I have previously written about the 
hereditary chief traditions of certain 
West Coast First Nations. Little did I 
know at the time that the East Coast 
also has at least one comparable 
position. The position in question is 
​the Grand Chief (of the Mi'kmaw). The 
position of Grand Chief has gone 
through many changes through the 
years both in its selection and its role. 
This is to be expected. Societies change 
as their needs change but through it all 
the Grand Chief has been an important 
office to the Mi'kmaw. This article is a 
brief overview of the office of Grand 
Chief along with the related institution 
of the Grand Council.

Henri Membertou (born 1507, Grand Chief 1550-1611)
Chief Membertou is an important figure in the history of
relations between the French and the Mi'kmaw on whom I
will need to do a dedicated article at some point. It is not clear
whether the office of Grand Chief (Kji-Saqmaw) had existed
prior to Chief Membertou being appointed to it in 1550, was
always an active position, or whether he was the first leader of
the Mi'kmaw to be appointed as such by the consensus of the
regional chiefs. His long life and conversion to Christianity
​helped cement an alliance between his people and the French.

Louis Membertou
The process for choosing a new Grand Chief after the death of Henri Membertou is not clear in this early period. Hereditary succession was practiced among the Mi'kmaw and in later times the position was hereditary. From this we can assume
that Louis Membertou, as eldest son, succeeded his father. It
is known he was being trained to take over Henri's other roles.

The position of Grand Chief disappears from the historical
record (the Grand Council only slightly less so). During this
'dark age' it is thought both institutions continued to exist but
the pressures of advancing European settlement, break down
in traditional social structures, and depopulation had led the
Grand Council to meet rarely or in secret.

Grand Chiefs Tomah Denys & Jean Baptiste Cope
When the position of Grand Chief is next mentioned in the
mid-1700s there are two contenders. It may be that the
French recognized one while the British recognized the other.
The question of which was the more legitimate candidate is an
interesting one. Tomah Denys resided on Cape Breton Island, which has special significance to the Mi'kmaw. The family
name of Denys is also common among later Grand Chiefs.
Finally, he was allied with the Mi'kmaw's traditional friends, the French. Jean Baptiste Cope lived on the mainland and was
often referred to by the military rank of Major. He did seek a
treaty of peace and friendship with the British in 1752 which
was presented to, and accepted by, the Grand Council. It is
clear that Mi'kmaw society was becoming divided with
different groups siding with one colonial power or the other.

By the end of the 1700s Mi'kmaw society seems to have
stabilized somewhat and a more complete list of Grand Chiefs
is known. However, it should be noted that several contenders
continued to be named Grand Chief during this period but we
will stick with the more recognized line.

Francis Peck (Grand Chief 1792-1818)
Michael Tooma (Grand Chief 1818-1842)
Frank Tooma Jr. (Grand Chief 1842-1869)
John Denys (Grand Chief 1869-1887)

John Denys Jr. (born 1851, Grand Chief 1887-1918)
The greatest change to the office of Grand Chief would occur
during John Denys Jr.'s time as Grand Chief. He instructed
his successor be elected for life rather than appoint his son.
There are varying accounts of whether this was supposed to
be a permanent change or a temporary measure until his son
was a bit older. John Denys Jr. is said to have felt the pressure
of the position would be too much for his son at the time.

Gabriel Sylliboy (born 1874, Grand Chief 1918-1964)
The first of the elected Grand Chiefs. He would fight for the
Mi'kmaw's historic treaty rights to be recognized and was the
first to invoke the treaties in a court of law.

Donald Marshall Sr. (born 1925, Grand Chief 1964-1991)

Benjamin Sylliboy (born 1941, Grand Chief 1991-2017)
As Donald Marshall Sr. neared the end of his life he asked
Benjamin Sylliboy if he would take over for him as Grand
Chief. Benjamin Sylliboy's time as Grand Chief would be a
renaissance for the Grand Council as a traditional governing
body of the Mi'kmaw.

Norman Sylliboy (Grand Chief 2019-Present)
Descended from Gabriel Sylliboy and the current Grand Chief.
Norman Sylliboy has been asked by the Denys family to once
again make the position hereditary in their line. Norman is
said to be considering this.

While the position of Grand Chief is currently elective, in
early periods it was hereditary with an important caveat; an
unworthy heir could be by-passed with other candidates from
the Grand Chief's family being considered. In this way the
position of Grand Chief has always had elements of both
hereditary and elective succession.

The Grand Council, of which the Grand Chief is a member,
is the highest governing body of the Mi'kmaw. Its power and
role have fluctuated wildly throughout its history. Early on it
had a role in resolving disputes and making treaties. The
long periods in which the Mi'kmaw were not served by a
Catholic priest led to members of the Grand Council often
having to fulfill a priestly role. This adopted role may have 
kept the Grand Council relevant as its political role
diminished almost to nothing in the 1800s. In recent years
the Grand Council is once again resuming its historic role of
being the body that represents the Mi'kmaw people. 

Membership on the Grand Council has shifted over time but it
broadly had a three person executive (Grand Chief, Grand
Captain, Putus) and a representative from each of the seven
regions that made up the Mi'kmaw territory.

Further Reading:
- Mi'kmmey Mawio'mi: Changing Roles of the
Mi'kmaq Grand Council From the Early Seventeenth
Century to the Present
- The Mi'kmaq Grand Council

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Jody Wilson-Raybould is the Member of
Parliament for Vancouver Granville, former
Attorney General of Canada, daughter of
hereditary chief Bill Wilson, and Matriarch
of the Wewaikai First Nation in her own
right. In recent weeks she has been a key
player in understanding the details of
attempts made by individuals in the Prime
Minister's Office to pressure her to defer the
prosecution of the company SNC-Lavalin in
her former capacity as Attorney General.
The company is charged with bribing Libyan officials back in
2011. A conviction would prevent them from bidding on
government contracts for a period of ten years and have
political ramifications in Quebec.

Her resistance to persistent political pressure from her peers
on an issue that was of her sole discretion is ​truly admirable.
If Her Majesty's coronation oath to "cause Law and Justice,
in Mercy, to be executed in all my judgements" is to have
any meaning she needs ministers like Mrs. Wilson-Raybould
who are willing to stand firm against those who see the rule of
law as a nuisance.

​I found one quote from her testimony of specific interest;

One of the many reasons I support monarchy is because its
heirs are trained in their profession with their family's long
history acting as a guide for their present and future. This
​quote exemplifies this principle. And, indeed, it would seem
strong leadership is her inheritance. If the Prime Minister
believed he could control ​her he was being very foolish.

Mrs. Wilson-Raybould bears another name, 'Puglaas', which
was given to her by her tribe. It means “woman born to
noble people”. Despite attempts to undermine and discredit
her it would seem that Canadians recognize who is displaying
nobility of character in this fight. And its not the prime
minister.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Anyone paying attention to national politics in Canada is
likely to have heard about a new round of protests in British
​Columbia around the pipeline being built there. Now under
normal circumstances a protest over pipelines isn't really a
story I would cover except for one tiny detail; It is being
organized and led by some of Canada's hereditary chiefs.

I haven't really had a chance to talk about Canada's hereditary
chiefs since 2015 when I did a short introductory article.
So what exactly is going on?

The government (which bought out the pipeline project) is
trying to get construction moving along. However, while it
got the consent of the elected chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en First
Nation, their authority only extends over the reserves and not
the traditional territories of the tribe. The use of traditional
territories is considered a matter for the hereditary chiefs of
the Wet'suwet'en. As Robert Joseph, Hereditary Chief of the
Gwawaenuk First Nation explained in a recent Maclean's
​interview:

The current government (as well
as the previous one) failed to get
the consent of the hereditary chiefs
to go through Wet'suwet'en lands.
The government's own policy is
clear; there must be consent of
both the elected and hereditary
chiefs for a project to go ahead.
There is a lot of reasons we have
ended up in this mess but I wanted
to focus a specific one: the
unnatural creation of the position
of elected chief in the societies of
the First Nations.

The elected chiefs were created by the statutes of the Indian
Act in the 1800s. They were meant to supplant and divide
the leadership of the tribes. This it accomplished all-to-well.
Where hereditary chief traditions have survived they are often
in conflict with the elected chiefs who possess a great deal of
​power but lack the moral suasion of the hereditary chiefs.

Some online commenters have tried to downplay the problem
with imposing democracy since democracy is obviously
awesome. This argument(?) firstly ignores that societies are
most stable when they are allowed to change and grow within
their own traditions and secondly that there is nothing
undemocratic about the existence of the hereditary chiefs. In
fact, given the reliance they have on the people following them
willingly they may be the more democratic of the two. These
protests could not be organized unless a large number of
people were unhappy. And if not, the chiefs stand to lose the
support of their people which I assume they would avoid.

On January 10th the hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en
reached an agreement with the RCMP over worker access to
the pipeline's location, the continued existence of a camp set
up during the protest, and police training regarding the tribe's
traditions. The hereditary chiefs explicitly stated this deal
​wasn't an acceptance of the pipeline project.  

The government will probably
get around to consulting with
the Wet'suwet'en in a more
thorough manner eventually but
how are we to avoid this kind of
situation next time?

Now, the following is just my
two cents based on my own
knowledge and experience. It is
not to be taken as me telling
First Nations what to do (that is
how we got to this point in the
first place after all) but merely
a course of action to pursue if
​they really want to.

Simply put, the hereditary chiefs could replace their elected
counterparts. They have a unique perspective that would
benefit the governance of their tribes. It would also eliminate
the ​conflict between the two positions which can poison their
communities. It would also make it easier for the government
​to consult with all stakeholders in the community.

While this hasn't been tried to any great extent in Canada,
there are African countries that have given their former
chiefs & kings formal roles and, in some cases, constitutional
protections of their territories. It is interesting to note that in
those countries the most they did was abolish the position the
ruler held. Canada went a step farther and actively supplanted
them and it has been a source of trouble for the First Nations
ever since.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Before the arrival of the Europeans Canada's First Nations
had already established thriving communities across the
continent. In almost of of these societies leadership was in the
hands of hereditary chiefs. These chiefs had roles that
encompassed both secular  and spiritual concerns. Decision-
making was based on consensus with the chief being advised
by groups of elders and the larger community. These chiefs served as monarchs over fairly small groups and areas. In
short, monarchy was well-established in Canada before the
arrival of the Europeans. Monarchy is a truly worldwide
phenomenon; only the details have differed. 

There is a certain perception that monarchies tended to hold
(and make use of) more power the further back in time you
look. This is not strictly true. Monarchy has been adapted to
the needs of each community throughout time. Early hunter-
gatherers didn't need someone to pass laws nor did the first
farmers. In those times the monarch's role was that of a
peacekeeper, referee, guide, and representative of the group.
As societies grew and developed monarchs took on more
roles. The personal power of monarchs can be conceptualized
as being bell-shaped over time. That is not to say that one type of monarch is more 'true' than another but to emphasize that monarchs reflect the needs of their societies. The Queen today
shares more similarities with Canada's hereditary chiefs
regarding role/purpose than many of Her Majesty's
predecessors! The differences between an hereditary chief and
Canada's monarch are slight in theory but they are also slight
in practice.   

In a study in 1997, Manley Begay identified some basic
commonalities in how First Nations conceived of good and
effective leadership. Begay divided them into five common
traits:

You can use the same language to describe our current
conception of a monarch who reigns but does not rule. And
indeed many early settlers described the chiefs they
encountered in monarchical terms. I am unsure when exactly
this stopped but it seems to have gone along with a decrease
in the status of the First Nations.

With over 600 separate First Nations in Canada a tribe by tribe examination of their Hereditary Chief Traditions is out of the question. However, a few examples may be illustrative.

Ogimà of the Algonquian
I contacting Chief Dominique Rankin about the Hereditary
Chief Tradition among Quebec's First Nations. He was able to
give me some insight into the traditions among the Algonquian. He described the chief's role as "being there to
awaken the memory of our ancestors" and to "become as the
protectors of all that is sacred". He also stated that they serve
to teach the future generations. The Hereditary Chiefs are in
direct line of decent for several generations and are recognized by the circles of elders. As prevails among most of
Canada's First Nations the chief elected under the provisions
of the Indian Act has taken over the political role.

Okimaw of the Cree
Professor Stonechild of the First Nations University of Canada
provided some background on the Cree traditions (as well as some information on the effects of the Indian Act on First
Nations leadership). She described the role of Hereditary
chiefs as being that of "role models, including being spiritual leaders". 

Tyee Ha’wilth and Ha’wiih of the Tseshaht 
The Tseshaht First Nation has a good overview of their tradition on their website. 
Of note is how they describe Chief Adam Shewish: "He will never be replaced in our Parliament. He was the voice of reason, the voice of vision, the voice of calm, the voice of compassion, and, forever, the voice of praise.” 
The echo of Bagehot's three rights of monarchs is unmistakable; the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, & the right to warn.

Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en 
Again I am going to rely on an outside link to explain the tradition.   

Hereditary chiefs continued to hold important positions in
their societies until the 1870s when the Canadian Government
passed the Indian Act. Tribes were to have 'band
governments' with elected leaders carrying out government
actions. These leaders (also called chiefs) would be elected
every two years. In a single move the hereditary chiefs were
undermined and divisions created in their communities. But
this was very much the point:

By forcing a republican system on the First Nations the
government undermined the very individuals who had the respect among the tribes to lead opposition to their plans. Professor Stonechild puts it simply enough; "The Indian Act
undermined all such positions." Even among the few First
Nations who did not have Hereditary Chiefs (such as the
Iroquois or tribes that lost their chiefs) choosing leaders was
based on consensus, not majoritarian vote.

The sidelining of so many hereditary chiefs in favour of what
is essentially a presidential regime marks the Indian Act as
Canada's most republican piece of legislation ever passed.

While the Indian Act was a blow to Canada's Hereditary Chief
Traditions it did not end them completely. Some First Nations
have kept their hereditary chiefs on an informal basis.
However, the division created by the Indian Act still remains
and in some First Nation communities the hereditary chiefs
and elected chiefs are at odds with each other.

Canada has a lot of issues to fix in regards to its dealing with
its First Nations and this is one issue that may well get
overlooked. I feel the hereditary chiefs should be allowed to
have a formal role in the band governments. This would
restore traditions successive governments very much tried to
destroy. It would also put the reserves on track for better governance as they would now be run as constitutional monarchies. But this is just my opinion and it is the First
Nations who need to want to restore their hereditary chiefs
for it to happen.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

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.

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.

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

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

Anne (1702–1714) 
House of Stuart


-Kingdom of Great Britain established, 1707

Victoria (1837–1901) 
House of Hanover

-Dominion of Canada established, 1867

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)

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

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour