on the 17th to hammer out an answer to
the Queen's question. The list of participants was actually very
impressive:
Professor Tim Besley, FBA, London School of Economics
Professor Christopher Bliss, FBA, University of Oxford
Professor Vernon Bogdanor, FBA, University of Oxford
Sir Samuel Brittan, Financial Times
Sir Alan Budd
Dr. Jenny Corbett, University of Oxford
Professor Andrew Gamble, FBA, University of Cambridge
Sir John Gieve, Harvard Kennedy School
Professor C. Goodhart, FBA, London School of Economics
Dr David Halpern, Institute for Government
Professor José Harris, FBA, University of Oxford
Mr. R. Harrison, Economic Adviser to the Shadow Chancellor
Professor Peter Hennessy, FBA, University of London
Professor Geoffrey Hosking, FBA, University College London
Dr. Thomas Huertas, Financial Services Authority
Mr. William Keegan, The Observer
Mr. Stephen King, HSBC
Professor Michael Lipton, FBA, University of Sussex
Rt. Hon. John McFall, MP, Commons Treasury Committee
Sir Nicholas Macpherson, HM Treasury
Mr. Bill Martin, University of Cambridge
Mr. David Miles, Bank of England
Sir Gus O’Donnell, Secretary of the Cabinet
Mr. Jim O’Neill, Goldman Sachs
Sir James Sassoon
Rt. Hon. Clare Short, MP
Mr. Paul Tucker, Bank of England
Dr. Sushil Wadhwani, Wadhwani Asset Management LLP
Professor Ken Wallis, FBA, University of Warwick
Sir Douglas Wass
Mr. James Watson, Dept. for Business, Innovation & Skills
Mr. M. Weale, Nat. Institute of Economic & Social Research
Professor Shujie Yao, University of Nottingham

Having gathered and had a wide-ranging discussion Professor
Tim Besley and Professor Peter Hennessy summarized the
discussion into a three page letter and submitted it to the
Queen. The letter is quite interesting. Or at least as interesting
as economics can be. The letter is part explanation, part Mea
culpa for their part in being unable to see the economic
disaster unfolding.

The letter promised that a future meeting would look at what
could be done to prevent Her Majesty from ever having to ask
her question again. And in December the promised meeting
took place and a second letter was delivered to the Queen.
In summarizing the discussion the group proposed a course of action which I have quoted below:

"So, we end with a modest proposal. If you, Your Majesty, were to ask for a
monthly economic and financial horizon-scanning summary from, say, the Cabinet
Office, it could hardly be refused. It might take a form comparable to the Joint
Intelligence Committee’s ‘Red Book’, which you received each week from 1952 until
2008 when it was abandoned. And, if this were to happen, the spirit of your LSE
question would suffuse still more those of your Crown servants tasked to defend,
preserve and enhance the economic well-being of your country."

I'm actually curious if the Queen has opted to do this. It is
possible as the financial crisis did lead the Queen to start
becoming more involved. For instance it led to Mervyn King
being the first Bank of England governor being invited to
the palace for a chat with the Queen.

In the end a simple question from the Queen led a group of
people to thoroughly examine the causes of the greatest
economic disaster of our time and perhaps taught some
economists the value of seeing the big picture.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Hanging Gardens of Babylon

2/14/2019

It is Valentines Day and as such I thought I'd write about a
romantic gesture from a very long time ago. The Hanging
Gardens of Babylon was one of the Wonders of the Ancient
World. Considered semi-legendary by modern scholars its
creation is said to have come about due to the great love the
king of Babylon had for his wife.

As one story goes King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon built
the gardens for Queen Amyris who missed the green hills and
valleys of her homeland of Media.

However, other sources have attributed the garden to an
Assyrian king in Nineveh. This is plausible as the Assyrians
had the irrigation know-how and, more importantly, we have
plenty of records of them making gardens.

In either case the garden was an impressive engineering feat.
Especially so in the case of Nineveh. It would require canals,
sluice gates, water screws, and an aqueduct to move all the
water needed for the garden. In many ways the garden would
require the most sophisticated technology of its day.

All because a king could not bear to see his Queen homesick.
Gentlemen, the bar for romantic gestures has been set!

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Where Hereditary Chiefs Still Rule In Canada

2/5/2019

While most hereditary chiefs among Canada's First
Nations don't have a formal role in governance there are at
least two places where they do. They are the Buffalo Point
First Nation and the Ojibway Nation of Saugeen Reserve.
Below is an overview of their history, people, and current
challenges.

Buffalo Point First Nation

Chief John Thunder

The Buffalo Point First Nation is
located along the Canada-US border in
the province of Manitoba. It is close to
the Northwest Angle, the only place in
the US other than Alaska that is above
the 49th parallel. The current chief of
the First Nation is John Thunder.

History
The area of Buffalo Point had been a gathering point of
the Anishinabe peoples (which include the Odawa,
Saulteaux, Ojibwe, Potawatomi, Oji-Cree, and Algonquin). In
1873 Chief Ayashwash signed Treaty 3 with the Canadian
government along with other tribes in the area. In 1900
Little Thunder succeeded his father as chief. However, he died
six years later and his son, Jim Thunder (known as Old Jim),
took over as chief and led the tribe until 1941. The reserve's
old site had flooded in the 1890s and by the 1930s the tribe
was becoming dispersed. During Old Jim's time as chief 1670
acres were acquired for a new reserve. In 1941 Warren
Thunder became chief. In 1967 the Manitoba government
tried to buy out the choicest land for a resort. The sale was
stopped after Chief Warren consulted with his adopted
nephew. Lacking a son on his own, he appointed said nephew,
Jim Thunder, as chief in 1969. During Jim's time as chief he
began the process of developing Buffalo Point into a tourist
destination. In 1997 leadership passed to his son, John
Thunder, who is the current chief.

People
Currently tribe's population sits at 40 on-reserve members
and 82 off-reserve members. The population has always been
small with there being only 57 in 1916. Five families have
historically made up the tribe's membership; Thunder's,
Lighting's, Cobiness's, Handorgan's, and Powasen's.

The tribe's leadership is hereditary with the chief having the
option to retire early and appoint a successor. The chief
chooses the councilors himself.

Current Challenges
While the current chief and his father have received praise for
developing Buffalo Point, criticism has grown that not enough
revenues are being shared with the community. This has led
to an attempt to end his hereditary rule by Manitoba's
Southern Chiefs' Organization which tried unsuccessfully to
put Andrea Camp in power as chief. Chief Jim Thunder
argues that the Indian Act makes it difficult for First
Nations to form a business class as all profits must go
into community development. It is hard to say what will
happen to hereditary rule at Buffalo Point. There is obviously
discontent but thus far the Canadian government has treated
it as an internal matter. Only time will tell whether the chief
will be able to handle his public relations role as well as he
handles his business role.

Ojibway Nation of Saugeen Reserve

Saugeen Reserve

The Ojibway Nation of Saugeen
Reserve shares some similarities
with the Buffalo Point First Nation.
Both tribes are signatories to Treaty
3. Both tribes belong to the wider
Anishinabe culture. And both tribes
have hereditary chiefs who are
pursuing economic development.

History
The Ojibway Nation of Saugeen Reserve has a much shorter
history than the Buffalo Point First Nation. The reserve is
located in an isolated section of northern Ontario. While a
signatory to Treaty 3 they are not part of any larger grouping
of First Nations such as the Grand Council of Treaty 3.
Originally a part of the Lac Seul First Nation to the south
they broke away to form their own band in the 1980s. Gilbert
Machimity, head of one of the community's founding families,
appointed Edward Machimity as the reserve's first chief in
1985. 12 years later Chief Edward Machimity opted to draft
a custom leadership selection code in line with the rules laid
out by the Department of Indian Affairs. This made the
position of chief hereditary. He remains chief to this day and
has pursued a policy of encouraging resource extraction.

People
Band membership sits at 242 people with about 100 living on
the reserve itself.

While the Chief rules for life and the custom leadership
selection code refers to the position as hereditary, statements
made by Chief Edward Machimity refer to an election after
his death. I have not been able to discern the exact process of
leadership transfer which would reconcile his statements with
the other documents. A number of headmen are appointed by
the chief to help him govern.

Current Challenges
Originally, the membership of the band supported the chief's
leadership. However, those opposing him say that over time
he has become intolerant of opposition and distant
towards the community. While complaints about money not
getting out to the wider community are similar to those of the
Buffalo Point First Nation there are also complaints about
abuse of authority. The Canadian government has refused to
get involved in the situation. Chief Edward Machimity is
rumored to have health problems. The chief's presumed
successor is in his 40s. It remains to be seen whether the chief
or his successor will be able to deal with opposition to their
rule.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Declaration of Dependence

1/12/2019

Photo Credit: Journal of the American Revolution

Faded cursive writing on a wrinkled, water-damaged sheet of
paper is all that remains of an important counter-point to the
Declaration of Independence. The document is known as the
Loyalist Declaration of Dependence and it was penned
in 1776 in New York. A transcript of the text is as follows:

"To the Right Honorable Richard Viscount Howe, of the Kingdom of Ireland, and
His Excellency The Honorable William Howe, Esquire, General of His Majesty’s
Forces in America, the Kings’ Commissioners for restoring Peace in His Majesty’s
Colonies and Plantations in North America &c. &c. &c.

May it please your excellencies.
Impressed with the most grateful sense of the Royal Clemency, manifested I you
Proclamation of the 14th. Of July last, whereby His Majesty hath been graciously
pleased to declare, “That he is desirous to deliver His American subjects from the
calamities of War, and other oppressions, which they now undergo:” and equally
affected with sentiments of gratitude for the generous and humane attention to the
disposition “to confer with His Majesty’s well affected subjects, upon the means of
restoring the public Tranquility, and establishing a permanent union with every
Colony as a part of the British Empire.”
We whose names are hereunto subscribed, Inhabitants of the City and County of
New-York, beg leave to inform your Excellencies: that altho most of us have
subscribed a general Representation with many other of the Inhabitants; yet we
wish that our conduct, in maintaining inviolate our loyalty to our Sovereign,
against the strong tide of oppression and tyranny, which has almost overwhelmed
this Land, may be marked by some line of distinction, which cannot well be drawn
from the mode of Representation that has been adopted for the Inhabitants in
general.
Influenced by this Principle, and from a regard to our peculiar Situation, we have
humbly presumed to trouble your Excellencies with the second application; in
which, we flatter ourselves, none participate but those who have ever, with
unshaken fidelity, borne true Allegiance to His Majesty, and the most warm and
affectionate attachment to his Person and Government. That, notwithstanding the
tumult of the times, and the extreme difficulties and losses to which many of us
have been exposed, we have always expressed, and do now give this Testimony of
our Zeal to preserve and support the Constitutional Supremacy of Great Britain
over the Colonies; and do most ardently wish for a speedy restoration of that union
between them, which, while it subsisted, proved the unfailing source of their mutual
happiness and prosperity.
We cannot help lamenting that the number of Subscribers to this Address is
necessarily lessened, by the unhappy circumstance that many of our Fellow
Citizens, who have firmly adhered their loyalty, have been driven from their
Habitations, and others sent Prisoners into some of the neighbouring Colonies: and
tho’ it would have afforded us the highest satisfaction, could they have been present
upon this occasion: yet we conceive it to be the duty we owe to ourselves and our
prosperity, whilst this testimony of our Allegiance can be supported by known and
recent facts, to declare to your Excellencies; that so far from having given the last
countenance or encouragement, to the most unnatural, unprovoked Rebellion, that
ever disgraced the annuls of Time; we have on the contrary, steadily and uniformly
opposed it, in every stage of its rise and progress, at the risque of our Lives and
Fortunes."

547 signed the document and they came from all walks of life.
The only common thread between them being a wish to
express their loyalty in some way. Some of the signers are
known to have joined Loyalist regiments later in the war but
for many this would be their only chance to show their loyalty.

After the names there is a short concluding section that has
been partially obscured:

We, Richard Hoyt Thomas T . . . ing and Frederick Hudson . . . of New York do
hereby certify that we attended the signing . . . and that the subscribers have
voluntarily signed their names.
Twenty Eight day of November in the Seventeenth Year of His Majesty.

Water-damaged pages

The signing took place at the
Queen's Head Tavern which was
across the street from the town
hall. Presumably this was so the
document could be submitted
immediately afterwards. Or
perhaps they needed some place
with more space. Or perhaps
they just thought the tavern had
the right name for such an event. Whatever the reason the
document is an important glimpse into the ranks of those who
chose to remain loyal to their king during the revolution.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour