Category: Republicans

State of Monarchy in the Caribbean

9/21/2022

Caribbean Realm Flags

Not too long ago there was some
controversy during the Cambridge's tour
of the Caribbean, although this was really
about some politicians and activists trying
to shake things up. Royal tours
everywhere spark debates all the time.

In reality this tour was very successful.
The Queen was evidently not seen as a
colonial ruler in the West Indies and
continued to be appreciated by many. As I’m writing this, I’m
thinking about my Jamaican-British classmate at music
school who told me that "everybody dances about the
Queen" when she visited.

Crowds greet the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in Trench Town

Attitudes to the monarchy appear to differ between the
politicians and the general public. A lot of these countries in
the West Indies have threatened to “cut colonial ties” for
decades now but in most places little progress was made with
this.

UK overseas territory Bermuda rejected independence in 1995
despite this being what their politicians campaigned for.
Bermuda would have remained a commonwealth realm even
if they had hypothetically voted yes. Bermudian politicians
continue to be nationalistic. Premier David Burt released a
statement following the Queen’s death, like most
commonwealth leaders, but what was rather concerning was that it read “I express sincere condolences to the Royal
Family and the people of the United Kingdom”, implying that
he is not acknowledging the queen's role in Bermuda.
Despite this kind of attitude from the Premier, the Queen did
make her fair share of visits to Bermuda which were greeted
with enthusiasm by the Bermudian people.

The decision of the Barbados government last year was rather
appalling; going ahead with removed the monarchy with an
act of parliament rather than a public referendum. The
justification for this was that the party in power won every
seat in Parliament and were explicitly republican in ideology.
Although, if you look at the broader picture; both major
parties have republican sentiment so who else were the people
supposed to vote for? The new head of state of Barbados was a
president chosen by their one party parliament who had
previously served as the Governor General. None of this
sounds very republican of them.

Prime Minister Mia Mottley announced her intention to do
this with a rather patriotic tone, saying that Barbados will “cut
colonial ties with Great Britain” on independence day.
Polling data suggests that Barbadians would have either preferred a monarchy, or would have been indifferent about
change, but a majority wished to be consulted about the
change. It’s sad to hear that Barbados was allegedly
encouraged to do this out of debt diplomacy with the PRC but
this really says more about their government than it does
about royalty.

The backlash during Prince William's royal tour obviously
caused him to feel quite remorseful. He acknowledged the
history of slavery in Jamaica and even conceding in the future
to ‘let the people decide’. Overall, the process to ‘ditch the crown’ is an empty threat and has been much slower for Jamaica than in Barbados precisely because the people must
be consulted.

Republicans in every realm have to a large extent waited for
Prince Charles to ascend before beginning to push for a
constitutional referendum. This has finally happened, though
if they want to make this a serious campaign, surely they
wouldn’t want to start too soon. Approval ratings of King
Charles III have gone up greatly since his ascension.

Queen Elizabeth II was obviously known to take her role
seriously in the West Indies, and there is no reason why King
Charles III can’t prove himself willing to do the same now.

Loyally Yours,
Lord Ludichris

0 Comments

Meme Monday #10

11/1/2021

Prince William from two perspectives

People say that a picture is worth a thousand words. What
they don't mention is that none of those words are necessarily
the truth.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Statement by Chairman Finch of the Monarchist League of Canada

7/6/2021

REPUBLICANISM WILL NOT HELP WITH RECONCILIATION

In the aftermath of the horrific discoveries of the bodies of Indigenous children at
former residential schools across the country, Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Canadians have rightly been asking themselves what more can be done to help
achieve reconciliation.

Recently, a school in Creston, BC removed its royal connection and renamed the
Prince Charles Secondary School. Statues of Queen Victoria have been toppled and
vandalized with barely a whimper of disapproval. On Twitter, so-called allies of
Indigenous peoples without a shred of sober second thought equate anyone who
supports the Crown with condoning and enabling genocide. All, of course, in the
name of reconciliation.

Unfortunately, there is a belief among some that erasing symbols of the monarchy
and the Royal Family will somehow help bridge the divide between us. Some want
to go as far as abolishing the monarchy altogether, replacing the Queen and the
Crown with a President and republican system of government. They argue that
republicanism is the way forward towards reconciliation. However, they could not
be more wrong in that assertion.

Just as in the broader population, Indigenous opinion on the monarchy is far from
being universal. Some support it, some do not, and some don’t care. However,
reconciliation does not mean republicanism. Nowhere in the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission is there a call for ending the monarchy in Canada. In
fact, a general theme found throughout its ninety-four calls to action is how the
Indigenous-Crown relationship can be fostered and strengthened. The final call to
action called upon the government to amend the Oath of Citizenship to include a
reference to treaties all while keeping references to The Queen and her successors.
Hardly a republican manifesto.

It is surely worth asking what exactly a republic would even achieve in the first
place for Canada’s First Nations, Inuit, and Metis. Would the lives of Indigenous
peoples be improved? Would they be better off? Well, have the Indigenous
populations prospered in our republican neighbours to the south, the United States
and Mexico? Surely not.

Today, there exists great public support for Indigenous people, concern for their
causes, and regret for past wrongs. But tearing down other institutions that are
important to many – including Indigenous people - is not the way to go tactically
or strategically to achieve reconciliation. Ditto for any widespread charges of
colonialism and the like applied to today’s Royal Family who, quite frankly, have
done more to champion Indigenous issues than many of our politicians,
bureaucrats, academics, pundits, and so-called activists.

Blaming The Queen or other members of the Royal Family for the misdeeds and
mistakes of the past is undeserved and ultimately unhelpful to the reconciliation
cause and the country. We have an exciting opportunity to come together and
rebuild the nation-to-nation relationship between the Crown and Indigenous
peoples. Perhaps the Queen herself has a special role to play in this rebuilding. Let’s
seize the moment. Let’s not squander it with ill-conceived actions that will only
further divide us.

Release July 3rd.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

All three policy proposals concerning the monarchy that were submitted to the NDP policy convention

4/10/2021

The NDP is having a policy convention this weekend (so are
the Liberals in what must have been a scheduling snafu). The
NDP membership has once again put forward policies
concerning the Canadian Monarchy to be debated. The
following is a summary of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good

And no, I don't know what 'Priority 0' means.

I actually like this and would support it. The return of the
vetting committee created during the premiership of Stephen
Harper would be a welcome reform.

The Bad

Essentially this proposal would end, or greatly limit, the
ceremonial role of the executive branch (unless the slack was
taken up by the prime minister which is another concern) and give the constitutional parts of the job to the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court. The obvious problem with this is that the chief justice is appointed by the governor general. Without a
governor general the chief justice would be in charge of
appointing their own replacement... and those of their fellow
justices. Even if everything is above board it looks sketchy as
all hell.

The Ugly

Did they stutter with their 'Wheras-es'?

Putting aside the call to abolish the monarchy for a second I
just want to note that the actions of former Governor General
Julie Payette only confirm the dysfunctional nature of Julie
Payette.

How Likely Are These To Pass?

The last time this issue came up it wasn't even debated by
the entire membership. This time the party has a lot of
popular motions to debate (you will note each of these is only
supported by one riding association). Jagmeet Singh has also
been trying to walk back some of the more extreme proposals
so it may be possible they will avoid committing to large
constitutional reforms which would take the third proposal off
the table. The second proposal above raises so many legal
questions that it probably won't make it to a full membership
vote. I can see the first one being debated and passed. This
creates an interesting situation. Due to the limit placed on
how many proposals will be debated (70) does the party allow
a single issue to take up three slots? If you limit which ones go
through does this favour the policy most likely to pass and be
implemented? These policies, if they are to be debated, will
come up on Sunday so we will find out then. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: As predicted the motions did not even come up for
debate.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Meme Monday #9

3/22/2021

There are some poll results that get funnier the longer you
look at them and consider the scenarios that could play out. A
recent YouGov poll carried out in the UK is one such example.
The idea of republicans actually getting rid of the monarchy
only for the people to then elect Prince William is funny to
me. And then there is the fourth place finish of 'Me' as the
person those surveyed would like chosen. Finally, Nigel
Farage and Jeremy Corbyn make a match made in hell at 2%
of support each.

But seriously, there is some interesting information to be had.
For starters there is no unifying choice among respondents.
Even the Queen, who enjoys widespread support has uneven
support when voting is brought into the picture. There is also
an obvious disconnect between who people want and who
would actually get to vote for. David Attenborough has had
plenty of opportunity to run for public office, takes public
positions on issues, and is obviously popular but has never
stood for election. Which leaves Boris Johnson as the most
credible candidate on this list to be president of a British
republic.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Democracy Watch combines Good Intent with an oddly poor understanding of the Canadian Constitution to Ill Effect

12/7/2020

Democracy Watch Logo

Recently I learned that an organization
called Democracy Watch was going to
sue the New Brunswick government over
its decision to call an early election back in
September. Now, suing anyone is risky but
more so when that organization has
limitless funds to mount a defence. So if
nothing else I commend their bravery.
Sadly, the bravery has a truckload of foolishness mixed in.

So what is the issue at hand? It comes down to reading New
Brunswick's fixed-date election law (which sets the date the
next election will fall on), and the constitution, the way you
want it to read rather than how it is actually written. James
Bowden over at Parliamentum has already made several
excellent posts about the structural problems of Canada's
fixed-date election laws so I will not get into them in depth
here.

The Democracy Watch press release announcing this legal
action is an interesting read mostly because it aims to have
the courts rule on two things they don't rule on: conventions
and politics. They argue that because the last three elections
have occurred on the fixed-date that a convention has been
established. I won't even dispute this point; a convention of
having elections on a set date may well have been established
but this still doesn't make conventions something
courts can rule on. The second aspect of their argument is
that calling an early election was self-interested and contrary
to previous political positions. Now, courts don't rule on
conventions and they definitely don't rule on political
positions. There is an amusing irony in that if Democracy
Watch gets its way the unelected courts will become referees
of government policy. Why is this an irony? Because they also
want the current referees of government policy (the monarch
and their representatives) to be elected.

Although, either because of the many constitutional hurdles
involved or a secret preference for oligarchy, they don't
actually call for elected governor generals:

"Democracy Watch recommends that the GG be chosen by creating a new federal
Cabinet appointments agency made up of 5 people chosen with the approval of all
federal political party leaders that have members in the House of Commons; then
having that agency do a public, advertised, merit-based search to come up with a
shortlist of 3 qualified candidates for GG (this agency will also do searches for
candidates for all other federal Cabinet appointments); and then having a
convention attended by the leaders of every party that has members in any federal,
provincial or territorial legislature, and with the GG approved by two-thirds of the
leaders. This will result in a representative, non-partisan, qualified GG being
chosen every time."

I'm sure Democracy Watch would like to think this is a more democratic process but it is instead a very oligarchic one. At
every step the smallest elite has authority. Search committee?
Selected by the party leaders. Convention to select the new
governor general? Party leaders from across Canada. I also
have doubts about their conclusion that the resulting pick
would be non-partisan. Election is not a system that tends to
select for non-partisanship. Those leaders doing the voting
have every interest to have someone sympathetic to their
interests get the nod. Finally, it diffuses responsibility for the
appointment. At present, the prime minister has a vested
interest in making sure their pick isn't an embarrassment.
By spreading the blame for any poor choices of governor
general around a wider group the prime minister loses any
sense of personal responsibility in making sure the office of
the governor general is functioning properly.

The idea of having a select group choose candidates to
recommend is not a bad idea in and of itself. I have
mentioned the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal
Appointments before and I feel it was an improvement.

So Democracy Watch does have some good ideas, such as
increasing the power of auditors general, but the good ideas
are buried under layers of poorly-thought-out initiatives, of
which messing with the Crown is only one. It can do better.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Green Party Leadership Race: Views on the Monarchy

9/1/2020

Elizabeth May

The Green Party is holding the second
leadership race this year. It is to choose
a successor to Elizabeth May who has
been a longtime champion of Canada's
monarchy. This is also the first time
since the party gained national status
that a leadership race has been called.
As such it is an important chance to see
what the party's thinking is on Canada's
monarchy.

Questions & Replies

The questions posed to each candidate:

1. What are your views on the monarchy?
2. As prime minister would you make use of the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal
Appointments that was active between 2010 and 2015?
3. During the previous parliament the government cancelled a program that
mailed physical copies of the Queen's portrait to any Canadian who asked free of
charge. Would you restore this program?
4. The government also removed the Queen's portrait from the lobby of the Foreign
Affairs Office and replaced it with paintings by Alfred Pallen. Would you find a
way to have both paintings and portrait share the ample wall space of the Foreign
Affairs Office lobby?

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
David Merner
Amita Kuttner
Annamie Paul
Meryam Haddad
Glen Murray
Dimitri Lascaris
Courtney Howard
Andrew West

No longer in the race
Dylan Perceval-Maxwell
Judy Green

Crown & Cap Scoreboard

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.

Judy Green

Judy's response was neutral having no
preference for either a monarchy or a
republic. Withdrew and endorsed
David Merner.

Score:

David Merner

David Merner supports the monarchy
and several ways that its role can be
highlighted and improved. His score
mostly suffers from a lack of public
statements on this topic.

Score:

Amita Kuttner

Amita is a republican. Most of their
score comes from including
abolishment in their platform.

Score:

Annamie Paul

Aside from acknowledging that the
Queen is Canada's head of state, Ms.
Paul had no opinion on the monarchy.

Score:

Dylan Perceval-Maxwell

Dylan was supportive of the monarchy
in his reply but lacked any public
comments to improve his overall
score. Removed from the race for
comments made during a debate.

Score:

Meryam Haddad

Meryam is a republican and thinks
the monarchy should be abolished at
some point but has not made it part of
her platform.

Score:

Loyal Quotes

"I love Prince Charles he has been an environmentalist for at
least 40 years. Bush won over Gore because the USA does
not have a Royal head of state. It is important."
~Dylan Perceval-Maxwell

I would like to thank all of the candidates for getting back to
me. While I might disagree at times with the replies I receive
it is at least good to know that politicians still take the time
to reply to ordinary Canadians.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Green Party Leadership Candidates and the Monarchy: Meryam Haddad

6/23/2020

Meryam Haddad

The second reply I received today
was from Ms. Meryam Haddad.
Ms. Haddad's response was very
different from her opponent:

"I personally do not believe in the
monarchy and think that we
should eventually get rid of it."

No public statements were found.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Conservative Leadership Candidates and the Monarchy: Aron Seal

2/4/2020

Photo Credit: Aron Seal

Hard to believe that it has been
three years since I last surveyed
the prospective leaders of the
Conservative Party of Canada. As
in 2017 there is a large number of
candidates. Also, like 2017, there is
a second race later in the year for
a different federal party (this time
it is the Greens). I am sending an
expanded list of questions this
time around:

1. What are your views on the monarchy?

2. As prime minister would you make use of the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal
Appointments that was active between 2010 and 2015?

3. During the previous parliament the government cancelled a program that
mailed physical copies of the Queen's portrait to any Canadian who asked free of
charge. Would you restore this program?

4. The government also removed the Queen's portrait from the lobby of the Foreign
Affairs Office and replaced it with paintings by Alfred Pallen. Would you find a
way to have both paintings and portrait share the ample wall space of the Foreign
Affairs Office lobby?

First up is Aron Seal who replied the same day the questions
were sent. While I appreciate promptness in this instance it is
because he didn't have to think the questions over very hard:

"Sir - I believe this tweet
should answer your
questions. I am afraid we
are at odds on this issue.
Best wishes, Aron"

As Mr. Seal has not held
public office the Hansard
cannot be checked for any
additional comments.
However, he has tweeted
a similar sentiment at
least once before.

Overall, a disappointing
start to this overview of
the candidates as the last
one found none of the
contenders harbored any
republican sentiments.
Both the sentiments
expressed (and factual
errors in his tweets) do
not leave me with much to
commend.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

My Reply to John Boyko

12/4/2019

On December 1st the Toronto Star published an opinion
piece by John Boyko, an author of seven books on
Canadian history and politics. In this opinion piece John lays
out his views on abolishing the monarchy (he is for it). I found
myself angrier than I expected upon reading his take on the
issue which required some reflection on my part.

As someone who happens to like his biography of R.B.
Bennett I was somewhat disappointed by his stance. In the
same way you might be disappointed to find out that someone
who's talents you admire has an unexpected character flaw.
But reading the article there was a more basic reason for my
anger: A historian should know better.

And so as a bit of catharsis I am going to dissect what John
wrote. And, in fact, the opinion piece nearly demands it be
dissected due to the surprisingly low quality of the argument
put forward.

Prince Andrew on 29 January 2013, Photo Credit: Titanic Belfast

"Canadians should be grateful
to Prince Andrew. His allegedly
reprehensible behaviour and
disastrous interview invite
Canadians to consider our ties
to the monarchy. It’s time to cut
them."

Mr. Boyko does not make it past the
first paragraph before he stretches
reason beyond its breaking point.
Why should Prince Andrew's alleged
acts (or barring that, his pretty questionable decisions
regardless) invite Canadians to consider our ties to the
monarchy? When it was revealed that Justin Trudeau had did
blackface on more than one occasion I don't recall any
hand wringing over the 'need' to abolish the prime minister's
office. Likewise, when a federal judge (only an appointment
away from the Supreme Court) made a disgusting comment
during a rape trial the reaction was not op-eds on how it was
time we put the Supreme Court to bed. In both of these cases
we recognize that the institution is bigger than the temporary,
fallible, person who occupies it (or could, maybe, occupy it if
the stars aligned correctly). So, why is no such consideration given to the institution of the monarchy? Mr. Boyko does not
say. His failure to address this question leaves the impression that Prince Andrew's alleged actions are mentioned solely to
put his audience in the right mood to accept the rest of his argument. While this is great use of rhetoric it is hardly an
argument.

"The severance would not be a radical act but the
final step in our long stroll to sovereignty. It began
with Queen Victoria signing the British North
America Act. It was a baby step with Britain still
controlling all that mattered. But we kept walking."

Amazing. Everything John wrote here is wrong. For starters it
conflates Canada's ties to Britain with Canada's ties to the
monarchy. It also manages to ignore that the political history
of all of Canada's founding peoples is largely monarchical, be
it the French ancien regime, English limited monarchy, or
Aboriginal hereditary chief traditions. No part of Canada
has ever been a republic. I think Mr. Boyko is downplaying
just how radical this act would be.

In an subtle way this section undermines his argument.
Queen Victoria supported Confederation and helped get it
across the finish line. When John A. Macdonald had his
audience with the Queen it is recorded he declared,"We have
desired in this measure to declare in the most solemn and
emphatic manner our resolve to be under the sovereignty of
Your Majesty and your family forever." John A. made no
such declaration regarding Britain.

Queen Victoria, Mother of Confederation

"The first steps involved saying no."

Mr. Boyko then proceeds to go off on a tangent detailing
about how Canada slowly moved away from British influence
over its affairs. But I want to instead detail the history of
Canada saying yes to the monarchy. We said yes when the
details of Confederation were being worked out. Indeed, the
monarchical character of Canada was agreed to more readily
than any other measure.

The main result of the King-Byng Affair was that the governor
general would henceforth be the monarch's representative,
not the representative of the British government. Once again
we said yes.

When the Statute of Westminster was passed in the 1930s we
said yes again. The Canadian government began advising the
monarch directly. King Edward VIII's dedication of the
Canadian National Vimy Memorial was the first act advised
and supported by his Canadian ministers alone.

"Two years later, the prime minister appointed our
first Canadian-born governor-general. Our head of
state would never again be another left-over lord."

Our head of state is the monarch, not the governor general. A
wizard, er, historian should know better!

"That step would have us confess that titular power is
a sham; that we and not the Crown owns our public
land, and that in a mature democracy, it has no place
in our courts or on our money."

As someone currently in the process of trying to get the
property of an old railway line currently owned by the Crown
transferred to my family I can assure you we do not own the
Crown lands and I highly doubt becoming a republic is going
to change that. Indeed, certain research suggests republics
are less respectful of property rights than would otherwise be
the case.

The appeal to democracy is amusing. Many monarchies are
also mature democracies. There is no inherent contradiction
between the two. And arguably, having a monarchy is better
for democracy.

But more disturbing is that Mr. Boyko doesn't touch on what
happens to the Crown's reserve powers if he actually gets his
wish. Better to ignore such a difficult question, I suppose.

"In a nod to fiscal responsibility, we could end the
Governor General’s $289,000 salary and all the other
attendant costs that exceed $50 million a year."

This is brought up repeatedly by republicans while ignoring
that presidencies have tended to be more expensive and that
we would likely have a president. But since Mr. Boyko doesn't
mention establishing a presidency we are again left with the
nagging question of the reserve powers. But a bigger issue is...

Quick! What is the size of the Canadian federal budget? If you
said $355.6 billion then congratulations on looking that figure up on Google. I don't think Mr. Boyko did. $50 million is the tiniest nod to 'fiscal responsibility' the government could
possibly make (assuming no presidency is established).

Rideau Hall, Photo Credit: Concierge.2C

"We could sell or re-purpose
the Royal housing across
Canada, beginning with
bulldozing the shamble on
Sussex and moving the prime
minister into Rideau Hall."

Let's start by pointing out that the
reason 24 Sussex Drive is in such bad repair is that successive
prime ministers have balked at the idea of fixing it. Not
popular with the people, you know. Even in the Trudeau
family's temporary home at the Rideau Cottage the kitchen
needs work. I see no indication that giving Rideau Hall over
to the tender mercies of an endless stream of prime ministers
uninterested in upkeep will do Rideau Hall any favours.

"Our new democracy could dispense with most of the
Governor General’s ceremonial duties and leave the
rest to a deputy prime minister; a person elected and
not selected."

Our newly degraded democracy is looking shabbier all the
time. Joyless and dull. Many of the governor general's
ceremonial duties have to do with helping the people know
the government gives a damn or encouraging Canadians to
aim higher. But perhaps some of those duties will be saved for
the deputy prime minister. A person whose name does not
immediately come to mind. But you see, them being elected is
the problem. Mr. Boyko started off his article wanted to drop
the monarchy because of the alleged actions of one man. Here
he supposes that an elected official will behave better than a
selected or hereditary one? We have too many contemporary
examples proving this to be false. Or perhaps Mr. Boyko
believes that as long as they are elected it doesn't matter of
what quality the person is carrying out these duties?

"Our last step to independence would necessitate a
constitutional conference. Embrace it. Let’s ape our
founders and ensure that delegates are the leaders of
our federal, provincial, and territorial governments
and their opposition leaders. Indigenous
representatives must be at the table. Let the
conference begin by declaring a republic and then
addressing the claims of Quebec’s Bloc and the
prairie’s Wexit."

This is the point where I question whether Mr. Boyko's entire
exercise has been a clever satire. Not only will a constitutional
conference have all the provincial governments, the federal
government, territorial governments attending but also
indigenous representatives and opposition representatives
from each legislature. How will such a group come to any sort
of agreement? The original conferences were a success
because there was some agreement to build on (starting with
a shared sovereign). And even then not every colony got on
board with Confederation right away.

And it will solve regional grievances too! And everyone gets a
pony!

"Let us welcome Prince Andrew’s invitation, seize the
moment, and engage in a serious national
conversation."

Serious national conversations start with a serious voice to set the tone. Let me know when such a person appears because it certainly was not the writer of the Toronto Star article.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

<<Previous

State of Monarchy in the Caribbean

Meme Monday #10

Statement by Chairman Finch of the Monarchist League of Canada

All three policy proposals concerning the monarchy that were submitted to the NDP policy convention

The Good

The Bad

The Ugly

How Likely Are These To Pass?

Meme Monday #9

Democracy Watch combines Good Intent with an oddly poor understanding of the Canadian Constitution to Ill Effect

Green Party Leadership Race: Views on the Monarchy

Questions & Replies

Crown & Cap Scoreboard

Loyal Quotes

Green Party Leadership Candidates and the Monarchy: Meryam Haddad

Conservative Leadership Candidates and the Monarchy: Aron Seal

My Reply to John Boyko

About

Archives

Categories