Category: English Monarchy

What is Oak Apple Day?

5/29/2016

King Charles II

Today is May 29th and as I have
recently learned that means today is
Oak Apple Day. This celebration is
little known today but in the 1600s it
was a big deal.

In 1660 the English monarchy was
restored with the return of King
Charles II. The English Parliament
declared that "to be for ever kept as a
day of thanksgiving for our
redemption from tyranny and the
King's return to his Government, he
entering London that day."

Oak Apple Day was celebrated as an official holiday until 1859
when the British Parliament abolished the celebration. I have
not been able to find the reason why they did so.

Image Credit: Philip Halling

The name of the day refers to the
oak tree Charles hid in while
evading capture by the
Roundheads. 'Oak Apples' are a
form of plant gall and it was
common practice to wear a sprig
of them for the occasion. The
holiday is still celebrated
sporadically in parts of England.

It is a pity that Oak Apple Day is no longer celebrated in an
official capacity. Redemption from the tyranny of a republic
is certainly something worth celebrating.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Summoning the Magnum Concilium

7/17/2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

A Short History on the Origins of Parliament

7/13/2015

Parliament is an old institution. For this reason its origins are
not well known and often misunderstood. Let's see if we can
fix that.

Proto-parliaments: The Witenagemots

Starting in the 7th century the Anglo-Saxon monarchy
contained a handful of Witenagemots (meetings of wise men)
acted as advisory bodies for the king. The Witenagemots were
assemblies comprised of powerful landowners. Beyond these
two facts little is known about them. We don't know if the
Witenagemots were an aristocratic evolution of the earlier Germanic folkmoots (general assembly) nor whether the
Witenagemots had any formal powers beyond that wielded by
individual members. We do know that there was no single
'national' Witenagemot and that the summoning of the
meeting was a prerogative of the king. Further, the
Witenagemots had no set meeting location but would meet at
least once per year.

However, in the tradition of the Witenagemots we see a first
principle of the English Monarchy taking shape: that the king
rules in consultation with others.

The Normans: Birth of the Curia Regis

William and his brothers

In 1066 William the Conqueror
was crowned King of England.
The various Witenagemots
ceased to be (partially due to so
many of the Anglo-Saxon elites
being dispossessed of their
lands. The Normans had their
own tradition of aristocratic
advice in the form of the Curia
Ducis (duke's council). Across
Europe the situation was much the same with kings and great
lords having bodies of advisers to assist in governing.

Once William the Conqueror was secure on the English
throne he created the Curia Regis (King's Council). Like the
Witenagemots it was comprised of the leading nobles of the
day. It differed in most other respects though. The Curia Regis
had two forms; the Magnum Concilium which was summoned
by the king to discuss issues of national importance and the
Lesser Curia Regis which was in session continually and
traveled with the king. The two types of Curia Regis were
considered to be the same body and not separate entities.
Indeed, the membership overlapped a great deal.

In this body we see the beginnings of two important
developments: a cabinet-like group and the creation of a
single national deliberative body.

The Loss of France: Renewed Focus

In 1204 King Philip II of France seized the lands governed by
King John of England (in his role as Duke of Normandy).
King John attempted to get them back but required a great
deal of money to do so. While many of England's barons had
also had lands in France the loss of those lands effected them
differently. The Norman nobility's French lands had served as
a distraction from the affairs and concerns of England. When
those lands were lost they began to focus more on English
affairs. King John's war began to look to them as a foreign
adventure. Failure in 1214 compounded this view.

The Angevin kings had been able to use this distracted
nobility to rule via 'force and will'. That the nobility made a
great deal of money from their continental possessions kept
everyone content, if not happy, with the situation. The loss of
those lands made King John's heavy taxation and refusal to
consult his barons into a major grievance. The belief that the
king should rule in accordance with custom and the law was
greatly strengthened.

While the loss of lands in France had no immediate effect on
the evolution of Parliament, it was necessary for the future of
the legislative branch. A nobility content to be ignored by the
king as long as their estates were prosperous would never be a
firm foundation for a body such as Parliament.

Magna Carta: Misunderstood Document

In 1215 King John signed the Magna Carta presented to him
by his nobility. That the king and his nobles were not on
friendly terms is best symbolized by the meeting location; a
bit of watery land beside the River Thames unable of
supporting cavalry. The charter reaffirmed the old rights of
the nobility and certain legal protections.

The Magna Carta has taken on an importance over the years it
likely never had when it was first signed. It has come to be
seen as the first stirring of constitutional government. In this
short history of Parliament it is important because it failed.
Neither side lived up to their obligations and war returned.

King John then had the misfortune to die and leave a young
heir.

"Sign or I hit you with this stick".

Henry III: King John Redux

While Henry III spent his early reign dominated by a regency
of barons his own rule mirrored his father's. Lack of
consultation gradually led the barons to lose faith in him. The
Magnum Concilium was at this point only called for the
approval of new taxes. It was certainly not called on to advise
the king. The barons eventually decided that they had had
enough and refused the king's latest tax request. In 1258 King
Henry III faced a major financial crisis and agreed to a set of
limitations known as the Provisions of Oxford. A Parliament
would meet three times per year to oversee the performance
of the bureaucracy. However, the barons proved unable to
work together and the king returned to ruling arbitrarily.

A new round of rebellions broke out led by Simon de
Montfort, Earl of Leicester. The king was captured in 1264
and for the next fifteen months Simon de Montfort ruled in
the king's name until his defeat by the soon-to-be Edward I.

The reign of Henry III confirmed the old ways were no longer
working. The king wanted to govern effectively, the barons
wanted to be consulted. Neither the king alone nor the barons
alone had been able to effectively govern the country. It fell to
the new King Edward I to find a way to reconcile royal
authority with baronial power. He would do this through
Parliament.

King Edward I: Increased Royal Power Through Parliament

During his short ascendancy Simon de Montfort had
summoned a Magnum Concilium that for the first time
included the shire knights and burgesses as well as the
nobility. This move was meant to strengthen his hold on
power by widening the interested parties beyond the nobility.
King Edward I would likewise call both groups to Parliament
often during his reign. The king experimented endlessly with
Parliament's composition and its power and role remained
fluid.

Perhaps more importantly, King Edward I began to use
Parliament to make statutory law on a scale never before
dreamed of. I have consistently used the term 'deliberative'
rather than 'legislative' to describe the various councils and
assemblies detailed in this article. This is because in England
laws were considered a matter of custom, not statute. The
king was responsible for interpreting and clarifying custom
but could not change it. Of course, it is a thin line between
interpreting law and making it. Some kings had been
lawgivers in practice but never much in theory.

This is contrary to a certain narrative that claims the ability to
legislate was wrestled away from increasingly arbitrary kings
by Parliament. This is not the case. The monarchy gained the
ability to legislate through the creation of Parliament.

By using meetings of leading barons, churchmen, knights, and
townspeople King Edward I was able to pass legislation
without the worry it might cause a revolt. Throughout his
reign Parliament was very much his creature and he used it to
strengthen the monarchy's authority.

Parliament had been born.

I hope you have enjoyed this brief look at Parliament's beginnings.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Song of Defiance

6/15/2015

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

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

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

Lyrics:

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

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

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

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

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

---

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Henry VIII's Caesaropapism and its Modern Effects (Part 1)

2/15/2015

Henry VIII is most often remembered for being gluttonous and killing his wives. This is unfair given the wide-ranging effects his religious reforms would have. But within those religious reforms were even more significant civil reforms that established secular authority as supreme within the English realm & its successors.

There are a substantial number of people who will argue that since the Queen is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England Canada is therefore a theocracy. After all, a theocracy is a government in which religious officials have secular power so on the face of it the claim makes sense. However, these people forget that in theocracies the secular leader holds power based on their position within a religious hierarchy. The Queen does not hold her position as monarch (in any of her realms) by virtue of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In fact the opposite is true. The Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England by virtue of her position as monarch. This 180 degree inversion of theocracy is known as Caesaropapism.

Henry VIII is the source of this development which was a major break with former constitutional theory. For hundreds of years popes had claimed that Emperor Constantine had transferred imperial authority over the lands of the Western Roman Empire (The Donation of Constantine) to them and as such the pope had the authority to make, and unmake, rulers in Europe. William the Conqueror being crowned by Papal legates after his conquest of England is one relevant expression of this theory. Likewise, King John (yes, that one) declared his realm to be a Papal fief in 1213. English constitutional theory therefore acknowledged a certain degree of authority for the Papacy within England. One expression of this was the right to appeal some rulings made in the courts to Rome.

This obviously would be annoying for any ruler but most just put up with it. Henry VIII was not 'most rulers'. He had power, ambition, and the ego to match.

And codpieces. Uncomfortably large codpieces.

Henry VIII's solution was the Statute in Restraint of Appeals (The Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532) which established the English Crown was imperial in nature and thus equal in status to the pope and, as a result, the king was the final legal authority in England. Henry VIII justified this by constructed a genealogy for himself which placed him as the direct descendant of Brutus of Troy, the mythical first settler of Britain. For the first time in English history secular power was truly supreme.

An excerpt from the act:

"Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles, it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial Crown of the same, unto whom a body politic compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in terms and by names of Spirituality and Temporally, be bounden and owe to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience: he being also institute and furnished, by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God, with plenary, whole, and entire power, pre-eminence, authority, ..."

This principle was reaffirmed in the Acts of Supremacy and remains a part of the scattered documents that make up the Canadian Constitution. This has a few interesting effects.

Since the Canadian Crown is the final legal authority in Canada it is doubtful whether any law could be made that allows for appeals to a foreign body. Within Canada it is doubtful a tribunal or commission could possibly be set up whose rulings could not be appealed to the standard justice system (I'm sure those concerned about Sharia courts and over-mighty Human Rights Commissions will be comforted by this). Today Canada has a legal system that is secular in nature. Henry VIII's reform was the first step in making this possible.

A secondary effect is that due to the Statute of Westminster guaranteeing all of the realms 'equal status' Canada (and the rest of Her Majesty's realms) are legally empires.

Henry VIII's actions would also lead to the theory of divine right gaining ground in England. Even this would come to have positive effects but that is a story for another time.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Monarchs of Canada: A Timeline

11/25/2014

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

Pre-Contact North America

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

Our French Monarchs (1534-1763)

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

Francis I (1534–1547)
House of Valois

Henry II (1547–1559)
House of Valois

Francis II (1559–1560)
House of Valois

Charles IX (1560–1574)
House of Valois

Henry III (1574–1589)
House of Valois

Henry IV (1589–1610)
House of Bourbon

Louis XIII (1610–1643)
House of Bourbon

Louis XIV (1643–1715)
House of Bourbon

Louis XV (1715–1763)
House of Bourbon

Our English/British Monarchs (1497-1931)

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

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

Henry VII (1497–1509)
House of Tudor

Henry VIII (1409–1547)
House of Tudor

Edward VI (1547–1553)
House of Tudor

Mary I
(1553–1558)
House of Tudor

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

Elizabeth I (1558–1603)
House of Tudor

James I (1603–1625)
House of Stuart

Charles I (1625–1649)
House of Stuart

Charles II (1670–1685)
House of Stuart

James II (1685–1688)
House of Stuart

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

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

Anne (1702–1714)
House of Stuart

-Kingdom of Great Britain established, 1707

George I (1714–1727)
House of Hanover

George II (1727–1760)
House of Hanover

George III (1760–1820)
House of Hanover

George IV (1820–1830)
House of Hanover

William IV (1830–1837)
House of Hanover

Victoria (1837–1901)
House of Hanover

-Dominion of Canada established, 1867

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

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

Our Canadian Monarchs (1931-Present)

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

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

Edward VIII (1936)
House of Windsor

George VI (1936–1952)
House of Windsor

Elizabeth II (1952-Present)
House of Windsor

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

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour