Category: Republicans

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

Victoria Day Odds & Ends

5/21/2019

The Victoria Day long weekend was somewhat busier than
normal this year. There was also some news I wanted to touch
on that didn't warrant their own posts.

Cake from last year. This year's cake was eaten too quick!

As in previous years I
treated my coworkers
to cake on Saturday. I
also had the chance on
Friday to listen in on
some of the newer hires
talking positively about
the Royal Family.

Scott Morrison

On Saturday I learned that Australian
Prime Minister Scott Morrison, leader
of the right-leaning Liberal/National
Coalition, had won the election over
Bill Shorten of the Labor Party. Bill
Shorten has since resigned as leader.
From a strict monarchist perspective
the end of Mr. Shorten's leadership is
welcomed. He had proposed a binding
plebiscite on the future of the monarchy if he won (followed
by a referendum on the specific type of republic to be
adopted). His defeat makes this plan much less likely to
happen. Especially as Prime Minister Scott Morrison has
declared himself to be a monarchist. This would be a
good time for Australian monarchists in the Labor Party to
start encouraging a leadership candidate more friendly to the
Australian Monarchy to step forward.

Photo Credit: Booking.com

On Victoria Day I hosted a meeting
of the New Brunswick branch of the
Monarchist League of Canada in
Fredericton at the Maverick Room
(pictured). I had re-activated the
branch in October of last year
following a two year hiatus that
resulted from the previous chairman
stepping down. Despite the rainy weather we had ten people
show up. After a brief update on the branch's status and a
social time over dinner we discussed what initiatives we
should pursue as a branch going forward. One new member
was signed up at the meeting and a good time was had by all.

An interesting post showed up on the
Monarchists Facebook page stating that the
UK pressure group Republic no longer has a
functioning organization. The investigation
of this claim does provide some solid
evidence that something is wrong. This year
only three press releases have gone out. This
is paltry when compared to previous years. Their social media has likewise been much reduced in volume. This kind of
slowdown can often be attributed to a lack of volunteers
which stems from a demotivated base. However, the
slowdown does coincide with executive board elections held at
the start of the year so internal conflicts can't be ruled out.
The organization still exists but if it can't find a new strategy
beyond being snarky killjoys they are doomed.

I hope everyone had an enjoyable Victoria Day (whatever the
weather might have been).

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

My First Hate Mail!

1/22/2019

There are milestones in every bloggers life; the first post, first
like, first comment, first re-tweet, first 1000 daily views. All
have long-since been surpassed by this blog. But there is one
milestone that has remained stubbornly out of reach: hate
mail. If I sound disappointed, I am. One sign that my blog is
getting views outside of my typical audience would be an
increase in hostile messaging and posts. That has been absent,
until now.

We are quite amused.

There are a lot of ways to respond to hate
mail. I could ignore it but that is very low
effort, even for me. Or I can take an idea
from a certain YouTube channel and just
mock it. Sadly, the fine gentleman that
put in a great deal of effort to contact me
didn't give me a lot to work with. And I
am not nearly as clever or funny as the
Youtuber linked to above. Perhaps this
type of comedy actually requires having
a British accent. But enough delaying!

Bill Malcolm

Hello Bill.

Your Leave a Comment form doesn't work. Press submit and zilch. So here goes:

Poking it with your finger doesn't work either.

I don't know what to tell you.
People have managed to figure
out how to post comments
both before and after the last
time you told me about this
problem. I can only assume it
is a problem on your end. Did
you remember to fill out the
required boxes and hit the
Submit button (with your
cursor, not your head). I've
included a helpful diagram for
you. Hopefully this simple process will give you no trouble in
the future.

Another highly irrelevant post about something that matters not a twiddley-dum,
twiddley-dee in the scheme of things these days. The UK's falling to bits and all you
offer amounts to an explanation why Entertainment Tonight and all the gossip
rags treat this bunch of dough-heads as if they were important or something.
Celebrities, no more no less[,] and just as empty between their lugholes.

I, too, like to meddle.

Perhaps the title of the blog (at the top
of the page) is unclear. Brexit for all its
insanity isn't a topic for this blog. But
you might be happy to know I have
sent advice to MPs in Britain on how
they might get a better Brexit deal. It
would screw over the European Union
pretty hard so depending on your
stance on that organization maybe you
won't be happy after all. Perhaps I
should write some editorials on that
idea too. Hmm...

On a progressive blog, no less, where something a bit more enlightening than tired
old arguments dredged up for the 15th time justifying keeping this lot in clover
would be appreciated.

I provide a variety of arguments and for the most part avoid
the one's put forward by the Monarchist League. You can view
all of them on the Arguments For Monarchy page.

Listen, mate, I was born in the UK in the forties and nobody gave a damn then,
except for the brief period when the king died and Elizabeth was crowned Queen
the next year.

Forties? That would make you 50 or 60 years old! (EDIT: Bill
has pointed out he is in fact 72. The author regrets the error)
Perhaps a more respectful tone is required for someone who
has a solid 40 years on me. Mr. Malcolm, do you think I talk
monarchy with everyone I know? Not in the slightest. I have
about three people I know for which the Canadian Monarchy
is a topic of conversation. All of them younger than yourself.
Have you considered that your views are generational in
nature and not a good representation of wide public opinion?

My parents didn't and they were well-educated. We came to Canada in the late
fifties; I returned for five years from 1969. How much did the Brits natter on about
the monarchy while I was there? Zilch. Not my relatives, not my friends, not a soul.
At the end of movies at theatres while God Save The Queen was played, people still
moved to the exits. Standing up, chest out, stomach in, to honour the Queen was not
exactly top of anyone's list.

I don't exactly talk to my family about the monarchy either.
But with opinion polls consistently showing 75+% in favour of
retaining the monarchy it would seem there is a lot of silent
support.

I couldn't care less one way or the other about the monarchy. If the British
government want to keep them, fine. But to have some colonial stand up and natter
on about the wonderfulness of it all is a bit too much for me to bear.

Bear it you shall. For I have no intention of stopping.

Irrelevant to Canadians from beginning to end. Go and do something useful for a
change.

It is kind of you to be concerned how I spend my time. But
working full time, organizing a candidates debate in my
riding, running in an election, organizing a second trip to
Japan, and making a business plan still leaves me with the
free time to write this blog while also wasting hours on video
games. And my traffic stats contradict your 'irrelevancy'
charge so I think I'll continue doing what I've been doing.

Oh, if you have any influence, get that menace Prince Philip off the road. Him, his
new Landie, and the missing seatbelt.

He has already been talked to about the
seat belt. And we are talking about Prince
Philip here. I'm not sure anyone has
influence over Prince Philip. Maybe the
Queen but she trusts his judgement so I
guess the only one to tell Prince Philip to
get off the road is Prince Philip. I can just
imagine the response to such a request.
I'm sure it would be glorious.

Too pig-headed to apologize, so after two days when the PR types finally got the
Queen to wake up and not appear like she and her hubby actually didn't care about
the mere peon injured when they really didn't, it all seemed highly lame.

Standard legal advice in situations like this is not to apologize
since the courts can, and will, take it as an admission of guilt.
Blame the litigiousness of the Americans for it if you want but
its the world we live in.

As I say, do something profitable with your time. If you want to spend your money
flying to Blighty and standing in the crowd down the Mall to catch a glimpse of
these people while waving a 99p Union Jack, please feel free to do so. But don't
bother documenting it for a political crowd in Canada. WE DON'T CARE.

For someone who doesn't care you spent a fair deal of effort to
contact me and express that opinion. And it is my time, I will
use it on whatever profitable endeavor I wish. And strictly
speaking I have no interest in going to Britain (thank you
though for the invitation).

And I must give you my sincere thanks for providing me with
content for my blog. It was most kind of you. Have a great
day.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Meme Monday #4

1/21/2019

"Prince Charles sunk the Titanic" lol!

Another meme from the Monarchists Facebook page. It
is a monarchist take on the NPC Wojak meme that flared
up a little while ago. While I don't approve of the meme's
implied dehumanizing of republicans it is a good collection of
arguments that republicans use (often in some combination)
to attack monarchy. So this might be a good chance to address
these arguments in detail.

Paying for royal weddings

Right off the bat unless you are a British subject you don't pay
anything for them and get free access to coverage of the event.
If you are a British subject the government only covers the
security costs of the event which for the last royal wedding
were less than half the estimated boost to the economy
from tourism.

Monarchy is an out-dated, colonialist, relic

As someone who likes rational debate this kind of argument
annoys me. Take three buzzwords and try to imply that
monarchy is inferior because of it, eh? Out-dated things are
bad after all and the colonial period is marked by a country
being under another power and not yet mature. Of the three
only 'relic' has primarily positive associations in the modern-
day world.

But the reason something becomes out-dated because it no
longer works. And republicans can't show that for monarchy.
The reference to colonialism is interesting in the Canadian
context because so many institutions would fall under the
heading of being inherited from colonialist times. As an
example; "Parliament is an out-dated, colonialist, relic" is
just as valid of an argument. Which is to say, it isn't one.

Why are there still poor among us?

A question that has bedeviled humanity ever since we started
living in settled societies. And one neither monarchies nor
republics have been able to fully address. That said, Canada
rates as having a fairly low rate of poverty. A monarch, no
matter how good, can't be expected to fully solve this but they
can help by shedding light on the problem and organizations
working to combat it. Which the Royal Family does.

Lets elect politicians as our head of state

The most basic desire of republicans. And you'd think that
since they want this so badly they would be able to show what
concrete benefit it would bring. But I'm still waiting.

Everyone hates Prince Charles

Prince Charles gets far less credit than is his due in my
estimation. And I've never been quite able to pinpoint why.
There is of course the tragedy of Princess Diana which he has
had to wear. And he has often come across as awkward in his
interests and behavior. Then there is his reputation for
'meddling' in government business.

The Monarchist League of Canada noted a while back that the
heirs to the throne have sometimes tended to be unpopular
but then went on to be popular during their reign. And it
could be that Prince Charles doesn't fit the popular culture
view of what a prince should be (young, martial, and
handsome). But none of this means he wouldn't make a good
king.

'Crown woman bad'

It is a great annoyance to republicans that the Queen has done
such a good job over the years. Such a good job that most
plots for removing the monarchy include the caveat 'after the
Queen's death'. It also means that republicans have tried to
magnify the few missteps the Queen has made. But at the end
of the day Her Majesty remains untouched by impropriety
and it must drive republicans mad.

Inequality

Monarchies are by definition hierarchical. And responding to
claims that they are bad because of it can take several forms.
1. All countries have hierarchies, including republics, so it is
at least positive that monarchies are honest about this fact.
2. Monarchy is a small inequality that prevents greater acts of
inequality.
3. Monarchy is not unequal at all. The monarch and people
have different roles to play but they are equally valuable.
4. Or maybe monarchy is more equatable than a republic. By
leaving the choice of head of state up to the one trait we all
share, being born, we affirm that anyone can be thrust into
an extraordinary position and be expected to do a good job.

Anyways, this has been my overly-detailed dissection of a
meme that likely took 5 minutes to make.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Jagmeet Singh's Reply to the Monarchist League of Canada

12/7/2018

Photo Credit: Yvonne Bambrick

Recently, while doing an interview on the topic of the spending of the
former Governor General Adrienne
Clarkson, Mr. Singh stated that he
did not see the relevancy of the
monarchy and that he was a
republican. Various members of the
Monarchist League of Canada
sought clarification (and probably to
try and convince him to change his
mind). Below is the response that
they received and which the League
shared with its members at noon
today:

Thank you for taking the time to write. We appreciate your views on
the monarchy.
During a recent CTV interview, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh addressed
the concern over the excessive expenses of a former Governor General.
When the discussion led to the role of the monarchy in Canada,
Jagmeet Singh spoke about its relevancy in the 21st century, adding,
that while it may not be a pressing issue for most Canadians, he’s open
to hearing the views of others. But, he clearly said that getting involved
with this issue is not a priority for him or our Party.
Specifically, he said, “We’ve got a democracy and we’re proud of our
democracy, and I think that’s what most Canadians think is important
and I think we should focus on that.”
Jagmeet and his NDP team are staying focused on what’s important to
the lives of everyday Canadians—like paying for groceries and heating
costs, their health issues and those of a family member, and having
enough money to retire. Jagmeet is hearing those concerns as he meets
with Canadians in communities across Canada, listening to what they
need to make life better for their families.
And, he’s inviting all progressives to come together, to help make a
real difference—for more people today, and for future generations.
Thanks again for writing. In the weeks and months ahead, we hope we
can find common ground on other concerns facing our country.
All the best,
Office of Jagmeet Singh
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats

I am going to focus in on a couple small sections of this quote.
"We’ve got a democracy and we’re proud of our democracy,
and I think that’s what most Canadians think is important
and I think we should focus on that." Yes, we should. And a
study from 2008 might interest him. It came to several
interesting conclusions including that "direct election is
associated with increased voter fatigue and decreased
turnout in parliamentary elections by about seven
percentage points" and "because holding the presidency
provides parties with an electoral asset, direct and indirect
presidential elections can be equally contentious and
polarizing". Neither of which are improvements to Canadian
democracy.

Another study earlier this year found that,"We find strong
evidence that monarchies contribute to a greater protection
of property rights and higher standards of living through
each of the three theoretical mechanisms compared to all
republics. We also find that democratic-constitutional
monarchies perform better than non-democratic and
absolute monarchies when it comes to offsetting the negative
effects of the tenure and discretion of the executive branch."
So, yes, democracy makes a country function better but
monarchy makes a democracy function better.

The second section of Mr. Singh's reply I wanted to highlight
was his invitation to "all progressives to come together, to
help make a real difference—for more people today, and for
future generations." All well and good. His stance on the
monarchy is a hindrance to that goal. Because many potential
NDP voters see Canada's monarchy has being helpful to that
laudable goal.

For instance during the NDP Leadership Race Jonathan
Banks noted "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."

Darren Brierley likewise wrote to me stating "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."

There is a slight irony that while repeated political quizzes
over many years consistently place me in the same ideological
camp as the NDP, I have never come close to voting for them.
I find his views on the monarchy highly regrettable but that's
just my view. You know...since he's open to hearing the views
of others and all that.

I wanted to take a second to talk about Patreon. I
write this blog for the sheer joy of it and will
continue to do so even if it doesn't make me a
cent. However, the Monarchist League of
Canada does have a (rather neglected)
Patreon. They do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to
the defence of Canada's monarchy as this timeline and
various other examples can attest. If you are a regular
reader I would like to encourage you to donate to the League.
Every dollar donated helps educate Canadians about their
monarchy and dispel republican ignorance. And that is a
good thing.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Myths Republicans Tell: Only Old People Support the Monarchy

12/4/2018

It has been my experience that republicans
like to tell themselves that it is "only a
matter of time" before the Canadian
Monarchy is abolished. The reasoning is
that young people just don't support the
institution. This is closely related to a
second argument about immigrants not
supporting the monarchy (a myth I have
partially dealt with before). But I'll
leave debunking that one for another day.
For now lets have a look at whether claims that the young
don't support the monarchy have any basis in fact.

I'll start with personal experience and work out from there. I
happen to be the admin of a monarchist Facebook page which
has a little over 1,200 likes. The combined result of all
teenagers and young adults compared to middle aged and
elderly produces a 40% to 60% split. Not exactly a 'horde' of
old folks.

Over on /r/CanadaPolitics their 60k membership survey
had many interesting results but the one that matters in this
instance is that 93% of the user base is under the age of 44.
The user base was also about 60% leftism of some sort. This
detail is important as the monarchy is one of the few subjects
that is supposedly conservative that doesn't experience large
amounts of down voting. Clearly there are monarchists who
are young. But enough of the touchy-feely assumptions. Are
there any hard numbers?

Back in 2011 the Monarchist League of Canada (which is led
by a chairman in his 30s) noted that 15% of its membership
were under the age of 25. A survey carried out by Forum
Research in 2017 found that those 18 to 34 were slightly more
supportive of the monarchy than opposed. The age group 35
to 54 were between 5% and 7% more opposed. Finally, the
age group 55 to 65+ were more supportive by more than 11%.
So while support for the monarchy is present across all age
groups there is a slump in support for many around the age of
40. If I had to theorize why that is I'd have to say it has a lot
to do with the death of Princess Diana who died 21 years ago.
Those who are in the 35 to 54 age range are the ones old
enough to remember clearly what occurred and have it colour
their outlook. But I'm getting off-topic.

So why does any of this matter? Well, in the broadest sense
republicans misunderestimate their opponents. That is to say,
they underestimate monarchists because they don't
understand them. Believing that monarchists are a bunch of
old fogeys who will eventually die off is both comforting to
them and tends to favour strategies that involve waiting. But
this is only effective if your own supporters don't make up a
large portion of the elderly. Since 2011 polls have continued
to consistently show an even split in support. This is an
improvement from the 1990s and early 2000s when support
for monarchy was in the mid-40% range and more favourable to a republic. It very well could be that the late 1990s were the
republicans' best chance and they missed it.

That is not to say that the increased visibility of the younger
members of the Royal Family haven't helped. Being able to
identify with a member of the Royal Family of a similar age
is an important factor in supporting it (although every age
group does agree that the Queen is awesome).

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

What Fallout Would There Be For Canada If Australia Became A Republic?

9/1/2018

For those watching Australian politics
August was an exciting month. After
two leadership votes in the governing
Liberal Party Malcolm Turnbull has
been turfed.

Malcolm Turnbull

This is good news for all loyal subjects
of Her Majesty as Malcolm Turnbull
was a noted republican. He was
replaced by Scott Morrison who is seen
as being more monarchy-friendly. It
should be noted that I haven't found
any public statement to that effect but
potential monarchist is still better than
confirmed republican. But, as exciting
as all this is its not the point of this
article. A reader has asked for my
thoughts on what effect Australia
becoming a republic would have on Canada. So as that ugly
possibility slowly ebbs away once again lets play a little game
of 'what-if'.

"Some reflections from you on the position of the monarchy in
Australia and how it might affect the situation in Canada would be very
welcome. In particular, do you have views on the prospects for the
monarchy in Canada if Australia were to have another referendum and
vote to become a republic?" ~A.G.

So the referendum results are in and Australia is on its way to
becoming a republic. The first thing you will likely see are
interviews with individuals associated with the republican
movement in Canada. They have been handed a free soapbox
and they will make use of it I'm sure. The only saving grace
being that in the interest of balance representatives of the
Monarchist League of Canada would also likely be
interviewed as well.

The media would simultaneously want politicians to weigh in
on the future of the Canadian Monarchy. This is a little bit
harder to predict the outcomes of. True, no party has ever
made abolishing the monarchy part of their platform and
outspoken republicans have tended to spiral away from the
center of power within their own parties rather than nesting
there. The default position of most MPs is one of 'polite
regard' for the monarchy without much in the way of passion.
There are exceptions, of course, but they don't tend to end up
near the center of power either.

This strategic neutrality likely arose due to:
1. Its unclear if there are any votes to gain from advocating
for a republic, and
2. The process of becoming a republic, at best, consumes the
party's agenda for the term and gives them little to actually
run on other than having turned Canada into a republic. At
worst a great deal of political capital is spent, the effort fails,
and the party ends up like the Tories in 1993.

In short, party leaders don't, as a rule, see any good reason to
pick this issue as the one they will champion. But unlike other
events that prods the media into talking about the monarchy
this is a story that would be alive for months. At the very least
you have a spike in media interest just after the referendum
as well as when Australia officially becomes a republic. The
media will poll Canadians at least once (likely more) on their
thoughts on the Canadian Monarchy. These polls generally
show strong support at either end of the debate with a large
section of Canadians not caring either way. I would predict at
least one politician calling for a republic. We might even see
noted republican John Manley give some interviews on the
issue.

If I might be a bit mean for a second I have to point out that it
would be in Canada's interest for Australia's transition to a
republic to be as chaotic and divisive as possible. Both
because it would confirm the political belief in Canada that
the issue isn't worth the trouble (and constitutional reform is
in fact more difficult in Canada than it is in Australia) and the
negative effect it would have on public opinion about trying to
abolish the monarchy.

Even under a worst case scenario of wide public support for a
republic and political parties championing the issue it is still
likely to come to nothing. Changing Canada into a republic
requires the consent of every province. The provinces have
typically tried to get as much out of the federal government
as possible during these negotiations. Quebec in particular
as a list of demands it wants implemented. It would be
somewhat ironic but the Canadian monarchy might be saved
by Quebec nationalists trying to blackmail the federal
government.

Scott Morrison

But even if we somehow worked out
an agreement between all the provinces
there is an unofficial requirement (that
the government would ignore at its
peril) that the resulting agreement go to
a referendum. Referendums typically
favour the status quo and this one
would be no different.

So to sum up I think Australia becoming a republic would
create some chatter but would result in little success for
Canadian republicans.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Book Review: Battle Royal

4/27/2018

Book Cover

It can sometimes be hard to review a book
where you are not the intended audience.
Either it will end up seeming too technical, too simple, or simply full of information
you already know. Battle Royal written by
David Johnson avoids the first two pitfalls
but toes the line on the third one for me.
It is nonetheless an interesting look at the
monarchist vs. republican debate in
Canada and the future of the Canadian
Crown. First, a look at the book's layout.

Author: David Johnson
Publisher: Dundurn Press
Published: January, 2018
Page Count: 288
Price: $26.99

The book begins with a brief look at
the history of the Crown from the
Royal Proclamation of 1763 to
Canadian Confederation in 1867. This
takes up the first two chapters and
gave me several interesting anecdotes.

The third chapter begins looking at what is meant by the
'Crown' and the various offices connected to the monarchy.
Chapters four and five return to recounting history to explain
why the monarch is largely limited to 'soft power' and the
remaining bits of 'hard power' that are still a prerogative of
Crown. This includes an examination of the Prorogation Crisis
of 2008. Throughout the chapters mentioned both republican
and monarchist arguments are given in what I would call an
even-handed manner (although, throughout I think the
author gave the republican arguments too much credit though
republicans would likely say the same for the monarchist
arguments).

Chapter six looks at the alternative to monarchy (republic). It
is a fair overview of the history of republicanism. It includes
a good run-down of the dangers the monarchy faced in the
1970s as well as more indirect challenges in the 80s and 90s.
It also includes a good overview of public opinion polls up to
the present day.

Chapters seven and eight deal with the debate between the
republicans and monarchists with chapter seven dealing with
the monarchy as an institution and chapter eight having
more to do with the Royal Family. This is not a comfortable
read for a monarchist but arguably a necessary one. It is
important to know what your enemy's arguments are after
all. By this point David Johnson has asked open ended
questions in every chapter (not a style choice I really liked but
whatever) and it is here they start to be answered.

Chapter nine is where republics would likely shed salty, salty
tears as it deals with the constitutional hurdles of reforming
the monarchy. Not only does it explain the hurdles it looks at
every argument and plan republicans have made to overcome
or by-pass them and reveals them to be pure folly built on
ignorance and desperation. It is a beautiful chapter.

Chapter ten looks at the beginning of the future King Charles
III's reign. One prediction has already come true: Charles will
be the next Head of the Commonwealth. But while the various
speculations are fun there is a serious question asked (and
one of the few really interesting ones in the book):

"Are we destined to have to live with some of the worst fears of both republicans
and monarchists? That is, are we stuck with an ineradicable monarchy that most
Canadians view as virtually useless, a meaningless yet embarrassing ornamental
bauble that we would and should discard if we could but we can't? Or can we
aspire to something better? If we know the monarchy will continue in this country,
can we have a better monarchy?"

This is the chapter where the author earns his self-proclaimed
title as a 'pragmatic monarchist' and dispelled my lingering
suspicion he might be a crypto-republican. The proposals are
ambitious, but doable if there is the political and royal will.

Overall, I found the last few chapters much more useful than
the entire rest of the book. But that is mostly because I was
aware of most of the information up to chapter eight. But it is
still nice to have the full set of facts and arguments in one
place. The book has an extensive bibliography and is scholarly
without being dry. Overall opinion: Its a decent little book.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

<<Previous

Forward>>