Category: Republicans

New Democratic Party Leadership Race: Views on the Monarchy

8/16/2017

As I did with the Tory leadership race I have been
contacting the various leadership candidates for the New
Democratic Party of Canada to ascertain their views on the
monarchy. I have already posted individual articles on some
of the candidates. This post is to function as a sort of index
and supplement to the other articles.

The Emailed Question & Responses

The question posed to each candidate was simple:
"What are your views on the monarchy?"

Below are links to each candidate's reply and a short look at
any previous comments they have made in regards to the
monarchy. Names are in order of when they entered the race.

Cheri DiNovo (Withdrew From Race)
Peter Julian (Withdrew From Race)
Charlie Angus
Guy Caron
Niki Ashton
Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury (Withdrew From Race)
Brian Graff (Candidacy Rejected)
Pat Stogran (Withdrew From Race)
Jagmeet Singh
David Berlin (Withdrew From Race)

Crown & Cap Scoreboard

Here I have ranked the candidates support for 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.

I have had to make a change since last time as some
candidates have views leaning towards republicanism. The
crown score is now joined by a phrygian cap score.

The crown score is out of five crowns and five caps 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.

One cap is 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.

Peter Julian

Mr. Julian has stated he has no strong
views on the monarchy but feels a
referendum on the issue might be
appropriate.

Score:

Charlie Angus

Mr. Angus is firmly opposed to the
monarchy but like many republicans
does not see replacing it as a priority.

Score:

Pat Stogran

Mr. Stogran's score suffered due to
a bit of vagueness. He seems to know
the monarchy is important but doesn't
say it is important to him.

Score:

Brian Graff (No Photo)

Mr. Graff's reply was highly detailed
and greatly opposed to the monarchy.
This is unfortunate as he made clear
he once supported it.

Score:

Ibrahim Bruno El-Khoury

Mr. El-Khoury's reply noted the
historical importance of the monarchy
while dwelling on Canada's ability to
change if it chooses to. In the end the
reply advocates nothing resulting in
a low score on both sides.

Score:

Jagmeet Singh

In light of Mr. Singh's unfortunate
remarks during the Montreal debate
his score has been adjusted.

Score:

NDP Supporters and Monarchists Quotes

I have run across a few interesting quotes from people who
would like to support the NDP or a specific candidate but are
put off by the party's knee-jerk republicanism.

"After reviewing Jagmeet Singh's comments against the
Monarchy I became deeply concerned. As a Federal NDP
supporter since Jack Layton, I do not have confidence in a
leader who does not understand that the Canadian Crown is
completely independent and unique from the British Crown
and of it's powerful force for national unity and Canadian
identity. I certainly don't support someone who doesn't
respect or even understand the Canadian Crown."
~Darren Brierley

"I'd vote for him [Jagmeet Singh] if the NDP weren't so anti-
monarchy. Because of that, I now usually vote Green. But
Jagmeet might convince me to vote NDP next election, if he
can show that he doesn't plan to waste time with
constitutional amendments to remove/relocate the Crown in
Canadian governance."
~marnas86

"I agree that sharing our monarch with the other
Commonwealth realms has largely been beneficial to
Canada since 1867. It is for most Canadians both a Canadian
and international symbol of continuity, non-partisan
authority, and civic participation in an increasingly
globalized society. Canada’s colonial history has many
shameful memories, but they are primarily tied to the
policies of past governments and exploitative practices of
commercial interests. The monarchy is largely a reflection of
our times and it’s current incarnation should be used to
celebrate and cultivate the best that Canada has to offer."
~James Bromilow

"I am not myself a member of the New Democratic Party,
but often find myself more sympathetic to many of its
policies than I am to those of the Liberals when concerning
the rights and concerns of the working classes, and the little
guy, generally. However, one reason I always find myself
cringing away from being able to actually support the NDP
is certain members’ stances on the monarchy... I know that I
and many people like me would feel infinitely more
comfortable with the NDP if it took a firm public stance in
favour of the Monarchy." ~Jonathan Banks

"Republicanism is a failed governmental concept. Compare
the peace and relative stability of the United Kingdom with
the constant strife and unrest in France, or the unparalleled
quality of life and happiness in Norway, Sweden and
Denmark. It’s no coincidence that having a uniting symbol in
the form of a King or Queen helps bring people together and
creates a better life. Republicans often point to Monarchies
being undemocratic, but I see no lack of democracy in any
Constitutional Monarchy-led country. I would see Peter
Julian be the candidate that stands up for our Monarchy;
who says “There is plenty wrong with our government and
system of electing MP’s, but not in the Canadian Monarchy. I
see no reason to do away with the unity and stability that
having a Monarchy has brought Canada over the past 150+
years.”" ~Brian Appel

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

0 Comments

NDP Leadership Candidates and the Monarchy: Brian Graff

6/5/2017

0 Comments

I have received a response from, not one, but two candidates
today. Both came back with a response without unnecessary
badgering (which is always appreciated). The first was Brian
Graff. Mr. Graff's candidacy has previously been rejected by
the NDP but he is pursuing legal means to be allowed to run.
So what has Brian Graff have to say about the monarchy?

"I used to believe that the monarchy was a good symbol of our heritage and how
we achieved independence peacefully, unlike the US. IT clearly set us apart from
the US. But, a Head of state should be a unifying figure, and the Monarchy is very
unpopular in Quebec – this is unlikely to change, even with immigration –
Quebecois see the monarchy as a symbol of defeat and past oppression, and despite
the Queen’s long and loyal service, I doubt this will change under her reign, and I
don’t see Charles being any more popular. It’s the institution, not the person, that is
the issue.
Even though my mother was born in the UK, I am now of the belief that we should
stay in the Commonwealth but should have a Canadian head of state. However,
that means opening up the Constitution, which is something that is unlikely to
happen soon.
So regardless of my views, we are stuck with it for many years."

Let us start with the positive: Mr. Graff wouldn't try to remove
the monarchy in an official capacity. But on the negative side
there is the belief that the monarchy doesn't do its job. Well,
one of its jobs.

Next, I checked whether Mr. Graff has made any other public
statements regarding the monarchy. I don't usually hold out
much hope of this if the candidate has never held public office
but in this case there was something. Back in 1991 Ontario
had a committee examining several different constitutional
issues. Brian Graff appeared as a witness. Below is a
transcript of his statements related to the monarchy:

"One thing is, in doing such a thing, we should start from the top down, and perhaps
the first thing for me is that it is time we should finally have a made-in-Canada
head of state. For many French Canadians, the British-based monarchy is not an
endearing institution. As well, it is not a symbol of great relevance to the increasing
number of Canadians of non-British heritage, including the aboriginal peoples. The
Queen has no real power as such, most of it having been transferred to the
Governor General. This was made abundantly clear with the GST bill, in which she
had no choice but to sign it into law despite the controversy over the way in which it
was passed.
In the past, I tended to support the monarchy, as I believed it to be a symbol which
helped to distinguish ourselves from the US as a nation which gained independence
peacefully. But now I feel that other things are more important, namely that we
must create national institutions and symbols that are equally valid and relevant to
all Canadians, regardless of their ethnic origin or their religion. You should
remember that the Queen is of course a religious symbol as the head of the Anglican
church.
Twenty-five years ago we did this sort of thing with the flag. We got a brand-new
flag. No one individual group, British, French or anybody, could claim that it had a
special relationship to it, that it was its symbol more than it was anybody else's,
with the possible exception of course that the maple leaf does not grow in all parts
of the country.
Anyway, I hope that by such reforms as creating a new head of state that
everybody equally can identify with, it will have an effect of unifying the country.
Recent events have shown us that while the American system has too many checks
and balances and power is too decentralized within each level of government, such
as the budget process in the United States where they could not agree on anything,
our Canadian system is the exact opposite. There are not enough checks and
balances in our parliamentary system as it has evolved to the current time. Power
within each level of government is centralized in the head of government,
particularly when that is a majority government. I believe the greater power
should be given to bodies which are independent of interference from the
government so as to prevent abuse of power by the government and otherwise
make government more responsive to public needs. This is a role of the Senate, the
head of state and so on.
Unfortunately, the current institution of Governor General is not adequate to this
task, as it is currently an appointed head of state, or it would be an appointed head
of state if you made that the head of state, and it is quite likely that whoever was
appointed Governor General the government would of course be completely
sympathetic with government policy. I also believe you cannot give an appointed
person or body any real authority in a democracy. So I think that, importantly, it is
becoming increasingly clear that there is a need to provide more checks and
balances on the exercise of power by the Prime Minister, because increasingly
power is centralized in his office.
I believe we should replace both monarchy and governors general with an elected
president, but I would not want anything like the American President, which so
totally dominates things. I would, though, require that any aspirants to the position
of president previously have held elected office so that they be familiar with
parliamentary procedures and also that they be competent in both official
languages, again so that they can communicate with all Canadians."

Overall, not a whole lot of positive news about this candidate.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Playing with the Citizenship Oath and Unintended Side Effects

2/2/2017

0 Comments

The government has recently announced that it intends to
modify the citizenship oath to include a nod to First Nations
treaty rights. Now, I find this slightly redundant as the
current oath already has the speaker swear that they "will
faithfully observe the laws of Canada". But as far as additions
go I guess its okay.

The problems start when you consider the last battle over the
oath. Back in 2015 a man by the name of Dror Bar-Natan
took the oath of citizenship and then immediately renounced
the part concerning the Queen. It has already been
determined that such renunciations do not effect one's
citizenship status (as much as you might think it should) and
are a purely symbolic action. And so far you get a few crazy
republicans doing so from time to time. That the media has
covered such non-events is annoying but overall their entire
effort is not really a concern.

What does concern me is that by allowing the renunciations
we have essentially created a situation where any part of the
oath may be symbolically excised at the preference of the
new citizen. What is the harm in that you might ask? Well,
while concepts such as the Queen, succession, laws, and
duty are universal concepts of our fair dominion the First
Nations treaties are not widely perceived as such. While such
treaties were negotiated between various tribes and the
Crown (and as such should be respected) they largely effect
First Nations on a day-to-day basis and the rest of Canadians
only during periods of tension (pipelines, fishing/hunting
rights, etc). As such you already have Canadians who feel the
treaties should be ripped up. And those coming from other
countries could conceivably view the treaties as creating
unequal status. So lets consider what happens if they did
renounce that section.

Imagine if you will a person deciding to publicly renounce the
proposed section of the oath dealing with treaty rights. It
would be just as symbolic as the renunciation of the Queen
but would cut at the mutual trust between First Nations and
the rest of Canadians. Oh, and the media would cover it. If
anything is clear about the media after 2016 its that it will
cover the most obnoxious drivel imaginable. And opinions
denigrating First Nations would have their airing. And while
that might be as far as it goes (which is still too far) it could
create a climate where some feel violence is justified as has
happened recently in Quebec.

Such grandstanding might even lead some to say those who
renounce that part of the oath should have their citizenship
stripped. After all, as a monarchist I can understand where
that sentiment would be coming from; "Those people are
undermining a key pillar of Canada, they must be stopped!"

Which may be the correct response. As I have noted before
the Citizenship Oath is a reciprocal promise between subject
and sovereign. It was never meant to be an opportunity for
bigoted grandstanding and it shouldn't be allowed to become
one. So if the government intends to go ahead with the change
to the oath I'd like to suggest one common sense measure:

-Renunciation of a part of the oath constitutes a renunciation
of the whole oath.

Its not even a free speech issue since republicans have already
failed to kill the Citizenship Oath with that argument.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Abuse of Terms: "Monarchy is not Compatible with the 21st Century"

1/18/2017

0 Comments

Recently I saw a comment on the Monarchists Facebook
group that deserved a closer look:

Now, readers of this blog might remember that I dealt with a
similar set of arguments a few years back. I can't say I am
satisfied with the argument I made before so this is a bit of a
redo. Now on to the Facebook post itself.

My answer would depend a great deal on whether I deemed
the question to have been asked out of a genuine desire to
understand or if it was an attempt to shut down debate.

In either case I would first point out that appealing to the
current year, century, or era to attack a subject is a form of
Chronological Snobbery. As C.S. Lewis points out,

"In the first place he made short work of what I have called my "chronological
snobbery," the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own
age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account
discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by
whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If
the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one
passes to the realization that our own age is also "a period," and certainly has, like
all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those
widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to
attack or feels it necessary to defend them."

It is important to note that monarchy has never been refuted.
Starting 200 years ago monarchy has been abandoned as a
government form because of its relative unpopularity, not its
relative inferiority. And as modern research is starting to
show, perhaps this wholesale abandonment of monarchy was
a mistake.

I might in my reply be unable to resist a bit of snark. After all,
the 21st century has seen a rise in terrorist attacks, increased
state oppression & surveillance, prolonged voter apathy, the
worsening of partisan divides, and renewed civil strife & mass
displacement of peoples. At the risk of sounding like one of
those reactionary types I'd like to ask what is so good about
the 21st century? And this question needs to be asked because
in this instance the term '21st century' may be standing in for
a set of values the person has. And if it is you may actually be
able to have a decent discussion on the merits of monarchy
once the person starts looking seriously at what they believe
rather than the nearest calendar.

A related argument that is no less silly is the slogan often
formulated as 'Because its <insert current year>'. As above it
is not an argument but in this formulation it is often used to
justify doing something while the previous example is used to
justify not doing something. One reason I dislike 'Because its
<insert current year>' is that it is almost always a missed opportunity to explain your reasoning (hence why politicians
love it so much). However, it does lend itself to use by
monarchists, in certain circumstances, who want to start a
discussion:

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

All That Is Gold Does Not Glitter

5/16/2016

0 Comments

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
-J.R.R Tolkien

The above poem comes from The Lord of the Rings trilogy. It
is repeated twice in The Fellowship of the Ring and refers to
Aragorn, the rightful king of Gondor. While it is fairly certain
that Tolkien didn't intend for the poem to be an allegory for
anything (since he famously hated allegory), it is fun to play
with the poem's applicability as I will do here. I'm certainly
not the first to do this. It is a generous gift from Tolkien that
he rejected allegory in favour of applicability. The latter
invites the reader to use their own head just as much as the
former shackles the reader to the authors intent.

But enough of that. What do I want to do with this poem?
Well, the poem is already meant to allude to the return of
Gondor's king. Why not expand the words to apply to the
many monarchist movements of our world?

All that is gold does not glitter

To me this phrase can describe
the idea of monarchy itself. It is
an odd phrase in that it makes
little immediate sense. Gold
glitters. Gold that does not glitter
seems strange. But gold can be
made to lose its glitter. If it is
shrouded in darkness, or covered
in dirt, or alloyed with dull base
materials.

In much the same way monarchy (the gold) can be forced to
lose its appeal (glitter). This can be done through ignorance
of a country's history or the monarchy's place within society.
The eyes of the people become clouded and dim, forgetting
the value of their monarchy. Likewise, monarchy can be
marred by malignant attacks by republicans. Lies repeated
ad nauseam can take on the appearance of truth and the
monarchy is slowly buried in the mud (or dirt). These lies told
by republicans take on a special danger when they attempt to
associate monarchy with ideas that have nothing to do with
it. Republicans try to associate monarchy with fascism,
racism, immaturity, and anachronism (base materials)
because by associating monarchy with them they may attack
the base materials in order to hide the gold.

At the same time republicans attempt to 'outshine' monarchy
by holding up republics as an ideal. Even going so far as to
hold republics 'more advanced' than monarchy. This stanza
reminds us that monarchy is golden even when republicans
desperately try to hide it. And gold's glitter can be hidden but
it cannot be eliminated.

Not all those who wander are lost

Michael I & Anne on a Romanian Stamp

This phrase fits the scattered
royal claimants of the world quite
well. While some claimants (the
wanderers) have given up on ever
being sovereign of their countries
again (they have become lost in
the sense of not knowing where
they are supposed to go), other
claimants continue to fight for
their thrones (they are not lost in
the sense of being unrecoverable
even though they no longer
reign).

The old that is strong does not wither

I feel this is an apt description of tradition, and more
specifically, monarchism. While the modern world gnaws at
the traditions of the past there remains those faithful to those
traditions. That monarchism has not died away and, in fact,
grows stronger in some areas must perplex republicans.
Because despite their best efforts...

Deep roots are not reached by the frost

Traditions run deep. As I stated up in the first section,
republicans will do what they can to hide monarchy's value
from the people because they cannot destroy that value.
But even if they attack the people's belief in monarchy they
are ultimately doomed to fail. Monarchy is too embedded in
the fabric of human history and culture. Republicans cannot
reach its roots.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken

This line (and the rest of the poem) shows the hope of
monarchists. Hopes rekindled from the lifeless ashes of
republicanism.

But it also connects with the first line rather well. Fire dispels
darkness, it burns away detritus, and it purifies metal. So
aside from hope you could view the fire here as representing the fight to restore monarchy.

A light from the shadows shall spring

Referring again to the claimants in their wanderings. Each
willing to help their country in whatever way they can. Each
willing to return and help their countries in times of dire
need.

Renewed shall be blade that was broken

Blades can represent various things. To me the blade here best describes the country itself. Or more specifically a
country's present reconnecting with its past. A connection
that republics often try to break to secure their rule. This is
important because just as you cannot fight a battle without a
weapon, a country cannot safely enter the future without an
understanding and appreciation of its past. And the best way
for a country to maintain an understanding and appreciation
of the past is to carry it with themselves.

The crownless again shall be king

Indeed. All hail the return of the king!

Tolkien

Well, this has been a fun exercise.
Tolkien's works lend themselves to
monarchical interpretation partly due to
Tolkien's own monarchism. And this
poem especially stirs something in me.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

A Royal Birthday Means a New Poll on the Monarchy

4/23/2016

1 Comment

This week was Her Majesty's 90th birthday. Tributes were
many including a tweet from the Prime Minister and the
House of Commons singing God Save The Queen:

And as is the modern tradition whenever there is any sort of
royal milestone the results a new poll on the monarchy
were released. Here is the main result:

Now 42% isn't where I would like it to be but it is consistent
with the many previous polls. That said, the republican
movement has shown little ability to grow its base of support.

Equally predictable was the statement by Tom Freda, a noted
republican spokesman, that this poll shows that now is the
time for Parliament to look at 'severing ties with the
monarchy'. Tom Freda says this pretty much every time one
of these polls comes out. I'm pretty sure a poll could show that
Canadians are eating more carrots and Tom Freda would state
that this result shows it is time to abolish the monarchy. But
despite the republican movement's best efforts poll after poll
has stuck to the same general result: a majority (sometimes
an absolute majority) supports the monarchy.

Amid the other results (some good, some bad) there is a
birthday gift for Her Majesty. When the respondents were
asked to describe the Queen, 67% described Her Majesty as
Respected. There are not many Canadians who receive such
a glowing review from their countrymen. Even fewer keep
that respect for very long.

A second poll conducted on behalf of Global News found that
a resounding 84% of Canadians feel Her Majesty ‘has done a
good job in her role as monarch’. However, a slim majority
feels she should abdicate. While part of this result is likely due
to republicans it is equally true that many Canadians know
how hard she works and feel she deserves a rest. 55% of
respondents also felt Canada should continue as a monarchy.

At 90 years of age the Queen sits upon a throne that faces no
serious challenge. Long live the Queen!

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

1 Comment

Progressivism & Monarchy

11/28/2015

0 Comments

It is not a secret that, as a general rule, conservatives seem to
support monarchy more than progressives. While it is true
that conservative support for tradition and established
authority make support for monarchy quite natural what
aspect of monarchy makes it such an incomparable ideal for
progressives?

This question has played in the back of my mind for a while
now. I ponder it as my own examination of monarchy reveals
not two incompatible ideals as is commonly assumed but
ones that often gain a great deal from each other.

Before I continue with my main argument that monarchy
should be considered a progressive ideal it might be helpful to
define what I mean by both monarchy and progressivism.

'Monarchy' literally means 'rule by one'. It is the world's most
successful system of government having been adapted for use
from China to Peru and from the dawn of human history up to
present day. A system that has been so widely used has to be
flexible. And, indeed, monarchy has many variations. While I
could get into the myriad differences between Canada's
hereditary chiefs and imperial Russia's tsars I'd like to
move ahead somewhat quickly. Sufficed to say that while
many of the points I will make apply to other forms of
monarchy I will be focusing strictly on constitutional
monarchy where the monarch reigns but does not rule.
Constitutional monarchy is a system where the monarch lets
elected officials handle the day-to-day governance. The
monarch may have real reserve powers (as in Canada,
Denmark, Britain) or they my be limited to a strictly
ceremonial role (Sweden, Japan). Special mention should be
made of Monaco and Liechtenstein who have elected
assemblies but whose monarchs do participate in the
governing of the country. And while the Parliament need not
be democratic in a constitutional monarchy, remaining
constitutional monarchies are also mostly democratic states.

'Progressivism' is an interesting belief system due in no small
part to the contested definition of it. I cast a wide net in my
search for an adequate definition consulting in their turn
Wikipedia, The Progressive Bloggers, a couple friends
of mine that I would consider progressive, and others. From
these sources I was able to come up with two definitions of
progressivism; one formal and one informal. The formal
definition is that progressivism is:

The idea that advances in technology, science, and social
organization can produce improvements to the human
condition. Additionally, the belief that the above advances
have worth. A supporting belief is that history is linear, not
cyclical (ie. human progress never reaches a plateau or perfect
state but always seeks to move towards it).

My friends contributed much of what I call the informal
definition of progressivism:

The idea that society must continue to change, that the status
quo cannot be considered progressive. History itself has a
'story arc' leading to the further advancement of humanity.

Much of this article is meant to show that monarchy is a
system that uniquely supports human progress as defined by
the formal definition. Because the informal definition
explicitly excludes the status quo I will show that no other
system of government falls within it. ie that the definition
itself adds little value to our understanding of human
progress. But even then I will argue that monarchy can be
considered a progressive ideal.

Ok, with a workable definition of what monarchy and
Progressivism is we can continue. I'm going to make a couple
assertions that I hope will be uncontroversial:
1. An ideal is progressive when the basic ideas of
progressivism support its existence.
2. An individual is a progressive if they support progressive
ideals and undertake to advance progressive causes.
3. An institution is progressive when its existence supports
progressive results and is supported by progressive
individuals.

It is my argument that monarchy should be considered a
progressive institution/ideal. The primary purpose of making
this argument is to counter the assertion that republicanism is
somehow the more progressive option in all cases.

As I have written about a number of times before there is
some interesting academic research that has been done on
monarchy as a government system. You can go through the
links above to find the relevant studies but to summarize:

Monarchies handle large institutional reforms better
than republics.

Monarchies may liberalize quicker than republics.

Directly electing heads of state contribute to a 5-7% drop
in votes for legislative elections.

Electing heads of state does not appear to have any
effect on voter alienation or apathy.

Constitutional monarchies have a marked preference for
consulting the public in times of political dispute.

Monarchies seem to generate, or at least do not harm,
generalized trust between citizens.

There is no correlation between monarchy and income
inequality.

Indirectly-elected presidents are no less likely to be
partisan if their position possesses actual power.

The first point is especially important for progressives. The
ability to undertake institutional changes without negative
effects makes progress easier to achieve. If every change to
society results in noticeable difficulties there is a resulting
tendency towards the status quo. But overall, I bring these
studies up because progressives believe that scientific
knowledge should be taken into consideration when making
policy decisions. If improvements to social organization is a
value of progress it is equally true that those improvements
should have a basis in evidence.

Further, since the above studies show that monarchy has
specific advantages when it comes to promoting economic,
democratic, and social progress it can in fact be argued that
monarchy is a progressive ideal.

But what of the monarchs themselves and their families?
Well, the Queen's address to the UN from 2010 sheds some
light on what Her Majesty values. Specifically the part that
says "I have also witnessed great change, much of it for the better, particularly in science and technology, and in social attitudes. Remarkably, many of these sweeping advances have come about not because of governments, committee resolutions, or central directives - although all these have played a part - but instead because millions of people around the world have wanted them." The Queen has also shown a keen interest in using new technologies to better carry out her roles as monarch. Prince Charles likewise has used
his position as the Prince of Wales to actively promote
progressive causes. His advice to government ministers
has likewise been of a progressive nature. The Duchess of
Cornwall has taken up the cause of rape victims. Prince
William recently spoke out against bullying and
homophobia in schools. Collectively the Royal Family
supports about 3000 charities. All of which is only to point
out that our Royal Family is a rather progressive bunch.
Much of this can be traced back to Prince Albert who was
a major patron of science. "But", I hear you say, "what about
all those other monarchs?"

Well, in Morocco the king has agreed to subsidize the
kingdom's solar power generation in order to keep prices low.
This step potentially sets the kingdom up to be a green
energy superpower.

And who can forget King Juan Carlos I's restoration of
Spanish democracy? He isn't even the only monarch in the
modern times to move from absolute rule to democracy. The
monarchs of Bhutan have encouraged democracy in the
country since the 1950s which culminated in a full transition
to constitutional monarchy in 2008.

Indeed, monarchy seems to have a tendency to produce
leaders who are more progressive than their subjects. This
makes sense when you consider that a low levels of education
is connected to greater political conservatism. Monarchs are
trained from birth to rule and also tend to have a long
apprenticeship. The odds are stacked against them becoming
conservatives. You could argue the reason that you see fewer
progressive monarchs in the House of Saud is their habit of
avoiding hereditary succession. A couple of years ago VICE
ran an article where they interviewed Baptiste Roger-Lacan
who noted that "It's important to notice that nowadays
republican France is more conservative compared with some European monarchies, like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark." You could say much the same about Germany.

But returning to the Canadian Royal Family we can see there
is a large number of progressives. This leads to my third point
that an institution made up of progressives can be considered
progressive itself. Nor are the progressives of the Royal
Family the only progressives to support the monarchy.
With members promoting progressive causes and the
institution itself seeming to encourage progressive results I
argue the monarchy is a progressive institution.

This concludes my look at monarchy from the perspective of
the formal definition of progressivism. Next up, the informal
definition.

My first thoughts on the informal definition is just how
common it is among republicans. The number of times I've
heard monarchy referred to as an archaic system is
unbelievable. That it seems to excludes any form of
government makes me question its usefulness. Consider that
the oldest currently existing republic was established in 301
AD. If progressivism entails a constant forward advance this
republic would be excluded. Could we say that any aspect of
government is progressive? Human rights? Nope. The
concept is quite old. Democracy? Ditto.

Ultimately, tying progress to movement from the status quo
always becomes problematic. There is a way around this.
Consider human rights as an example. While the concept of
human rights continues as a solid ideal how we interpret
them change over time. By the same token while the basic
premise of monarchy has remained the same it has gone
through major changes. Whether we look at the monarchy's
movement from executive to moral leadership, legitimacy via
divine right to legitimacy via parliamentary support, rule by
custom to rule by statute, or a single imperial crown to a
multitude of national crowns it is hard to argue that the
monarchy has not changed (and continues to change). But in
doing so it has kept fundamental aspects of itself consistent
because they work. So in a sense you could argue that
monarchy meets the informal definition of progress. Going
from a monarchy to a republic isn't so much progress as it is
jumping from one path to another.

Now, while I think I have made a good effort at explaining
why I see monarchy as being completely compatible with
progressivism I don't expect progressives to agree. I say this
because there are few people who are only progressives. Most
also ascribe to liberalism, socialism, social democracy, or
republicanism. And these ideologies often have their own
criticisms of monarchy. But perhaps I can hope that they will
admit that their opposition to monarchy stems from
secondary beliefs rather than any intrinsic conflict between
monarchy and progressivism.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

Republicans & Democracy

8/10/2015

0 Comments

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

So the Canadian election is underway (number 42 for those
keeping track). The candidates are slowly revving up their
campaigns and the media has gone into full election mode. I thought this might be a good time to get into a topic I've
mulling over for some time.

Republicans like to say that the monarchy is an undemocratic
institution. I would like to dissect that claim.

When To Elect

For starters republicans tend to base their claims on the
position being unelected. The monarch/governor general is
neither the only unelected position in the government nor the
most common. That distinction goes to the entire judicial branch. They have even rejected laws passed by a democratic
Parliament (something the Monarch of Canada has never
done). And yet I don't see anyone clamoring to elect the
Supreme Court. And why would they? There is understanding (based in part on observing our neighbors to the South) that
electing members of the judiciary would not help the courts
do a better job and might in fact damage them through
partisanship. There is an understanding that, under specific
circumstances, it is not desirable to elect a position.

We choose to elect Members of Parliament because we
recognize that partisan competition fuels debate and helps
keep everyone on their best behavior. We do this with the full knowledge that said competition can, and does, create
divisions in society (as the last 10 years makes clear). The
office of the monarch is not a position that requires elections
as it is not a position that crafts policy. The Crown is there to
provide stability, non-partisan leadership and to represent
Canada. It is also the hidden emergency button in case
Canada goes off the rails. None of these roles are enhanced
by elections.

And, as I have noted before, directly-elected heads of state
have been shown to cause a 5-7% decrease in voter turnout
for legislative elections. Indirectly-elected presidents also
have difficulties it has been found.

When To Inherit

Another claim that republicans make is that the monarchy
is somehow undemocratic by virtue of being hereditary. This
is expressed as the monarchy being an "anachronism" or
"medieval" institution. You want to know what other
position is hereditary? Citizenship. Once gained, citizenship
is passed on regardless of qualifications or behavior. It also
confers specific rights on its holders (voting rights for one).
But citizens don't hold a place in government, I can hear you saying. Don't they? The republican ideal is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. In the republican
ideal the people are central to the formation and execution of government. And a government based on the people's
participation cannot escape being based on the hereditary
rights of citizenship.

The monarchist ideal is different. Coming out of the Medieval
period there was an understanding within English practice
(and to a degree, in all of Europe) that the monarch must
consult with the people in governing the country. In Canada
we have a supreme right to be consulted as subjects of Her Majesty. Incidentally the monarch shares this right to have
consultation. In fact the monarch's rights are often a mirror of
the people's rights. Another example is the coronation oath
and the citizenship oath. The monarch promises in the
coronation oath to reign in accordance with Canada's laws
and customs while in the citizenship oath the people promise
much the same towards the monarch.

So why is this important? Because a government that can
reject the monarchy on the basis of its hereditary nature can
reject a citizen's unqualified right to vote on the same
grounds. We use hereditary selection when we want to
prevent an office, group, or position from becoming
monopolized by interest groups. The citizenship can never be
cut down to only people who believe the same things because
it is hereditary. The monarchy cannot become a prize for a
specific partisan viewpoint to capture for the same reason.

The Will Of The People

Some knowledgeable republicans object to monarchy based
on its association with divine right. While divine right did
play a part in the monarchy's history, it was neither a primary
justification for monarchical rule or even an uncontested one.

It is also not a current justification. Monarchs in Britain or in
Canada have never reigned by divine right. This is because in
1688 the Glorious Revolution occurred. It fundamentally and
definitively changed the monarchy from being based on
divine right to being based on the consent of Parliament.
While certain phrases such as 'by the grace of god' have been
kept they hide the fact that the monarch reigns by the consent
of Parliament, not the authority of God.

While the Rob Fords of the world can cling to power through
appeals to their democratic selection the monarchy is in a far
more precarious position. A monarch who tried to abuse power would simply be gone. Without democratic legitimacy
the monarch is counterfactually more accountable to the
people.

A related difficulty is when two democratically-elected offices
come into conflict. With both able to claim to represent the
people the argument can become messy and often boils down
to who can better use the powers of the state. The monarch
has no such recourse and must acquiesce to the democratic
office.

Republicans should not be allowed to get away with using
appeals to democracy to shut down debate. Monarchists can,
and should, make the argument that, far from being an undemocratic institution, the monarchy is Canada's most unappreciated democratic institution.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

The Big Shift

5/14/2015

0 Comments

I have been reading The Big Shift by Darrell Bricker and
John Ibbitson. The central argument about why the
Conservative Party won, and will continue to win, is
interesting but not the subject of this article. Political parties
come and go but the monarchy endures forever. No, what
interested me is some of points the authors used to back their
arguments.

At one point they argue that Canada have become more
confident in itself as a nation. While the book argues that this
is why the 'frail nation' view of a country eternally beset by
French-English hostility has been largely discredited I think
it applies equally well to republicans. The republican shtick
that Canada needs to 'grow up' and 'cut the apron strings' so it
can stop being so 'colonial' are essentially the point of view of
someone with an inferiority complex. The idea that Canada
has grown up (and did so with the monarchy) cannot be
accepted by republicans. To acknowledge this fact would
mean admitting they are fighting against a Canadian, rather
than foreign, institution. A Canada that is confident in itself,
its institutions, its past, and its traditions is not at all useful
to republicans.

A second point raised in the book is that concerns what issues
Canadians value and whether they have confidence that
governments can 'fix' problems that occur within them. It is
an interesting chart in its own right but I find its implications
for the monarchy equally intriguing. While the monarchy was
not included it does include issues related to culture, national
unity, and First Nations. All three rank low on the importance
scale but, with the exception of culture, they are also pretty
low on the can-we-fix-it scale. That First Nations ended up so
low on both scales is unfortunate since they have many long-
term issues that need addressed. The monarchy is the
quintessential low-importance issue. Even those who are
opposed to it acknowledge this fact. Likewise, if Canadians
don't feel issues that could be addressed by legislation can be
solved they are not going to think issues that require
constitutional reform will either. Also note that the issues
most likely to be seen as unworkable are the 'Big Idea' issues.
In this poll Canadians displayed a marked preference for
issues that require tinkering, not wholesale reform.

The republican cause has always had difficulty due to the
amending formula in the constitution. But as long as there
was a public appetite for change there was a chance they could
succeed. As long as Canadians were embarrassed by their past and feeling envious of other countries there was hope. The
republicans now have neither. The two points raised above
rendered republicanism deader than dead. I'm sure
republicans will deny it. That is but one of their rights in our
fair dominion. So while I fully expect there to still be court
challenges and poorly-attended protests we should remember
that more and more they represent a Canada left behind. A
Canada that refused to grow up.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

0 Comments

10 Reigns That Ended Tragically

3/15/2015

2 Comments

To a monarchist the end of a reign is not a solely sad occasion. Far from it. A reign ending is instead the beginning of a new reign and a celebration of all that the previous monarch has done for their country. Going from the distant past into the unknowable future the end of a monarch's reign represents the continuity of life and permanence of the state. However, not all reigns end on such a uplifting note. The following monarchs are my top 10 picks for reigns that ended tragically for themselves, their people, the world, or some combination thereof.

#10 Constantine XI:
The Fall of Constantinople

For the last two centuries of its
existence the Byzantine Empire had
been a shadow of its former glory.
Territorial losses had left just the
imperial city and the Peloponnese.
With a vigorous Ottoman Empire
completely surrounding it and the
city relying heavily on foreign
merchants for its defence, the empire
was in dire straights. Still,
Constantinople was a tough nut to
crack even when undermanned. However, in 1451 the 19-year-
old Mehmed II became the Ottoman Sultan. He decided he
wanted to conquer the city perhaps due to brashness of youth,
perhaps wanting to secure his reign with a grand
accomplishment, or perhaps realizing further conquests in
Europe would be difficult with the Byzantines to their rear.
Constantine XI Palaiologos was no fool; he began preparing
his defences.

In the winter of 1452 the siege began. The Byzantines had
7000 soldiers. The Ottomans had 50,000-80,000 soldiers. As
was customary Sultan Mehmed II offered to spare the
Emperor's life and allow him to continue ruling from Mistra if
Constantine XI would surrender the city. He sent the
following refusal:

"To surrender the city to you is beyond my authority or
anyone else's who lives in it, for all of us, after taking the
mutual decision, shall die out of free will without sparing our
lives."

The Emperor took an active part in the city's defence and
helped keep the necessary unity of his army of Genoese,
Venetian & Greek soldiers.

On May 29th, 1453 the city walls were breached. The
Emperor's last recorded words were: "The city is fallen and I
am still alive." He then threw off the ornaments of imperial
office and led his soldiers in a last charge against the
Ottomans.

The end of Constantine XI's reign is tragic as it was the end of
the last vestige of the ancient world. For nearly a thousand
years Byzantium had been a buffer protecting Europe from
invasion. It is also tragic in that Constantine XI Palaiologos is
generally regarded to have been a capable emperor who made
due with what little resources he had. Sometimes, being a
good ruler is just not enough in the face of impossible odds
and that is perhaps the most tragic thing.

#9 Birendra Bir Bikram Shah:
A Family Tragedy

King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah of Nepal
came to the throne in January of 1972.
Described as kind and emotional as a
prince. At his coronation the new king
proposed the idea of Nepal being a 'Zone of
Peace' and the acceptance of peace being
the most important aspect of progress. The
king genuinely wanted the people to experience real
democracy and as such he held the 1980 Referendum which
asked the people to choose between multi-party democracy or
a reformed panchayat system. The referendum was won by
the supporters of the panchayat system. Regardless, the vote
was close and restrictions on political activities were loosened.
In response to the the 1990 People's Movement, which
demanded greater political freedom, King Birendra agreed to
give up absolute power and become a constitutional monarch
rather than fight to retain absolute rule.

It looked like King Birendra would successfully shepherd his
people through the transition to democracy (a transition few republics make successfully) and his dynasty would continue
to preside over the small Himalayan kingdom. However, on
June 1st, 2001 Prince Dipendra killed most of the royal family
and then shot himself.

In the aftermath of the massacre Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah
Dev became king. Unlike King Birendra, King Gyanendra was
not popular. Worst still, he was widely rumoured of being
involved in the murders due to his absence at the time of the
killings. While eye-witnesses confirmed that it was Prince
Dipendra that had done the shooting it is likely the rumour
did its damage. It is probable that the experienced and
popular King Birendra could have better handled the crises
that gripped Nepal in the 2000s. Nepal today is gripped by
the instability following the overthrow of King Gyanendra and
the declaration of a republic. It appears the groundwork for a
peaceful transfer to democracy that King Birendra laid will go
to waste.

#8 Louis XVI:
Victim of Republicanism

King Louis XVI succeeded to the
French throne in 1774. He faced a
mounting debt crisis and
unpopularity stemming from his
marriage to Marie Antoinette and a
populous grumbling for tax relief.
Among his initiatives as king was
the Edict of Tolerance which
granted non-Catholics civil and
legal rights in France. Doing so
eased religious tensions and
officially ended religious persecution in his realm. Louis XVI's
efforts to reform the tax system were blocked by the nobles.
Other financial tricks were equally unsuccessful and facing
mounting difficulties Louis XVI decided he had no choice but
to convene the Estates-General in 1789.

Things immediately got out of control. Rather than debating
the kingdom's financial situation the Estates-General debated
over its structure and composition. The Third Estate
eventually separated and formed the National Assembly.

Louis XVI was now stuck in a precarious position. Power had
bled from him to the National Assembly which continued to
become ever more radical. By 1791 he was essentially a
prisoner not even allowed to choose his own clergyman. The
king made the fateful decision to flee with his family.
Unsuccessful, he was hauled back to Paris even more a
prisoner. His attempted flight, vague threats of foreign
invasion, and conspiracy theories connecting the two led to
further radicalization of the National Assembly. On January
21st, 1793 King Louis XVI was beheaded by guillotine as was
Queen Marie Antoinette later that year. Their son, and heir,
Louis-Charles would die in prison at the age of 10.

The murder of King Louis XVI would signal the beginning of a
bloodletting never before seen in France. The tragedy of King
Louis XVI was that of a man who wanted to do good but
simply lacked the ability.

#7 Liliʻuokalani:
Overthrown by Businessmen

Liliʻuokalani was born on September
2nd, 1838 to High Chief Caesar Kaluaiku
Kapaʻakea and High Chiefess Analea
Keohokālole. She belonged to the second
dynasty to rule the Kingdom of Hawaii
and succeeded her brother King
Kalākaua in 1891. Even before her reign had begun there were
signs of future trouble. King Kalākaua had been forced to sign
the 'Bayonet Constitution' in 1887 under threat of force. The
constitution had three main effects; it limited the monarch's
prerogatives, it disenfranchised many native Hawaiians, and
it greatly empowered the American and European
businessmen of the 'Missionary Party'.

Upon becoming Queen, Liliʻuokalani began to receive
petitions from her people to restore their rights. To do so she
sought to replace the Bayonet Constitution. The new
constitution would not end up being drafted as the effort to
replace the Bayonet Constitution provoked a response from
the American and European businessmen and residents of the
islands. On January 14, 1893, a group composed of Americans
and Europeans calling themselves the 'Committee of Safety'
deposed the Queen with assistance from US Marines. They
then sought to be annexed by the United States.

The Government of President Grover Cleveland considered
the act illegal and sought to restore Queen Liliʻuokalani to her
throne. However, an uncooperative Congress and the
Committee of Safety formation of an independent republic
thwarted his efforts. The new republic would be admitted as a
protectorate of the United States.

Despite multiple efforts including lawsuits, personal pleas to
successive American administrations, and a counter-
revolution in 1895 the monarchy was not restored. Under
republican governance the Hawaiian language and other
aspects of Hawaiian culture would be suppressed. Today only
0.1% of the population are native speakers of the Hawaiian
language. The Missionary Party would eventually form the
Hawaiian Republican Party and rule the islands uninterupted
until the 1950s.

#6 Frederick III:
What Might Have Been

Emperor Frederick III of
Germany is a study in contrasts;
he was brought up in the midst
of Prussian militarism but was
also a committed liberal, the
hopes of many progressives in
the empire rested with him but
is all but forgotten by them
today, and he had all the passion
in the world to fulfill his duty
but none of the time. The last
point is the one that makes
Frederick III's reign tragic.
Frederick succeeded his
father as emperor in 1888. His father had lived to be 90 and
by the time he wore the crown he had already been diagnosed
with cancer of the larynx. He would reign all of 99 days.

Throughout his life Frederick III has espoused liberal views.
He hated war and believed the state should not act against the
wishes of the people. He also greatly admired Britain's
parliamentary system and wished to curb the power of the
chancellor once he was emperor. His views did not make him
popular with his father nor was he popular with Chancellor
Otto von Bismarck after denouncing him at an official
reception in the city of Danzig for restrictions on freedom of
the press.

However, his short reign meant little lasting reform was
possible. One of his few successes was to force Robert von
Puttkamer to resign as Prussian Minister of the Interior after
it was found he had interfered with a Reichstag election.

Chancellor Bismarck had attempted to undermine Frederick
III during his reign. He felt Frederick III's son Wilhelm II
would support him. But, while Wilhelm II had none of his
father's liberal tendencies he too felt the chancellorship had
become too strong and dismissed Bismarck from service. The
slow unraveling of Bismarck's policies would eventually lead
to the ruination of the German Empire and still later the
ruination of Europe.

#5 Idris I:
Replaced by a Madman

Like many Arab monarchs Idris I of
Libya arose as a leader in the breakup
of the Ottoman Empire. Idris I spent
much of the inter-war period
advocating for independence for
Libya from Italian rule. By 1922 he
had been recognized as Emir of
Cyrenaica and offered the position of
Emir of Tripolitania. However, a
revolt broke out against Italian authorities in 1928. Idris I was
forced to flee to British-controlled Egypt. He sided with the
British in World War Two and was rewarded afterwards with
the Emirate of Cyrenaica. He was again invited to become
Emir of Tripolitania which he accepted. With the eventual
aquisition of Fezzan he united the three areas of modern
Libya.

A constitution was adopted in October of 1951. It instituted a
wide range of democratic and civil rights for the Libyan
people. However, the kingdom was poor and local sensitivities
(then as now) had to be taken into account or the risk of civil
strife would be very real. King Idris tried unsuccessfully to
turn the monarchy into a symbol of shared unity.

In 1955 oil was discovered under Libya's barren deserts but
like many other countries in the region the discovery was a
mixed blessing. The oil put the country's finances in order but
it did nothing to grow the middle class. Wealth became
concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few which created
resentment. However, it would not be a popular uprising that
ended the monarchy. The kingdom had its problems but it
was reasonably free. Instead, the end of the monarchy would
result from a plot by some army officers inspired by Gamal
Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Nasser was a proponent of Arab
socialism which blended opposition to imperialism and the
ruling classes with nationalism.

The coup was launched on September 1st, 1969 while the king
was out of the country for medical treatment and was almost
bloodless. The people, especially the youth, initially welcomed
the coup. Perhaps it was this lack of support that convinced
the king not to fight for his throne. It would have been very
easy to tear at the ethnic divisions in the country to try and
regain his power. However, the King had spent much of his
life trying to unite the people and it is not likely he considered
dividing his people in the twilight of his life. Meanwhile a
twelve-member directorate was established in Libya which
replaced the National Assembly. Colonel Gaddafi rose to
prominence within the directorate and suspended the
constitution initiating 40 years of personal, and increasingly
erratic, dictatorship. And when his government was at its end
he would make the choice the old king had refused to make
and initiate a bloody civil war to keep his position.

#4 Asaf Jah VII:
Independence Denied

Asaf Jah VII became the Nizam
of Hyderabad in 1911. As the
ruler of the single largest, and
wealthiest, princely state of
British India his domain was a
crown jewel of the British
Empire (somewhat literally
given the state's wealth in
diamond mining). He was
recognized as the world's
richest person during his
lifetime and had ten palaces in
Hyderabad that demonstrated
this wealth. However, he, like his predecessors, was also a
prolific builder of public works projects including hospitals,
irrigation networks, court buildings, assembly houses,
schools, and a university. Asaf Jah VII spent about 10% of the
state's annual revenue on education alone.

While Asaf Jah VII was a Muslim about 86% of Hyderabad's
population were Hindu. Despite this Hyderabad had managed
to largely avoid the violence that sometimes racked the multi-ethnic empire. The plan to partition India into separate
Muslim and Hindu states created a problem: either option
would likely lead to severe upheaval and possible loss of life.
Asaf Jah VII took the third option and maneuvered to become
an independent state (as allowed for under the partition
plan). Hyderabad had managed to keep a high degree of
independence during the British administration and a return
to independence would not be too difficult to achieve.
However, in the waning years of British rule in India forces
largely beyond the Nizam's control would shatter any chance
of peace.

While the Nizam spent a great deal on public works 40% of its
land was owned by the Muslim minority who had a tendency
to be oppressive towards the peasantry (to be fair the Hindu
landlords were equally oppressive towards the peasants). The
result was a communist insurgency starting in 1946 to bring
about land reform. At about the same time Qasim Razvi,
inspired by the cause of Muslim nationalism, formed his own
independent militia called the Razakars in support of Asaf Jah
VII's opposition to Hyderabad being integrated into India.
The Razakars did not fully support the Nizam's independence
policy and were not opposed to joining Pakistan. The Nizam
did not oppose the militia's creation due to violence that had
been breaking out across India between Muslims and Hindus
ahead of the partition. As communist successes mounted the
two groups came into inevitable conflict. Both sides targeted
civilians but it was the actions of the Razakars that proved
most disastrous for the rule of the Nizam. Their targeting of
Hindu civilians gave Hindu-majority India the pretext for an
invasion. In the worsening situation supporters of the
Razakars came to dominate the government while the Nizam
became, in his own words, "completely helpless". India for its
part decided that it could not allow a potentially hostile
country to remain within the Indian interior.

India launched its invasion (which it termed a 'police action')
on September 13th of 1948. Attacking from all sides with
superior numbers the Indian Army quickly defeated the
Hyderabad Army and the Razakars. The Nizam was forced to
hand his country over to India. During the Razakars' reign of
terror it is estimated that between 3000 to 5000 people were
killed. With the change in fortunes of Hyderabad's Hindus a
campaign of revenge was undertaken. Government estimates
(which were not released until 2013) place the number of
murdered Muslims between 27,000 and 40,000. Other
scholars have suggested figures as high as 200,000. In the
end the bloodletting of Hyderabad would be shared by people
on both sides of the partition line but for just a moment there
was perhaps a chance that Hyderabad could have escaped that
fate.

#3 Morinaga:
Loyalty Unrewarded

Also known as Moriyoshi, Prince
Morinaga was the son of Emperor Go-
Daigo of Japan. Born in 1308 his fate
would be decided both by his father's
ambition and his foolishness. His
father, like most emperors of Japan,
was kept powerless by his nominal
servant, the shogun. Emperor Go-
Daigo was not content with this and
launched a number of operations to
restore imperial power (it is hard to
call these coups when it is the
Emperor doing it).

At the age of 18, Emperor Go-Daigo had Prince Morinaga
named the head abbot of the Enryakuji temple on Mount Hiei.
The temple housed a sect of Buddhist warrior monks near the
capital of Kyoto. This was good strategic planning in advance
of any sort of power play.

In 1331 the Emperor failed at his first (open) attempt to take
power. The prince was forced to flee Enryakuji. He met up
with the loyalist General Kusunoki Masashige in Kii province.
Together the two put up a tenacious defence of the fortress of
Akasaka before being forced to withdraw. Masashige went to
defend Chihaya Fortress while Morinaga rallied troops. The
success of both efforts led to the seige of Kamakura in May of
1333 ending the shogunate for a time.

Restored to power, Emperor Go-Daigo wanted to make sure
the country did not revert to military rule again. However, he
underestimated the need to reward the warriors that had
served him. He refused to appoint General Ashikaga Takauji
as shogun and made the mistake of appointing his sons
Morinaga and Norinaga to the position. The position of
shogun had become de facto hereditary and it is possible Go-
Daigo was setting up a situation where the heir to the throne
would occupy the position of shogun until they succeeded to
the imperial throne. While this made sense if one wants to
ensure civilian rule and ensure the emperor had loyal support,
it offended the warrior class to have a civilian in the position.
He also leveled new taxes on the samurai class, further
estranging the emperor from needed supporters. Too late
Emperor Go-Daigo realized his mistake.

Takauji made false charges that Morinaga was planning to
overthrow his father, and forced the Emperor to hand him
over. The warrior class largely did not support the Emperor by
this point and he was unable to protect his son. Prince
Morinaga was taken to a cave near Kamakura. Morinaga's
prestige and commitment to civilian rule made him a
dangerous symbol. With resistance forming among the other
clans against Takauji keeping the prince alive became a
liability. On July 23rd, 1335 Morinaga was executed. He had
done everything right. He had obeyed his fathers wishes,
fought bravely, restored civilian rule, and he still ended up
dying in a dank hole. In a last act of defiance it is said the
prince leaped at the executioner's blade with his mouth, biting
it in half.

#2 The Yongle Emperor:
Last Patron of Exploration

Unlike other monarchs on this list an
argument can't really be made that
Zhu Di of China, The Yongle
Emperor, was a good man. He came
to power through armed rebellion,
was notably cruel, and established a
despotic style of government.

That said he also initiated economic,
educational, and military reforms
that benefited the Chinese people. Some have seen his life as
an attempt to gain power, prestige, and glory. Perhaps this is
why he appointed Zheng He as admiral of a great exploration
fleet. This fleet would travel as far as the coast of modern-day
Somolia. There is evidence that Zheng He heard about Europe
during his voyages and some speculation that his voyages may
have taken him even further West.

In August 12th, 1424 The Yongle Emperor died and the
tragedy began. Throughout his reign the Emperor had
supported the street-wise eunuchs over the book-wise
scholars. Both had their faults. The eunuchs were often
capable but also notoriously corrupt. The scholars were well-
educated graduates of the imperial exam system but tended to
be exceedingly reactionary. With the Emperor's death
eunuchs such as Zheng He lost power under his successors.
The great exploration voyages ceased, the navy was neglected,
innovation became frowned upon, and China turned inwards.
What is perhaps most sad is that there is probably very little
the Emperor could have done to stop this development.
Regardless, the end of this reign marked the beginning of
China's long slumber.

#1 Michael I:
Victim of Communism

Michael I became King of
Romania on July 20th, 1927 at
the age of 6. The interbellum
period was unsettled for most of
Europe and Romania was no
exception. Coming to the throne
as a child necessitated a regency
which included Prince Nicolae
(his uncle), Patriarch Miron
Cristea, and Chief Justice
Gheorghe Buzdugan. His father
Carol had 'temporarily' renounced his rights to the throne in
1925 but was invited back by politicians dissatisfied with the
regency in 1930. The Romanian Parliament proclaimed him
King Carol II. With the growing popularity of the fascist Iron
Guard, Carol II sought first to create his own personality cult
and finally in 1938 to rule as an absolute monarch to thwart
them.

In September of 1940 Prime Minister Marshal Ion Antonescu
staged a coup d'état against the king. Antonescu suspended
the Constitution, dissolved the Parliament, and re-installed
the 18-year-old Michael as king. While in theory King Michael
I had control of the army and the right to appoint the prime
minister, in practice he was a figurehead. Prime Minister
Marshal Ion Antonescu was an admirer of Hitler's Germany
and brought Romania into World War II on Hitler's side.

This lasted until 1944 when King Michael I launched his own
coup against Ion Antonescu. Antonescu's government was
deposed and the king sought to join the Allies. The King paid
a price for success in that to do so he had allied with the
communists. Despite any misgivings he may have had his
advisers convinced him it was the only viable option.
However, it would be March of 1945 before political pressure
(internal and external) forced him to appoint a communist
prime minister. Between August of 1945 and January of 1946,
during what has become known as the "royal strike" the king
refused to give royal assent to laws passed by the communist
government. Under pressure from the Americans, British, and
Soviets he was eventually forced to stop blocking communist
legislation or calling for their government's resignation.

Early on the morning of December 30th, 1947 the king was
summoned by communist Prime Minister Petru Groza.
Arriving at Elisabeta Palace in Bucharest he found it
surrounded by troops loyal to the communists. Unable to call
in troops loyal to him he was threatened by Groza at
gunpoint. Additionally, Groza stated that unless the king
signed an abdication letter immediately he would be obliged
to kill 1000 students in custody. Faced with no way out and
innocent lives on the line the king relented and went into his
long exile. The monarchy was abolished, a people's republic
declared. It is estimated that somewhere between 10-100
thousand died under the communist regime.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

2 Comments

<<Previous

New Democratic Party Leadership Race: Views on the Monarchy

The Emailed Question & Responses

Crown & Cap Scoreboard

NDP Supporters and Monarchists Quotes

NDP Leadership Candidates and the Monarchy: Brian Graff

Playing with the Citizenship Oath and Unintended Side Effects

Abuse of Terms: "Monarchy is not Compatible with the 21st Century"

All That Is Gold Does Not Glitter

All that is gold does not glitter

Not all those who wander are lost

The old that is strong does not wither

Deep roots are not reached by the frost

From the ashes a fire shall be woken

A light from the shadows shall spring

Renewed shall be blade that was broken

The crownless again shall be king

A Royal Birthday Means a New Poll on the Monarchy

Progressivism & Monarchy

Republicans & Democracy

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

When To Elect

When To Inherit

The Will Of The People

The Big Shift

10 Reigns That Ended Tragically

About

Archives

Categories

​The Emailed Question & Responses

Crown & Cap Scoreboard

NDP Supporters and Monarchists Quotes

​All that is gold does not glitter

Not all those who wander are lost

The old that is strong does not wither

Deep roots are not reached by the frost

From the ashes a fire shall be woken

A light from the shadows shall spring

Renewed shall be blade that was broken

The crownless again shall be king

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, orshould be. But appeals to democracy areusually designed to shut debate down,not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells

When To Elect

When To Inherit

The Will Of The People

About

Archives

Categories

The Emailed Question & Responses

All that is gold does not glitter

"Debate is at the heart of democracy, or
should be. But appeals to democracy are
usually designed to shut debate down,
not to deepen it." ~Paul Wells