By: Kevin Gillespie

During the academic year of 2014-15,
the Osgoode Constitutional Law
Society (OCLS) and the York Centre for
Public Policy & Law (YCPPL) held a
series of talks at Osgoode Hall Law
School on the topic of the Crown & the
Constitution. On January 28, 2015, we
held the second event in our speakers’
series, titled “Monarchy in Action:
Canada’s Vice-Regals at Work.” As part
of this event, Her Honour Elizabeth
Dowdeswell, the newly installed Lieutenant Governor of
Ontario, was joined by two eminent Canadian academics, and
experts in the field of Canada’s constitutional monarchy--
Father Jacques Monet, and Professor Peter Russell.

The following is a brief synopsis of each speaker’s
presentation. For those who are interested in the full hour and
a half presentation, I have included a link to the mp3 of the
event below.

Her Honour Elizabeth Dowdeswell,
Lieutenant Governor of Ontario
​
Her Honour began by discussing her role as the Queen’s
Representative in Ontario— an office which she described as
the product of a slow evolution from British colonial roots, to
its modern incarnation as the representative of the Crown in
Right of Ontario. The office represents our achievement of
responsible government, which Ontarians have enjoyed since
the 1840s. The Lieutenant Governor, representing the Queen
of Canada, is the protector of democracy and parliamentary
conventions in the province, and is hugely important to
understanding the historic and enduring relationship between
the Crown and Canada’s Aboriginal peoples.

The Lieutenant Governor has two principal constitutional
roles: (1) the legislative, representing the Crown in
Parliament; and (2) the executive, i.e. the Crown in Council.
​Reading the Speech from the Throne, providing Royal Assent,
and granting requests for prorogation or dissolution of the
Legislature are all examples of the legislative role, while the
executive side includes the approval of Orders in Council for
the day-to-day governance of the province, as well as ensuring
that there is always a premier and cabinet to run the province.
In other words, the executive role is something akin to the
Chief Executive Officer of the province. Citing Walter
Bagehot, Her Honour continued by referencing the famous
three constitutional rights of the Sovereign and her vice-regal
officers: (1) the right to be consulted; (2) the right to
encourage; and (3) the right to warn—all three of which were
apparently exercised in some form or other by Adrienne
Clarkson during her term as Governor General.

Further, the Crown also has an important role in supporting
community service, and representing the citizenry. Canada’s
vice-regal officers spend the vast majority of their time
undertaking public engagements and representing the Queen
of Canada in celebration of that which unites us as citizens.
This part of job plays a key role in enhancing social cohesion
and promoting a wider Canadian identity, free of the
partisanship of politics. The Vice-Regal Suites at Queen’s Park
presents a neutral space for community groups, and people
from all walks of life to enjoy. It is also at Queen’s Park that
Her Honour welcomes diplomatic leaders from around the
world on behalf of all Ontarians.

Her Honour also recognizes provincial excellence through
Ontario’s provincial Honours system, conferring such things
as the Order of Ontario, or medals for good citizenship,
voluntary service, or bravery. The Lieutenant Governor
travels widely throughout Ontario in her public role, with the
overarching theme of her mandate being the promotion of
Ontario’s role in a global world. Her Honour is an advocate
for a clearer transparency and understanding of the role of the
Lieutenant Governor, which is essential if the Crown is to
retain its relevance in the 21st Century. In this spirit, Her
Honour uses every public event as a sounding board to learn
about the various issues that are important to Ontarians.

Professor Peter Russell

Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of
Toronto, Peter Russell is one of Canada’s leading
parliamentary scholars. Recently his focus has been on
minority governments and constitutional conventions related
to parliamentary democracy; and in 2012 he contributed to a
larger collection of essays on the topic of the role of the Crown
in Canadian governance. Professor Russell used his
presentation to speak about the broader theme of constitutional monarchy, and its benefits in a parliamentary
system—particularly within the Canadian context.

Professor Russell began by decrying the neglected state of the
Crown as an area of academic study—a state of affairs that he
believes has led to the idea of republicanism being the default
position of many university students today, who can’t get past
the superficial criticism of inherited privilege. While
conceding that constitutional monarchy is a hard sell, he feels
that it is nonetheless important to try and convey its benefits
to a wider audience.

Despite the defects that are inherent in any particular form of
government, Professor Russell firmly believes that
constitutional monarchy is the best solution for Canada’s
particular form of parliamentary democracy. Its chief benefit
is the particular way in which a monarchical government can
separate the positions of head of government and head of
state—which he terms “duality at the top”. Unlike the republic
south of our border, Canada’s monarchical parliamentary
system grants most political power to a partisan prime
minister, while our highest office is reserved for a politically
neutral Queen (and her representatives), who steers clear of
political decisions in all but a few relatively rare situations.

According to Russell, the most important constitutional
function of the Crown is its role in determining who should
form a government that possesses the confidence of the
elected chamber. While it is usually an easy decision to simply
choose a prime minister by appointing the party leader who
has most recently won an election, when there is a hung
parliament, or a divided Cabinet, the decision can become
fraught with controversy. It is particularly in such situations
that Professor Russell believe that we are quite fortunate to
have a non-partisan head of state, able to act as a neutral
political referee and ultimate decision-maker, in order to
protect our democratic traditions.

Russell concedes that the head of state in a parliamentary
system does not have to be a monarch—in fact, in most
parliamentary systems, republican heads of state abound. In
such systems, a president is usually elected indirectly by
parliament (or sometimes directly by the people). A necessary
by-product of this form of government, however, is that the
head of state ends up being someone who has won some sort
of election, and who is almost certainly affiliated with a
political party. While many of these systems work pretty well,
others have gotten into trouble when parliamentary crises
inevitably arise. According to Russell, there is sometimes a
tendency for the democratically elected head of state (who can
lay claim to a certain amount of democratic legitimacy) to
challenge the prime minister—sometimes taking over--
thereby diminishing the duality at the top. Further, a
politically partisan elected head of state can run into
difficulties when exercising the politically neutral functions of
her office.

In a constitutional monarchy, such as Canada, the efficient
role of the Crown in governance has largely been ceded to
elected officials. But the residue remains, primarily in relation
to the life and death of Parliament. Usually these Royal
prerogative powers are exercised on the advise of the head of
government, but in rare exceptions the head of state may act
in her own right when following the advice of her prime
minister (or premier) would be constitutionally wrong, or
dangerous to our democratic traditions. An extreme case,
illustrated by Eugene Forsey, could occur when a prime
minister fails to achieve a desired majority after an election.
Instead of trying to form some sort of parliamentary coalition,
the prime minister might prefer to call a steady stream of
elections, one after the other, in order to achieve the “right”
result. According to Russell, this sort of extreme
electioneering would actually damage democracy, and so it
would be perfectly reasonable to expect our non-partisan
head of state to step in to protect democracy by saying “no” to
the head of government. It is this role in particular that a non-
partisan monarch can often perform better than a partisan
head of state.

While this particular role of the Crown has been likened to a
“constitutional fire extinguisher”, it is actually the “dignified”
role of the Crown that is most visible in Canadian governance,
and—if performed well—can strengthen the “moral sinews of
our democratic society.” Ironically, however, Professor
Russell believes that it is this part of the job that is often
underestimated by academics and intellectuals, who tend to
diminish the important ceremonial role of the monarch and
her representatives.

Like the efficient role of the Crown, it is better to have an
apolitical leader—who can represent the entirety of the state
and its people—perform these ceremonial duties, instead of a
politician who will find it hard to represent anyone other than
the faction of people who support his particular party.
According to Russell, monarchical heads of state, and their
vice-regal representatives, do this part of the job at least as
well, if not better, than republican heads of state. Further, the
Crown has been an invaluable source of unity between the
historic French, English and Aboriginal communities that
make up Canada. And as a Commonwealth Realm, we share
our head of state with 15 other countries around the globe. As
a result, we have a very experienced and international head of
state, unique to world history.
​
In conclusion, Professor Russell makes some interesting
comments on the origins of constitutional monarchy as a
system of government. Human beings did not invent this
particular form of constitutional monarchy; instead, it is a
governmental institution that has evolved without any
theoretical design, which nonetheless works extremely well.
Russell believes that those people who want to replace it out
of a misplaced ideological sense of correctness, make the
mistake of all children of The Enlightenment, who believe that
their brains are always better than history—a remarkably
foolish assumption. Paraphrasing Hegel, Russell finishes his
talk by declaring that sometimes the cunning of history
produces something that we, here and now, could never
invent. Russell believes that this is the case with the
monarchical solution to the head of state problem in a
parliamentary system.

Father Jacques Monet
Father Monet received his doctorate of history from the
University of Toronto in 1964, was ordained a Jesuit priest in
1966, and has taught at a number of schools throughout
Canada. He is director of the Canadian Institute of Jesuit
Studies, and is considered one of Canada’s leading historians.
He has also written extensively on the subject of the Canadian
Crown, and has acted as an advisor to Rideau Hall. Father
Monet is currently a member of the Advisory Committee on
Vice-Regal Appointments.

Father Monet begins his presentation by talking about the
important role of the Crown in relation to French Canada.
French Canada has always been a monarchy; first under the
French Kings, and then under successive British and
Canadian monarchs. Monet believes this uninterrupted reign
of Kings and Queens is unique in Western history, where even
England has suffered from an interregnum period in the 17th
Century. Unfortunately, however, this is a point that is largely
unknown to most Canadians today.

While modern Quebec is largely known for its particular
republican strain of separatism, historically and traditionally
it has strong monarchical roots. Eminent French Canadians,
such as Sir George-Étienne Cartier—one of the fathers of
Confederation—were ardent monarchists, and Monet believes
that under the separatist crust of modern Quebec lays a
largely loyal population. While the Queen was infamously
booed by radical Laval University students in 1964, the Queen
and members of the Royal Family have gone back to Quebec
several times to much better receptions. To this day, the
Governor General has an official residence in Quebec, and the
Lieutenant Governor continues to act as the highest executive
authority in the province—a situation that is unlikely to
change in the foreseeable future. Ironically, according to
Monet, René Lévesque, the separatist premier of the province
leading up to Patriation of the Constitution, was first among
the provincial premiers to agree that modifications to the role
of the Crown should require unanimous consent among the
provinces and the federal government in the new
constitutional structure of Canada.

After discussing the unique status of the monarchy in French
Canada, Father Monet ends his talk with a brief discussion of
the newly-instituted Advisory Committee of Vice-Regal
Appointments. According to Monet, one of the traditional
problems with Canada’s constitutional practice surrounding
the monarchy was that the appointment of the Governor
General or other vice-regal officers has to be done upon the
advice of the Prime Minister—giving past appointments (even
the most upstanding appointees among them) a partisan flair.
This situation has, unfortunately, cast a cloud over vice-regal
appointments.

In order to rectify this problem, Prime Minister Harper
created the non-partisan Committee in 2012 in order to help
make future appointments. The Committee is usually
composed of 5 members—3 permanent members (including
one Anglophone member; one French Canadian member,
represented by Father Monet; and one chairperson, who is
currently also the Canadian Secretary to the Queen) with 5
year terms; and 2 temporary members that are added from
the province or territory from which a vice-regal officer will be
appointed.

The first ad hoc committee (the Governor General
Consultation Committee) met in 2010 to help appoint David
Johnston as our current Governor General. After the
successful work of this initial Committee, the permanent
Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments was
constituted, and has since appointed several Lieutenant
Governors from among the various provinces, including
Ontario’s most recent Lieutenant Governor, Ms. Dowdeswell.

While conscious of the confidential nature of the Committee,
Father Monet does provide some interesting insight into its
inner workings. First, when it is time to look for a new
appointment, the Prime Minister appoints the two extra
temporary members (if it is a territorial commissioner or
lieutenant governor that is being appointed) and the entire
Committee has a meeting with the Prime Minister (which is
usually by phone). At this meeting the Prime Minister gives
some very vague instructions, and tells the Committee to
come back to him with five names for possible appointees.
There is no order of preference for the 5 candidates—each one
is equally “number one”.

After the Committee has been announced, the various
members of the Committee proceed to speak to various
stakeholders, such as the governments of the relevant
province or territory, and other eminent individuals and
organizations, including the Monarchist League of Canada, in
the search for candidates.

When the first ad hoc Committee was constituted to find the
current Governor General, they had 132 initial candidates,
which were subsequently whittled down over a three day
period to get the 5 nominations that were requested.
According to Father Monet, this process wasn’t easy; between
the first evening and 4 am the next morning, the Committee
was able to get the list down to 20 candidates. However, it
took them a another 2 days to make the remaining cuts.

Finally, after this process is completed, the Prime Minister
meets with the Committee to go over the final candidates, and
asks each member to name their personal preference from
among the list. According to Monet, sometimes each member
of the Committee has his own preference for number 1; while
other times the ultimate preferences are unanimous.

In addition to the current Governor General, who was selected
under the initial ad hoc Committee, the new permanent
Committee has helped to choose several vice-regal officers,
including the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario and Manitoba.
Monet believes that this new process is the best thing that
been has done to strengthen Canada’s monarchical form of
government, and argues that it has effectively addressed the
criticism of partisanship that has attached itself to past
appointees.
​
While the Prime Minister still ultimately chooses the
appointee, he has limited himself to a list of 5 candidates,
each one of whom has come from a committee that did not
involve the Prime Minister in the nomination process—except
for the brief hour-long meeting at the end, where he asked the
members about their ultimate choices. Father Monet hopes
that this new body lasts long enough that it will become a
constitutional fixture in its own right.

​Edited by Kevin Gillespie,
Chair of the Osgoode Constitutional Law Society

Sometimes I have a topic which really isn't big enough to warrant its own post. Other times there are things I want to add to an article when I'm writing it but I don't have immediate access to them. These are those things.

Back in November I wrote an article about two German cannons won by Albert County, New Brunswick. Above is a photo of Wilhelm II's cypher on the barrel of the smaller gun. The bottom portion was either worn off with use or not properly imprinted to begin with. I would have included a picture of the cypher in a different context but various Google searches have not turned up this exact variant. 

I read an article recently by Marie Brennan over at Science Fiction & Fantasy Novelists on why fantasy settings seem so dominated by monarchies. An interesting read.

Ever since MP Pat Martin announced he was considering proposing changes to the Canadian Citizenship Oath that would remove the Queen I have been contacting him off-and-on. Two letters I sent were not answered (although in fairness the second did not explicitly ask for a response) but his office assured me he had received them.

I did eventually talk to one of his aids about his views (funny aside: I actually attended the same classes as this aid in university. It's a small country). I was informed that he will not change his views but that he also isn't going to lead the campaign for a Canadian republic. Pat's main problem is that in situations where the interests of Canada and another Commonwealth Realm are in conflict the monarch cannot be solidly on our side. Other issues involved the British colonial legacy.

I was quite relieved Kevin Gillespie recently decided to submit an article on Queen Victoria. Previously articles had been done on her father, husband, and one of her daughters. Her absence was starting to become conspicuous. I wanted to add a photo of Queen Victoria's jubilee but after formatting the article I couldn't decide on a good place. I also wanted to add a good photo of the Queen smiling since it goes against the image many people have of her. 

Over at /r/monarchism a number of changes have been implemented. For starters it has a more complete list of royal claimants. The flairs have also been adjusted to allow for more variety. The subreddit has had some impressive growth over the last year and is starting to see an increase in activity to go with it. 

This January 21st marked the 222 anniversary of the murder of Louis XVI by the First French Republic.

According to Father Edgeworth the King's last words were:

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

By: Kevin Gillespie

Her Majesty Queen Victoria was born in 1819 and was barely 18 years old when she succeeded her uncle, King William IV, to the British Throne. The Victorian era was the name given to her nearly 64 year reign, which lasted from 1837 until 1901. It was the longest reign of any English or British Monarch in history, and it was possibly the greatest period of stability and progress that Britain* had ever known until the 20th
century. During this era, the British Monarchy remained relatively secure in its foundations. This, however, was not the case for much of the rest of the world; republican sentiment was growing and many foreign monarchies were falling. Royalty from 14 different monarchies visited London for Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee in 1887, only four of which have survived to the modern day.[1] Britain largely remained a
bastion of pro-monarchical sentiment in a world where the republican debate was becoming more and more prominent. Queen Victoria herself, along with the social, political and economic progress that was allowed to flourish under her Constitutional Monarchy, was an important factor contributing to this phenomenon. If not for her long reign, monarchism in Britain may not have been nearly as strong as it was at her death in 1901, and the 16 Commonwealth Realms in existence today might have had a completely
different history.

The British Monarchy, however, had not always enjoyed such widespread support among its people. It was widely acknowledged among British subjects that, with few
exceptions, Queen Victoria’s predecessors since the reign of Queen Elizabeth had been bad rulers who lacked moral character. The official biographer of Queen Victoria and
King Edward VII, Sir Sidney Lee, even called her three most recent predecessors “an imbecile, a profligate and a buffoon.”[2] In previous two reigns, the House of Hanover had been ripe with sexual, financial and personal scandals, and at Queen Victoria’s accession the popularity of the Monarchy was low and republican sentiment was increasing. As the popular Victorian writer, Charlotte M. Yonge, said of her accession:

And win it back again she did. By the end of her reign Queen Victoria had become the most popular Monarch since Queen Elizabeth I, as well as one of the best known people in the world. Frank Hardie writes that “in 1901 it [republicanism] not only ceased to be a faith, but had once again become a heresy.”[4] The following journal entry by Queen Victoria during the Golden Jubilee illustrates the incredible difference 50 years had made in the popular support for the Monarchy:

Queen Victoria’s accession marked the turning point in the perception of the Monarchy among British subjects. Up until that time, the popular assessment of the Royal Family had been one of “general moral squalor,”[6] but from the moment of her accession onwards, a change began to take place in the manner in which royalty was spoken of in Britain. It was Queen Victoria’s conduct, in public and in private life, which
was the main cause of this change.[7] There was, however, an exception to this trend which must be mentioned. In 1861, Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert, died of typhoid fever, and his devastated wife entered a state of mourning in which she wore black for the rest of her life. She also began a long period of self-imposed seclusion in which she continued her official duties, but stayed away from most public appearances. After the Prince Consort’s death, Queen Victoria expressed her strong sense of duty “in an aloof and private performance with no audience to encourage and appreciate,”[8] and this long withdrawal from public life fostered criticism and encouraged the growth of republicanism in Britain.[9] Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee, however, almost single-handedly wiped out the republican sentiment which had been allowed to cultivate during her seclusion. Forced to face the world once more, her subjects confirmed their love for their Queen through immense demonstrations of loyalty, and when the Jubilee was over,
she never again reverted to her former isolation.[10] As H. B. Brooks-Baker writes:

In 1897, one of Queen Victoria’s subjects, Charles Bullock, B.D., writes that “Queen Victoria has remained the central, the most prominent, and permanent figure gathering to her, as the years passed, more and more of the loyalty and affection of the people over whom she rules.”[12] This increasing trend of pro-monarchical sentiments from the beginning to the end of Queen Victoria’s reign can largely be attributed to the Queen’s personal character. As was stated above, Queen Victoria was deemed by her subjects to be of a more scrupulous moral fibre than that of her predecessors. While the previous Kings had been considered licentious, deceitful or shifty, [13] Queen Victoria was viewed as their polar opposite. Charlotte M. Yonge praises the Queen in her book, “The Victorian Half Century,” writing:

But it was not only her perceived superior moral fibre that produced the admiration in her subjects; it was also the Queen’s extreme sense of duty. An article, written in 1900, and featuring in The Cosmopolitan, expresses this sense of duty nicely, stating that “Her Majesty… has taken a far closer, keener, more continuous interest in the government of her empire than any of her Ministers.”[15] And the Times writes, in 1887, that from the moment of her accession onwards “the Queen has been deeply impressed with the responsibilities of power, and has held her sovereignty to be a sacred trust for the benefit of the peoples under her rule.”[16]

Queen Victoria’s sense of morals and duty were important in the resurgence of the pro-monarchical sentiment that had dissipated under the rule of her predecessors. This personal character, when combined with the incredible length of her reign, helped her to become a living institution representing the glory and superiority of the British Empire. At the time of her accession, public support for the Monarchy was dwindling, but 60 years on, during her Diamond Jubilee, Queen Victoria had become the most significant symbol of Imperial unity in the British Empire.[17] As Herbert Tingsten puts it in his book, “Victoria and the Victorians”:

It was only natural for Queen Victoria to be associated with her Empire in this way. By the time of her second Jubilee, few people in Britain, or indeed the world, could remember a time in which Queen Victoria had not reigned as Queen, and much of the Empire itself had been acquired after she ascended the throne. Eighteen territories in all, a quarter of the people in the world, and nearly a quarter of the land mass were under her rule. The Jubilee celebrations of 1897 were not merely celebrating the 60th year of Queen Victoria’s reign; they were, in reality, a demonstration of the might and importance of the
British Empire.[19] The Queen’s constant reign had transformed the Monarchy into the living embodiment of the British Empire; it was impossible for the people to take pride in one without the other. As the Times put it, “everybody feels that the Queen is something unique, something extraordinary, something of which all the world envies us the possession; and the multitude exults in possessing it.”[20]

Under Queen Victoria the Monarchy had become a National and Imperial symbol, but the symbolic nature of her reign was not the only reason for the popularity of the Monarchy in Britain. Absolute monarchy had been absent in Britain for many years, but at the time of Queen Victoria’s accession, constitutional monarchy was still in the process of evolving into what it has become today. By the end of her reign, however, it was widely believed by her common subjects, as well as by many politicians, that until Queen Victoria, “no constitutional Monarch [had] shown a more consistent respect for popular liberties or a clearer conception of royal duties.”[21] The Times writes that:

Many of her subjects viewed her like a mother to the people, “ready to do her people’s will when that will has been good,” but restraining them “from committing great follies and mistakes.”[23] Politicians might come and go, but it was the Monarch who remained the permanent guardian of Britain’s constitution.[24] One contemporary writer at the time compared Queen Victoria’s role as Monarch to the role of the editor-in-chief of a newspaper, writing that:

In other words, Queen Victoria’s role was believed to be of crucial constitutional importance. If a Prime Minister died or retired, or if no political party possessed an overall majority in the House of Commons, most politicians believed that an individual who was above party politics was required to arrange the consultations that might lead to a workable ministry.[26] Her life-long position as Monarch also gave Queen Victoria incredible insight and experience, giving her the ability to counsel and persuade her Ministers in affairs of state.[27] A letter written to the Queen in 1874 by her Prime
Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, exemplifies the important role that she was believed to play in the government:

It is undoubtedly true that Queen Victoria played a significant role in many of the political decisions of her day. Even if some of her subjects were not entirely happy with her interventions, most of them were willing to maintain the status quo, as no alternative form of government seemed appealing. Obviously there was no going back to the absolute monarchy of the past, and the other alternative, the Republican Movement, was
becoming less attractive every day. A stable constitutional monarchy—and Britain’s government was stable; there had been no constitutional crisis worth mentioning during
the whole of Queen Victoria’s 63 year reign[29]—was considered by many to be superior to a republic. Ever since the establishment of the French First Republic in 1792, France had become the epitome of governmental instability, systematically alternating between republic, empire and monarchy for most of the 19th century. The other large republic of the times was the United States of America, which was engaged in a bloody Civil War between 1861 and 1865. The republics of South America were shown to be even less
stable. Queen Victoria and the Monarchy, on the other hand, lived on as a symbol of Britain’s permanent institutions. Politicians might come and go, but the Queen was the
symbol of the state and its long and glorious history.[30] As Frank Hardie said, “it is now fairly easy to see why this Republican movement came to nothing. At that time the first French Revolution still spread alarm among conservatively minded people in the same
way as the Russian Revolution to-day.”[31]

Under Queen Victoria’s rule, Britain’s Constitutional Monarchy was allowed to evolve and flourish into the political system shared by the Commonwealth Realms today. This stable government helped foster political, economic and social gains that were unrivalled anywhere else in Europe, if not the world. During her long reign there had been progress in almost every field; democratic government had increased, and the standard of living among Queen Victoria’s subjects had risen. Charles Bullock, B.D. mentions some of these reforms in “The Queen’s Resolve”:

Queen Victoria’s reign had been one of unequalled achievements, and her subjects had little reason to be discontent. As Charlotte M. Yonge says, “the Victorian era will be remembered as a period of great progress in all respects. Perhaps no fifty years in the whole history of the world has produced such changes, affecting all classes in their domestic life and prosperity.”[33]

The long reign of Queen Victoria had not only played an integral role in fostering the pro-monarchical attitude of her subjects, but it has helped to preserve the popularity of the future British Monarchy in the 20th century. The Queen’s exceptional character had helped to redeem the reputation of the Royal Family after it had been trifled away by her predecessors, and her long reign had transformed her into the living embodiment of the British Empire. Under Queen Victoria’s rule constitutional monarchy had evolved
into what it has become today, allowing democracy and a higher standard of living to flourish. The Victorian era had been one of tremendous progress, and by the time of Queen Victoria’s death in 1901, there was no republican movement of any significance anywhere in Britain. Queen Victoria’s subjects had learned to love the Monarchy while she reigned, and this did not stop upon her death. Tingsten writes that:

Queen Victoria’s influence has continued to live on long after her death, with all of her successors† enjoying widespread support in Britain, not to mention in many of the Dominions. Even today, the sense of duty and moral character which marked her reign is appreciated, with Tingsten saying that the current Monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, “seemed a sort of reincarnation of her great-grandmother as a young woman and a reminder that the figure of Queen Victoria is still at the heart of the persisting English liking for royalty.”[35] If not for the incredible reign of Queen Victoria, the monarchist cause would not have been in nearly as good a standing as it was at the beginning of the 20th century, nor as it currently is, at the beginning of the 21st century.

Happy New Year everyone,

The Maple Monarchists are pleased to welcome two new contributors to the site. First we have Kevin Gillespie who also runs his own blog (Until Philosophers are Kings...). A law student with an interest in constitutional law, Kevin brings a new perspective to the blog. A little birdy tells us he has also recently been awarded the Monarchist League's Silver Badge of Service. Congratulations, Kevin!

Our other new contributor is Mr. Windsor of Alberta. He is a member of The Young Monarchists. We look forward to seeing his contributions to this blog.

There is a tradition in some legislatures and parliaments of placing importance on the first speech delivered by a member. This is called their maiden speech. In imitation of that tradition listed below are the 'maiden articles' of each member of the Maple Monarchists.

Mr. Windsor 
Princess Alberta

Kevin Gillespie
The Royal Appeal of a Vice-Regal Decision

Barry R. MacKenzie
Cost of Crown Survey Released!

A Kisaragi Colour
Profiles of the Canadian Royal Family: Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn

Let us all redouble our efforts to defend our Canadian Monarchy in the New Year.

Loyally Yours,
The Maple Monarchists

Cross-posted from Until Philosophers are Kings…

By: Kevin Gillespie

In December 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper—attempting to postpone a confidence vote in the House of Commons—formally requested that the Governor General prorogue Parliament.  After much speculation in the media as to what the GG would decide to do, Michaëlle Jean granted the PM’s request for prorogation.  It has come to light however, that—had the GG refused the prorogation request—Stephen Harper was ready to appeal directly to the Queen.  In a Globe and Mail article from 2010, Harper’s then-director of communications is quoted discussing this possibility: “When… asked what other avenues the Prime Minister was exploring in case the decision had gone against them, he responded: ‘Well, among them, the Queen’” (Ibbitson, 2010).  As it happened, such an outcome was averted when the GG granted the prorogation request; nevertheless, the possibility of the Queen becoming directly involved in Canadian politics had been raised, leading to some interesting constitutional questions. 

Published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, Bruce Hicks writes that “[constitutional] scholars spend a great deal of time hypothesizing democratic justification for powers that they themselves argue have fallen into disuse” (2010).  As a result of a tradition of disuse and encouraged by the Letters Patent of 1947, it has been argued that the Queen has ceded most of her powers to the GG.  In her autobiography,former-GG Adrienne Clarkson makes the claim that “[even] many politicians don’t seem to know that the final authority of the state was transferred from the monarch to the Governor General in the Letters Patent of 1947” (2006, 189-90).  This claim suggests that it would be unconstitutional for the Queen to override a vice-regal decision, and appears to be supported by Andrew Heard—a prominent constitutional scholar.  In his book on constitutional conventions Heard claims that, “[although] the Queen remains Canada’s legal head of state, the only area on which she plays any ongoing role lies in the appointment of the Governor General” (1991, 16).  Here, Heard seems to be suggesting that a constitutional convention of disuse has arisen around the use of the Queen’s powers—a position which falls in line with Clarkson’s own interpretation.

Similarly, the argument that the Queen’s powers have been lost through a tradition of disuse is debatable.  Bruce Hicks gives one example in which the celebrated constitutional expert Eugene Forsey mistakenly comes to the conclusion that “a convention had emerged preventing the use of… the clause [in the Constitution Act, 1867] that allows the Queen to authorize the appointment of additional senators to break a deadlock between the two chambers of the Canadian Parliament” (2010).  This however turned out not to be the case, when in 1990 Brian Mulroney used this very provision to appoint 8 new senators in order to ensure the passage of his GST bill in the Senate (Plett: 2009).  There have also been several other modern instances in which the Queen has carried out some of her rarely used powers in the Canadian context: In 1957 & 1977 the Queen officially opened Parliament, becoming the first reigning Canadian monarch to read the Speech from the Throne (The Royal Houshold: 2013); in 1982, the Queen proclaimed the newly-patriated Constitution (Historica); and more recently, the Queen has approved the creation of new honours for her Diamond Jubilee (The Governor General of Canada: 2011).  While many of these duties are rarely used, or have traditionally been exercised by the GG, this has clearly not prevented the Queen from their performance.

Bibliography

Clarkson, Adrienne. Heart Matters. Toronto: Viking Canada (AHC).  2006. Print.

“Creation of the Diamond Jubilee Medal.” The Governor General of Canada. 2011. Web. 4 Mar. 2011.

Heard, Andrew. Canadian Constitutional Conventions: The Marriage of Law and Politics. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1991. Print.

Hicks, Bruce M. “The Crown’s ‘Democratic’ Reserve Powers.” Journal of Canadian Studies. 2010. Web. 26 May. 2013.

Ibbitson, John. “Stephen Harper pondered appeal to Queen over prorogation.” The Globe and Mail. 30 Sept. 2010. Web. 26 May. 2013.

Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor General of Canada. 1947. Web. 26 May, 2013.

Plett, Donald N. “About the Senate – Senators”. Donald Neil Plett. 2009. Web. 26 May, 2013.

“The Patriation of the Constitution.” Historica. Web. 27 May, 2013.

The Royal Household. “Queen in Canada.” The Official Website of th British Monarchy. 2013. Web. 26 May, 2013.