The Maple Monarchists hopes everyone had a merry
Christmas and wishes everyone a happy New Year.

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

The National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is a day set 
aside to remember those First Nations children who did not 
return from the government-funded residential schools and 
those who survived them. It is held annually on September 
30th. Here is how various representatives of the King of 
​Canada marked the day.

The governor general also participated in several events
around Ottawa including a Sacred Fire Ceremony and the
​raising of the Survivor's Flag.

On September 19th Lieutenant-Governor Anita R. Neville
opened up Government House for a series of speakers in
coordination with the National Centre for Truth and
Reconciliation.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Back in June the, much delayed, official portrait of the king 
was unveiled. At the time I was quite busy organizing an event
in my local community and didn't really have time to address 
it.

Like many official portraits its merely okay. Its a portrait of
the King wearing the medals of Canada's honours system. It
fulfills the basic criteria of an official portrait. And if you want
your very own copy the Department of Canadian Heritage 
has you covered.

But His Majesty has better depictions, many from before he
assumed the throne:

This portrait which marked Charles' 70th birthday, when he
was still the Prince of Wales, is great in so many ways. It
captures his dual love of nature and architecture. It conveys
motion by avoiding a full frontal view. And it uses a colour
palette that is neither so dark as to be dingy nor so light as to
wash out its subject which is what I argue the official portrait
does. This painting also happens to beat out the King's official
portrait in the UK which is best left unremarked on further.

His Majesty has also had better photos taken of him:

Why is this an issue? Well, for starters I think if better is
possible, better is what you aim for. Secondly, the King is a
representative of Canada and if his picture is completely
indistinguishable from that of every other man in a suit its an
image problem. Thirdly, and related to the second point, the
King is not just another politician; his portrait should reflect
that.

Indeed, if a person was unfamiliar with King Charles III and
you told them it was a portrait of President Charles they
would have no reason to doubt you.

As to who is at fault for this I can't say. The Australian portrait
has a similar issue so perhaps it was the King who felt a
restrained approach was best. Perhaps, the Canadian and
Australian government wanted a toned down image. And it
could just be that everything was rushed and there was little
time on anyone's part as to what an official portrait should be.

The Heiman's portrait above comes closest to what royal
portraits used to be; conveyers of meaning as well as likeness.
It would not hurt to get back to that tradition.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Loyalists usually only get the 
briefest of mentioned when the 
history of Canada is discussed. 
This is a tad unfortunate as the 
arrival of the Loyalists forever 
altered the trajectory of British 
North America and laid a solid groundwork for a uniquely
Canadian take on governance. They really should be discussed
more. That said, this article isn't going to focus on the failings
of the Canadian education system. Rather, this is a look at
whether remembrance and celebration of the Loyalists could
be improved in the public sphere.

The genesis of this article was in a meeting organized by my
company's head office which basically gave the front line
employees an update on different things the company was
doing. One such thing was the creation of a multi-ethnic
calendar of events. It was fairly thorough, although not
comprehensive. Loyalist Day on May 18 was omitted. Or was
it June 12th? The 19th? The most likely reason it was left off
was due to New Brunswick being the only Atlantic province
that celebrates it and my company being spread out over the
Atlantic provinces. Even if they all celebrated it there are at
least three competing dates for when it is held.

United Empire Loyalist Day is held on May 18th which usually
places it fairly close to Victoria Day (Monarchy Weekend? I'm
all for it). Saint John has traditionally been the standard-
bearer for celebrating the holiday and from 1968-1997 it was a
school holiday in that school district. However it was felt all
holidays should be province-wide which, of course, meant
no more school holiday for anyone. 

May 18th was chosen as the date to celebrate this holiday as
by tradition this was the date the Loyalist refugees arrived in
​Saint John in 1783.

Moving over to the other province created as a result of the
Loyalist's arrival we have United Empire Loyalist Day
celebrated on June 19th in Ontario. The Constitutional Act of
June 19th, 1791 created the province of Upper Canada, or
Ontario as we know it today. But hold on, Kingston, Ontario
celebrates on the 12th which is the date in 1784 Governor
Haldimand at Quebec received permission from King George
III to settle the Loyalists in what would one day become the
Province of Ontario.

Manitoba, like Kingston, celebrates United Empire Loyalist
Day on June 12th and for the same reason.

Saskatchewan is a newcomer to celebrating this holiday, only
designating it in 2000. Uniquely, the designation of June 19th
as United Empire Loyalist Day is applied for each year by the
​Regina branch of UELAC. The City of Regina itself celebrates
​a whole Loyalist Week.

Canada's western-most province is the last to celebrate
holding its United Empire Loyalist Day on July 22nd. The
significance of this date is a bit removed but the story goes
Sir Alexander MacKenzie, the son of a United Empire
Loyalist is documented as being the first European to
successfully cross the North American continent north of
Mexico on July 22, 1793.

Its an odd situation that so many places in Canada hold the
Loyalists as being worth celebrating but have no unity in
doing so. I think its clear each province chose a date that was
somehow significant to themselves without considering if
there was a more universal date that could be chosen. I'd
argue this division is a bad thing for one major reason: the
federal government will never make this a national holiday if
it means taking sides or adding to the confusion with yet
another date. Some might ask why it should be a national
holiday. Here are my reasons:
1. It is unifying - Even though the Quebecois and earlier
English settlers had little to do with the Loyalists, everyone
was united in not wanting to be a part of what the Americans
were creating to our south. I would argue it was our first time
agreeing on anything as a country (even if that country was
still some years away from becoming a reality).
2. Diversity among the Loyalists - The Loyalists were a highly
diverse group of refugees fleeing persecution and included
English, Scottish, Germans, Dutch, African, and Iroquois.
From this early example of diverse immigration Canada has
continued to accept peoples of all races and creeds. Canada
also has continued to accept a higher percentage of refugees
in relation to population that most other Western nations.
3. The Loyalist Attitude - In Canada we may get angry at the
government but we don't see it as the enemy. This is a distant
echo of the Loyalist's attitude toward the state. As one Loyalists put it, "There may be a time when redress may not
be obtained. Till then, I shall recommend a legal, orderly,
and prudent resentment." Indeed, if you look hard enough
you quickly come to the conclusion the Loyalists have put
their stamp on how Canadians think of ​themselves and their
government.

Below are several dates which are more general in nature:

April 19th - Lord Dorchester used this date as the cut-off for
when a person had to be living in the Thirteen Colonies to be
considered a Loyalist. April is a bit early in the holiday
schedule but Spring does have an association with rebirth
which might be apropos.

May 12th - On this day in 1784 the Treaty of Paris went into
effect creating the United States of America. Not only did this
give finality to the Loyalists' plight, it was also supposed to see
the Loyalists compensated (which never happened). Which,
​yes, is a bit of a downer. The treaty itself was signed on Sept.
3rd (and in some sources is called the Treaty of Separation).  

June 4th - The birthdate of King George III who was king
during the American Revolution. This is a date the Loyalists
themselves may have held as significant. There are records of
his birthday being celebrated for decades after his death in
1820. It is also during a warmer part of the year but not
before the end of the school year (I am all for kids getting an
extra day off like the one that those in Saint John lost). If
there is one critique about using this date it would be that this
is the second royal birthdate being used (the other ​being the
somewhat moveable Victoria Day).

I feel that by consolidating the celebration of the Loyalists
around a single date we can raise the prominence of who they
were and what their contributions to Canada are.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

On February 7th Grenada celebrated 
its 50th year since independence. This 
was briefly mentioned in my last post 
but I wanted to return to the topic as 
there was one other notable event 
concerning the monarchy that occurred; 
a group of Grenadians have come 
together to form a monarchist league. Back in 2016 I noted 
a lack of monarchist leagues in the Caribbean. The only one 
I found at the time was the Caribbean Monarchist League, 
which consisted of a Facebook page that does not appear to 
even be active any longer. So this development is welcome.

I wanted to take a bit of time to look at this new league
through its website, social media, and other sources. Since
comparisons to the Monarchist League of Canada are
unavoidable I will be looking at how each handles its public
facing resources. I may also include a bit of humble advice if I
feel it warranted.

Above is the home page of the Grenada Monarchist League.
Starting at the top we have the organization's logo and, as
much as it pains me to admit it they nailed it in a way the
Canadian Monarchist League simply doesn't. I will save the
meat of that discussion for later but it will suffice to say the
Canadian version is simply too detailed to be rendered that
small. Navigation is simple with several drop-down menus.
This is where I will offer some advice as someone who runs a
website; if you have a drop-down menu there is a good chance
people won't click on the initial header. Take, for instance,
the Questions header on the Grenada website which has three
drop-down options. What can be easy to miss is that the
header itself leads to a submission form. Meanwhile, the
Canadian website has headers that are deactivated. They are
signposts for other pages rather than pages themselves. Either
option can work but keep in mind that there will be a
proportion of readers who never see what is on the header
that has drop-down options. What the Grenada website does
better is it avoids the use of sub-menus. The Canadian site
uses them and I don't know how I feel about that. Websites
shouldn't be JRPGs. It doesn't have any sub-sub-menus so I'll
grade it 'acceptable'. I like that both websites use the phrase
'Our Monarchy'. I see exactly what they are going for and its
good branding. I also like the byline 'For the Advancement
and Defence of the Nutmeg Crown'.

Moving on to the splash image. I'm of two minds about the
layout Grenada choose here. Obviously, an image with the
king surrounded by politicians, soldiers, and flags is very nice.
But the image cuts off his head which isn't great symbolism for a head of state. On the other hand, it can convey that the
monarchy is bigger that the current occupant of that office. I
can't decide which would be better here. The Monarchist
League of Canada avoids this problem and does something
clever: if one image of monarchy is good, more is better. It
also lets each image tell a different story (relationship with
First Nations, showcase the heir to the throne, king as
statesman, etc). It works well and I think it could be an
interesting change to the Grenada website. It would also make
the text and button overlaying the image a non-issue
(although adding a shadow box to increase readability would
be good too).

The next section on the Grenada Monarchy League website
details the king, governor general, the constitution, the king's
role, royal visits, and awards and honours of Grenada. The
Monarchist League of Canada takes a different approach in
that the first section is on supporting the cause. The royal
family (not just an individual) is listed fourth. I'm not going to
say one approach is better than the other as both have merits
and it really comes down to how best to advocate for
monarchy in differing social and political circumstances.

The Grenada website finishes off with a quotation by T.A.
Marryshow who was an important figure in Grenadian
history. While the Canadian website has a page of quotations,
it is in a sub-menu.

In conclusion I think there is a lot that both League's could
learn from each other in how to put together an effective
homepage.

About Us Section
Its clean, simple, and to-the-point description of the League.

Our Mission
This section is interesting and is much more fleshed out than
anything on the Monarchist League of Canada website. You
have the general support for the monarchy, governor general,
and status quo but then it gets into more specific policies the
Grenada League supports. There is nothing like this on the
Canadian website. The Monarchist League of Canada may call
for specific policies in emails but never lists them on their
website. On this front I think the Grenada League has the
right idea; be bold.

Our Logo

This is so good. So good I posted it twice. From their website:

As much as I like the Canadian Monarchist League's
armorial bearings, simply reusing the image from the
grant of arms was a poor choice. Red and gold should look
bright but in reusing the image from the grant it comes out
looking a little staid. And while ​the grant of arms is probably
too complex for how its used on the Home page, the badge is
the perfect level of complexity.

Getting back to the Grenada League's logo; its S-tier work and
if you ever apply for a grant of arms integrate this somehow.
Simply beautiful.

What We Propose
This section goes a bit more into detail on the more ambitious
ideas the Grenada Monarchist League wants to see adopted.
First off is a suggestion that a Grenadian Privy Council be
created and that it take on the role of advising the monarch on
appointments of governors general. The third proposal (I'll
come back to the second) is the creation of a royal standard
for the King in Grenada. Both of these proposals are for things
Canada more-or-less has and I support them. The second
proposal is that the heir to the throne should have a unique
title in Grenada similar to how in the United Kingdom it is
the Prince of Wales. I've secretly wanted something similar
for Canada and I am glad they are going for it.

I'm not going to go through each tab in the header as there is
not anything too surprising. The Canadian League has a heavy
focus on fund-raising but its my understanding the Grenada
League hasn't quite got that aspect of their organization set up
yet so its absence is understandable.

A final point is making sure the website looks good on a
desktop computer as well as a smartphone. On this point the
Grenada website looks even better on mobile while the
Canadian website looks about the same. My blog is tooled
towards being viewed on a desktop and tends to look bad on
mobile devices.

As the Grenada Monarchist League is, as of today, one week
old and its membership spread out over several islands and
the wider diaspora it should come as no surprise its activities
are a bit limited. The following are a series of suggestions that
are based on what the Monarchist League of Canada does and
what I, myself, have done before.

Email Updates
The Monarchist League of Canada keeps its membership
constantly updated on things effecting the monarchy, fund-
raising drives, and membership initiatives. It is hard to
communicate too much with the membership and sadly very
easy to communicate too little. I should note that one type of
email the League sends out frequently is a letter-writing
campaign (usually to members of parliament).

Being a Resource
The Monarchist League of Canada publishes flyers and
booklets explaining the Canadian Monarchy as part of their
dedication to education. I've requested such publications from
time-to-time in order to distribute. Because its an issue in the
Canadian context, this has included doing full reports on how
much the monarchy costs Canadians which is published every
few years. The Grenada Monarchist League doesn't have to do
​any of these things specifically but the League should be able to support monarchists in advocacy and education.

​Leadership Surveys
One thing I have done for several years now is 'leadership
surveys' such as these ones. It is important to know who 
can be counted on to support the monarchy. Do note that it is
recommended that monarchist league remain non-partisan.
The Monarchist League of Canada has benefitted from having
members in every party and not being seen as being 'out to
get anyone'. Which brings us to...

Forge Links
Members of the Monarchist League of Canada are often called
on to speak to the media when an issue concerning the
monarchy comes up. Publishing the reports on the
monarchy's cost is only possible because it has the trust of
multiple departments to let them see how money is spent.

Social Media
The Monarchist League of Canada has an extensive social
media profile but they are also able to get someone to look
after it full-time. In terms of organizing people I'm a bit of a
sceptic on how useful it can be.

It is good to see people coming together in a shared love of the
Grenadian Monarchy and I look forward to their future
success.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour