In my last article in this series I looked at various forms of
primogeniture (and its polar opposite: Ultimogeniture). In a
perfect world these systems would have prevented disputes
over succession with rulership passing from parent to child in
an unbroken line. However, it was not (and is not) a perfect
world and sometimes other factors intervened.

For instance; it was not entirely settled who succeeded to the
throne if a ruler died with no direct heirs. It was firmly
established that brothers (or sisters) could inherit in that
instance but once you moved out to having to consider uncles,
cousins, and nephews primogeniture faced a challenge. This
​challenge was Proximity of Blood. 

In simplest terms Proximity of Blood is a way of determining
succession by looking at who the closest living relative to the
deceased monarch was. It differs from Primogeniture in that
successional representation was not observed. Which is to say
living relatives were not counted as 'representing' their
​ancestors. A graph may be helpful here.

In the above family tree firstborn children are to the left. The
crown marks the recently deceased king with no direct heir.
Both Primogeniture and Proximity of Blood track back to the
great grandfather and down the line of his second-born (the
deceased king's great uncle). This great uncle had two
children with his eldest having died leaving behind one child
(the deceased king's second cousin). The younger son of this
great uncle (the deceased king's first cousin once removed) is
also living.

Under primogeniture the second cousin stands in for their
parent, who as firstborn would inherit. Under Proximity of
Blood all that matters is that the first cousin once removed is
one step closer related to the deceased king and would inherit
under this system.

As you may be realizing such conflicting claims could easily
lead to war. And they did. It should also be noted that a
major flaw with using Proximity of Blood to determine
succession is that you could have a situation where there are
multiple people equally related to the previous king. 

Proximity of Blood was a key factor in Robert the Bruce
becoming King of Scotland. It was also an important element in the succession of the Crusader Kingdoms since parts of the
kingdom might be lost to the Saracens and then regained
later. The Netherlands still uses Proximity of Blood today but
only to determine the collateral royal lines.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Most countries have some means of providing for the orderly
transfer of power from one leader to another. In democratic
republics (and the legislative branch of constitutional
monarchies) this is done via open election from all, or most,
of the citizenry for limited periods of time. Monarchies have
used other (more varied) methods of transferring power. In
this new series of articles I will give an overview of the many
types of succession monarchies have employed. First up we
have Primogeniture.

Primogeniture is the right of the firstborn (usually male) child
to inherit their parent's entire estate. This is usually in
preference to daughters, elder illegitimate sons, younger
sons and collateral relatives. Depending on the exact laws and
customs used you end up with a number of different systems.

Absolute Primogeniture
In 2015 the Canadian Monarchy adopted the principle of
absolute primogeniture. The firstborn of the monarch will
inherit the throne regardless of gender. While this is the most
common form of primogeniture in 2017 it was almost
unheard of before the 1980s. Sweden was the first to make the
switch which resulted in Carl Philip, the infant son of King
Carl XVI, being overtaken by his elder sister, Victoria, in the
​line of succession. 

Male-preference primogeniture
As the name implies elder sons are given preference over
younger sons and preference over daughters of any age. This
was the former system used in Canada and the rest of the
Commonwealth before 2015. Despite this handicap six women
have reigned as Queen in England/Britain/Canada since 1497.
It is the current form of succession used in Spain, Thailand, &
Monaco.

Uterine Primogeniture
Under this system the son most closely related to the previous
monarch through female kinship inherits. In other words a
king would typically be succeeded by his sisters son. This
system was somewhat rarer with the Picts of Northern Britain
being an example of a people who used it.

Matrilineal Primogeniture
This system is the complete opposite of Male-preference
primogeniture. In this system only females can inherit to the
complete exclusion of males. The Rain Queen of the Balobedu
people in South Africa is a current example of Matrilineal
Primogeniture.

In rare instances some cultures adopted the practice of having
the youngest son inherit. It is a good system for when the
youngest son was expected to take care of their parents in
their old age while the eldest had the time to go out into the
world and make their own way. Alternately, the elder sons
could be given a share of the land with the youngest inheriting
the lands closest to the family home. The most notable
example is probably the Mongolian Empire. While the elder
three sons of Genghis Khan inherited territories across Asia
and Europe the youngest son, Tolui, inherited the Mongolian
​homeland.  

That is all for now. Until next time.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

There are few Canadian monarchs
who have courted more controversy
than King Edward VIII. Much of this
stems from changing social mores
and having had little time, nor desire,
to frame his own narrative.

Born in 1894 the new prince was
third in line to the throne after his
grandfather and father. His
upbringing was typical for a royal at
the time. However, one of his nannies
was found to have physically abused
​him.

His schooling was extensive, as was expected of a future king,
but the young prince did not excel to any particular degree.
He left Oxford after eight years without have gained any
​academic qualifications.

​In 1911 Edward was officially invested as the Prince of Wales.
Shortly before World War One Prince Edward had joined the
Grenadier Guards and he wanted to serve on the front lines.
However, Secretary of State for War Lord Kitchener nixed the
idea citing the harm that might come from his capture by the
enemy. Being prevented from fighting on the front lines did
not stop Prince Edward from visiting as often as he could. As
such he saw the horrors of trench warfare firsthand. This would have an impact on his later political beliefs. His role in
the war (despite being limited) made him popular with the
rank and file soldiers.

Throughout the late 1910s & 1920s Prince Edward often
represented the King at events throughout the British Empire.
During a tour of Canada in 1919 he acquired the Bedingfield
Ranch in Alberta. Many important Canadians would visit the
Prince's new ranch. Edward would stay at the ranch during
his years as prince and, after his abdication, his years as Duke
of Windsor. In 1927 as part of Canada's 60th birthday
celebrations him and his brother officially opened The
Prince's Gate. 

While Prince Edward was at the height of his popularity
during these years two issues had arisen that would greatly
sour his legacy. The first issue was his views on his future
subjects that would charitably be called racist. The second
issue was his preference for women who were either married
or who the general public would not accept as queen. While
the first issue was largely ignored at the time (his views not
being too far from elite opinion at the time) it would come to
have the greatest effect on his legacy. The second issue was
the one that would most immediately bring him down (but
​which the general public cares little about these days).

In the 1930s Prince Edward met American divorcee Wallis
Simpson. Their relationship caused no small degree of
concern in the government. The police were ordered to follow
the two and establish the nature of their relationship.

In 1936 Edward ascended to the throne as Edward VIII.
Almost immediately he began to break royal protocol. On a
tour of Southern Wales he stated that "something must be
done" for the unemployed coal miners there. The government
interpreted this as improper interference.

On November 16th, 1936 King
Edward VIII called for his Prime
Minister. His Majesty informed Prime
Minister Stanley Baldwin of his
intention to marry Wallis Simpson.
Baldwin informed the King that the
public would not find this acceptable.
The King offered morganic marriage
as a suitable compromise. The British
Cabinet rejected this as well. And in
what was likely a first the dominion
governments of Australia, Canada &
South Africa expressed disapproval of the King marrying a
divorcee. King Edward was faced with three choices: 1. Give
up on marrying Wallis Simpson, 2. Marry against the wishes
of cabinet, or 3. abdicate. The King refused the first option
and knew the second would cause a constitutional crisis. Thus
​the King made the decision to abdicate. The reaction to the
decision were manly negative and Canadian Prime Minister
Mackenzie King wrote in his diary that, "...if that is the kind of
man he is it is better he should not be longer on the Throne." 

After his abdication Edward (soon to be made Duke of
Wndsor) became a bit of a pariah. He married Wallis Simpson
on June 3rd, 1936. The ceremony was performed by Robert
Anderson Jardine (an act that cost him his position). The new
King George VI forbade the Royal Family from attending. This
act created a great deal of resentment over the following
years.

In 1937 the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, against the advice
of the British government, visited Nazi Germany. During the
visit the Duke gave full Nazi Salutes and met with Hitler.
There is some disagreement about whether the Duke favoured
fascism or not. His low opinion of other races has been used
as evidence Edward did favour it. However, in Edward's own
words "the unending scenes of horror" of World War One had
led him to support appeasement. Hitler's opinion of the Duke
is far less ambiguous believing that as king he would have
been an ally and that his abdication was a serious loss to
Germany. The couple's continuing association with known or
suspected Nazi sympathizers did not help quell the suspicions
about their political beliefs. This photo certainly didn't help: 

Rumours that Hitler intended to install Edward as king of a
British puppet state after he conquered the British Isles are
most likely mere fancy. The number of royals Hitler installed
in Europe is exactly zero. Even members of the former
German Imperial Family were only feted until Hitler realized
they wouldn't be of any further use to him.

However, it is likely the concerns that the Duke possibly had
Nazi sympathies that led him to be appointed governor of the
Bahamas (and far away from Europe) in 1940. He made the
final leg of his trip to the Bahamas on the Canadian
Steamship Lady Somers. He would remain governor of the
Bahamas throughout the war. Edward was praised for
combating poverty on the islands and defusing civil unrest
over low wages in Nassau. However, he considered the blacks
to be incapable of self-government and blamed the civil
unrest on communists and Jews.

After the war the Duke occasionally attended official
functions in Britain, spent time at his ranch in Alberta,
wrote the occasional book, and more or less lived in
retirement.

As time has gone on the role his marriage played in Edward's
​abdication has been downplayed. Instead his politics have
been given greater weight. As Historian Philip Williamson
argues this is a mistake brought about by the increased social
acceptance of divorce. Edward's views were certainly racist
but there is little evidence he supported Nazism. He remains
the most controversial member of Canada's Royal Family.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour 

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.

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.

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.

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

Monarchs have ruled Canada since before Canada was a recognizable entity. This article is an overview of Canada's monarchs which is, as I will explain in a second, by necessity incomplete. Note that below if both the king and the queen are listed it means they ruled as co-sovereigns. Also note that I am defining 'Canada' as the geographic area of the current country. Finally, note that I have used the dates for the reign of each monarch rather than birth-death.

It is often overlooked that many of the aboriginal tribes that inhabit Canada at one time had hereditary chiefs. In fact some still do on a formal or informal basis. However, with 600+ recognized nations and fragmentary records from pre-contact civilizations it is nearly impossible to include a complete overview of native kingship in the context of this article. In the future I will attempt an article outlining a history of Canada's hereditary chiefs. Sufficed to say at present that hereditary and elected kingship has a long history in Canada.

The French Crown ruled over the parts of Canada now comprising of the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, & Nova Scotia. Two French dynasties ruled Canada before the colony was ceded to the British in 1763.

   Francis I (1534–1547) 
     House of Valois

Henry II (1547–1559) 
House of Valois

The English Crown ruled parts of what would become the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and northern Ontario. It would gain areas ruled by the French Crown in 1763.

Until 1707 it is correct to refer to the English Crown. After March 6th of that year England and Scotland united into a single kingdom called Great Britain.    

   Henry VII (1497–1509) 
     House of Tudor

Henry VIII (1409–1547) 
House of Tudor

Edward VI (1547–1553) 
House of Tudor

Anne (1702–1714) 
House of Stuart


-Kingdom of Great Britain established, 1707

Victoria (1837–1901) 
House of Hanover

-Dominion of Canada established, 1867

The Canadian Crown became separate from the British Crown in 1931 due to the Statute of Westminster. More than 3/4th of the intervening period has been reigned over by a single sovereign.

George V (1931–1936 as Canadian sovereign)
House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (until 1917)
House of Windsor (after 1917)

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

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Cross-posted from monarchistnb

A significant royal anniversary recently passed us by, and I did not want to let it go by completely unnoticed or without comment. I don’t find as much time to post on this blog as I might like to do, but this is an important milestone for our Monarchy.

The 1st of August 2014 marked the three hundredth anniversary of the death of Queen Anne of Great Britain, the last of the unfortunate Stewarts to reign over Scotland and England. The reigns of her predecessors, stretching back to her great-grandfather, James VI of Scotland and I of England, were often marred by ill relations with Parliament. Few others are more well-known for their dealings with the House of Commons than Anne’s grandfather, Charles I, whose head was among the many things rent asunder by Cromwell and his cronies. And James II, Anne’s unfortunate father, was driven from his kingdom for his Catholicism. James’ ‘abdication’ paved the way for the accession of his daughter and son-in-law, Mary and William, the champions of “The Protestant Succession”, and later his second daughter, Anne.

By the time of Queen Anne’s death, however, relations between Sovereign and Parliament were somewhat improved, but it was at the expense of the Royal Prerogatives and Powers. It would the next several Sovereigns who succeeded Queen Anne who completed the process of evolution towards Constitutional Monarchy in Britain and thus also in Canada.

Queen Anne was succeeded by Georg Ludwig, Elector of Hanover, who was a descendant of James I through his daughter Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, and who became King George I. Queen Anne had far less distant relations who could have become the next Sovereign (a wikipedia list gives a list of 55 individuals who had a better claim to the throne than Georg Ludwig at the time of the Queen’s death in 1714) but the Act of Settlement, 1701, barred them from the throne for their Catholicism. This discriminatory part of the British Constitution (and subsequently of the constitutions of the independent nations of the Commonwealth) was repealed prior to the birth of Prince George of Cambridge, along with male primogeniture and the 1774 requirement for all descendants of George II to ask the Queen’s permission to marry.

The succession of the Hanoverian dynasty changed the course of British and Commonwealth constitutional history. That much is certain. It led to the two Jacobite Rebellions and all the associated unpleasantness between England and Scotland. There’s little point in speculating exactly how differently things would have turned out if King James’ son “The Old Pretender” has ascended the throne in place of the George I. Might the old Stewart belief in the Divine Right of Kings have reared its head and caused the downfall of the Monarchy? Or might the dynasty which established British rule over America have been more successful in avoiding the Revolutionary War? The “what ifs” are endless.

What we do know is the the reigns of the first four Georges, William IV and Queen Victoria ushered in the style of constitutional monarchy which we enjoy today. It was an era during which the Sovereign ceased to rule and instead reigned over his/her subjects. And it undoubtedly the flexibility of the Monarchy in Britain and the Commonwealth which has allowed it to survive in an era where Kings and Queens are far outnumbered by Presidents and Dictators.

Loyally Yours,
Barry R. MacKenzie

Recently Parliament passed a law changing the rules of succession so that the first-born child of the sovereign would inherit the throne regardless of gender. While generally appreciated there are some arguments that making such a change without amending the constitution is unconstitutional. As such, while the law currently stands it could be challenged and struck down at a later date. Monarchists should wonder whether they want to leave such a loose thread for future republicans to unravel at an inopportune moment.

Interestingly there is a possible solution that allows the change to happen while at the same time not opening up a wretched constitutional battle. The old succession rules stated that the eldest male child of the sovereign inherits the throne. Fine. Have Parliament pass a law declaring that the eldest child of the sovereign is legally male, even if that is not the case. Preposterous? Not really. There have been multiple examples in history where similar 'legal fictions' have been applied. It may lead to certain circumstances where a women has to reign as a king but that isn't all that odd either.

For instance Jadwiga of Anjou, King of Poland, was a women. It was noted at the time that while the law made no provision for rule by a queen it also did not specify the king had to be male. Poland would do the same thing with Anna Jagiellon later on. Likewise the Netherlands constitution specifies the ruler is the king despite most of their monarchs over the last century having been women. Currently Queen Elizabeth II holds two titles that are typically thought of as masculine; Lord of Mann and Duke of Lancaster. So there is precedence for this.

It should also be noted that the term 'king' is not inherently gendered. King means "one who descended from noble birth". 'Queen' is actually more problematic as it is gendered (it variously means 'wife' or 'wife of a king'). Some Asian monarchies used/use gender neutral terms for their rulers (even if women are barred from the throne). The ruler of Japan uses 'Tennou' which, while translated as 'Emperor', literally means 'Heavenly Sovereign'.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour