I received a rather unexpected email the 
other day from former Liberal leadership 
​candidate, Frank Baylis. He is apparently 
working his way through all of his 
campaign correspondence. While outside 
of the focus of these surveys it is always 
nice to see politicians taking 
communication seriously, especially when 
they have nothing to gain from it. Here is
​what Mr. Baylis had to say in response to
​my questions:

Short and to the point. This is also his most substantial
statement on the monarchy to date (ie. the only one). His
Crown & Cap score has been adjusted on the page dealing
with the Liberal Leadership Election.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

To say the recently concluded federal election was bad for the
New Democratic Party is like saying the Hindenburg had a
minor accident. The NDP has suffered their single worst
result ever. The ups and downs of partisan politics isn't really
relevant to this blog but any potential effects on the monarchy
certainly are. So to that effect I will give a brief overview of
where the NDP's seven survivors stand.

Also note that, as I predicted in my last article, Jagmeet
Singh did not win re-election. Although unexpectedly Nicki
Ashton joined Singh and Angus in retirement. All three were
openly republican and their passing from the political scene
will not be missed.

So, with that out of the way, here are the survivors:

Gord Johns - We'll start on a high note. Mr. Johns wrote a
lovely tribute to the Queen after her passing. It does not
appear he was present to vote on the Bloc's motion to abolish
the monarchy for whatever reason.

Lori Idlout - Voted in favour of the Bloc's abolition motion.
In terms of public statements she has said the coronation of
King Charles III was a good opportunity to reset the
relationship with Canada's First Nations. 

Heather McPherson - It has been hard to find anything
regarding Ms. McPherson's stance on the monarchy. She does
not appear to have been present for the Bloc's motion.

Jenny Kwan - Another party member who voted in favour of
the Bloc's motion. She did however post a tribute to the late
Queen when she passed.

Don Davies - Voted in favour of the Bloc motion but has
made no other substantial statements on the topic.

Leah Gazan - Voted in favour of the Bloc motion and has
made negative statements regarding the monarchy.

Alexandre Boulerice - Voted in favour of the Bloc motion
and has made numerous calls to end the monarchy. Probably
​the most vocal republican left in the NDP caucus.

Its unclear who will end up as the next NDP leader (or even if
it will be someone from caucus). Alexandre Boulerice is by far
the most concerning choice they could make but overall the
monarchist contingent within the NDP caucus has been
decimated along with the party. It is unclear whether this will
lead to republican voices becoming predominate but members
should be vigilant. 

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

There is a federal election underway and I wanted to take a 
second to look at what this means for the monarchy. While 
the monarchy is not directly effected by who wins any given 
election (that is one of the advantages of our system) the fact 
remains that having fewer opponents of the monarchy near 
the levers of power is a good thing. So in this post I will look 
at which republicans are unlikely to trouble the monarchy
​further.

Chandra Arya made waves by entering the
Liberal Leadership race, calling for the
abolishment of the monarchy (along with a
bunch of other third rails of Canadian
politics), and being kicked out of the race.
He was still, however, an MP. That is until
the Liberal Party barred him from running
under their banner in the election, which
effectively ends his career.

Charlie Angus has been opposed to the 
monarchy for many years. Unlike Mr. Arya
who has the political skills of a rock, Mr.
Angus was a force within the NDP and has
often been mentioned as a potential leader.
The announcement of his retirement from
​federal politics comes as a relief. However,
there is reason to hold off celebrating just
yet...

Jagmeet Singh (and a majority of the
NDP caucus) have seen their polling
absolutely collapse in recent weeks with the
potential for them to be reduced to single-
digit seat counts. So even if Mr. Singh
survives, his days are numbered.
Unfortunately, of the names bandied about
as potential survivors only Peter Julian 
voted against the 2022 Bloc motion to end
the monarchy.

Yves-François Blanchet - As the man
who proposed the 2022 motion on ending
the Canadian Monarchy I would like to say
Mr. Blanchet is for sure not going to be
returning to Parliament. However, I can't.
While Bloc polling numbers are down and
they seem set to lose seats to the Liberals,
Mr. Blanchet took the party from having
only 10 seats to the low 30s. Anything other
than a disastrously bad result probably
sees him remain around. However, since every Bloc member
voted in favour of his motion I would still count their caucus
​shrinking to be a win.  

The Monarchist League of Canada seems convinced that Mark
Carney is a monarchist which is a positive as it was always a
bit touch and go with Trudeau (a fact I have talked about in
previous posts). Pierre Poilievre has never really said much on
the issue which doesn't inspire confidence. Likely we will see
at least two leadership contests following this election (likely,
the Conservatives and NDP). The Conservatives might be
inclined to pick a more traditional conservative voice but the
NDP could present problems, especially if Charlie Angus
decides to un-retire to try and chip away at the Liberal's left
wing. Still, Peter Julian has run for the leadership before and
if the NDP caucus is significantly reduced he might make
​another go at it. Still, the general direction of this election
seems positive for the monarchy.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

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