To this day, Canada’s official formal title is that of Dominion. Although the use of said title has fallen out of common use, it was never abolished and thus Canada is still formally a dominion of and headed by its monarch, who is currently his Majesty King Charles III. In the modern era, the monarchy and traditional Canadian identity have become dormant, overshadowed by a multicultural identity which seeks to supplant the authentic and historical identity with a type of American style republicanism and classically liberal sensibilities. Yet Canadian traditionalism and American liberalism are forces which are held in a delicate tension in this Dominion. Our culture largely reflects modern “values”, but our symbols and customs remain distinctly traditional. This adherence to tradition and monarchy is what has sustained this nation and its institutions, for without it, Canada would be cut off from the source which first gave it life and continues to do so. Without the monarchy, Canada would forfeit both its history and identity and would become a country of cultural, social, and religious anarchy. Of course, this anarchy is what our federal and provincial governments have already been enacting, but the monarchy, for all its failings, has served by its very existence to hamper the speed at which progress can be achieved.
I have no real respect for the Canadian government as it is currently organized. My patriotism is reserved to the King alone, as the government which is meant to rule in his name is more concerned with democratic principles against what would normally be the interests of the King. Of course, the Dominion of Canada is not unique in this respect. The United Kingdom along with the other Commonwealth Realms have likewise seen their governments enact policies which disregard the Crown and in doing so, harm the nation. I personally see the existence of a parliament as an indication of degeneration and a step away from the monarchical principal. A parliament can serve functions under the Sovereign, but today (and for some time) these elected bodies have grown in power at the expense of the Sovereign. It can be said that today, it is not the parliament that serves the Crown, but the Crown that serves the parliament, and thus the Monarchy’s continued existence is contingent on the mercy and toleration of the government. This is an inversion of how things are meant to be. In the English system, the King can only advise, encourage, and warn his ministers. The government is sovereign even as it supposedly rules in the king’s name. The state parasitically depends on the King for both its power and justification, as on its own it does not have any right to rule because in democracy, there is no sovereign power. The people are not a sovereign power. The rule of law cannot ontologically exist. Laws are conjured into existence. The Sovereign by necessity must be above the law, for the King cannot be subjected to something which he creates. The King is not bound to the law, but he abides by them because the laws which he creates are meant to be good. Just as God is not bound by the laws which He has created, He, being just and good, abides by the laws of His creation because they reflect upon His virtue. However, there are instances where exceptions are made and we see this in the example of God’s miracles, which circumvent our normative understandings of nature. Likewise, the King, who imposes but is not bound by the law, is able to make exceptions when the circumstances are needful, without ever undermining the law itself.
Ideally, the role of parliament and King would be reversed. The King would rule as the Sovereign, and it would be the parliament which would advise, encourage, and warn. In Canada, the parliament should act as a regency council and serve the interests of the King, which by extension would benefit the nation as a whole. There can only be one Sovereign power, and thus one institution must be utterly subjected to the other, or be abolished. The people cannot and have never been “sovereign”. The people cannot rule themselves, impose laws, and decide needful exceptions. In our own lives we can do this individually, but as a collective body we are left only with anarchy. I have denounced democracy as a means of robbing the people of their political freedom, which I maintain, but even if this were not the case, if democracy was really that which it ideally is meant to be, it would still result in a government of the lowest quantitative orders dictating orders to the qualitative minority. Democracy is the rule of the plebs above and over the nobles, and even though I am staunchly of the plebeian class, I would much rather be ruled over by my superior than by my equal, as in hierarchy there is something to be reached towards and striven for. Regardless of one’s position, the very existence of nobility demonstrates what is achievable, not in wealth and class but in the nobility of character and sovereignty that one is able to personally achieve. Of course, not everyone of the noble or aristocratic class is worthy of emulation, but the existence of such a class carries with it the presupposition of how those of that class should be. Those traits are not exclusive to that class and are achievable to all if that is something we strive for. Any pauper can partake in nobility and sovereignty if they will it. Unfortunately, we live in a democratic culture which uplifts the debased and degenerate, and thus our people strive not for nobility but for pleasure culminating in annihilation.
Most of the critiques of the Monarchy do not phase me, as they are imports from American republicans. They denounce Prince Andrew for his association with Jeffrey Epstein, and there are also a number of other lurid speculations about the degenerate exploits of the Windsor family. Assuming the worst of these rumours are true (and those regarding Andrew are likely to be), then these republicans would have royal pedophiles replaced by elected ones, which they already claim is the case in America and presumably in Canada as well. So ultimately, abolishing the monarchy would do nothing to liberate the Anglosphere from pedophile rule. Furthermore, even if they claim they would remove all such tainted leaders, who would they replace them with? The prevalence of pornography has shown the moral quality of the average person, and the existence and popularity of extreme fantasies does little to encourage me to put faith in those of this age who would find themselves foisted into such positions of power, with the accompanying loosening of the restrictions one normally finds placed over their inhibitions. Some also question the relevance of the King given his primary residence being the United Kingdom. Yet even from afar, King Charles is still the King of his Canadian Dominion. He need not be present to rule, just as God need not come before us to enact His will. Furthermore, I think that it is a benefit to us that our King, like God, retains a distance of a kind from us. The King’s distance does not limit him, but rather gives Canadians something separate from themselves to be oriented towards. By his distance his power is known and his presence is felt. When he descends to us, he does so not because he needs to, but for our own well-being, to know and be known by him. Likewise, his distance does not limit Canada or render Canada a lesser holding than Britain, as he is equally the King of England as he is of Canada, and thus he rules over us in the manner which best suits him. Britain is the elder realm and thus it is fitting for it to be the primary residency of the King.
The political situation of the Dominion of Canada is not ideal. I have at times wondered if our nation would be better served with the removal of the House of Windsor and its replacement with another or new royal house. These are not thoughts I am proud to admit, but things have appeared so dire as of late (especially in Canada) that one can almost be forgiven for wondering if the Windsors as a family are no longer capable of ruling as authentic Sovereigns. Fundamentally, monarchy is contingent on continuity. Dynasties may rise and fall, but the fall of a dynasty is never something to be celebrated, as regardless of how debased a royal house may become it still is the embodiment of a people and a history. To cast a Royal House aside is to cast all that away also, and to also foreclose the possibility of there being a restoration both of the House and of the nation. The soul of the nation persists in the Sovereign, and this is something we should seek to save and perpetuate. The House of Windsor may be in decline in regards to power, integrity, and even in Christian morality, but as long as it continues to exist it can be saved, and through it us all. If a new dynasty were to arise in Canada there may exist some historical and spiritual continuity between it and the Windsors, but ultimately it would represent a new foundation and the creation of a new nation. So long as the old foundation exists, as cracked as it may be, and the old nation as well, diluted and denigrated as it may be, these things are what we should seek to preserve and protect, and likewise it is our duty to honour and defend our King.
I do not know what the future will bring, or how His Majesty the King will rule over us. King Charles III is a learned man. He is someone who speaks of the meaning of monarchy, and is aware of its spiritual and transcendent nature having studied the works of René Guénon and the teachings of his own Anglican faith. The King has elected to have the oil with which he will be anointed during the coronation to be taken from holy chrism, which is to be blessed by both the Anglican archbishop and the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Catholic commentator Charles Coulombe noted that because of this blessing by the Orthodox Patriarch, this will be the first time since the 1600’s that the coronation of an English monarch will be valid, at least within the Catholic Church. Apparently, England is one of the few countries that the pope had in the past been permitted to perform their coronation rites with chrism oil, however this has not been done in centuries. Furthermore, as Rome accepts the validity of Orthodox sacraments, the Patriarch’s further blessing of the oil further legitimizes King Charles as an authentically Christ-ordained sovereign over Christian peoples. What this will mean for the coronation and the King’s reign no one can say, but it is a promising start, especially for the Orthodox. For the first time in almost a century, the Orthodox Church is involved and participating in the coronation of a monarch, even as the states of majority Orthodox lands have abandoned monarchy. This can only be a benefit spiritually for Britain and Canada. With Nicaea 2025 rapidly approaching, some cynics may attempt to denounce this action of the King as an act of ecumenism in preparation for some kind of false church union. Although I am concerned about the supposed 2025 Council, I do not think it is fair to denounce the King for this reason. Ultimately, the coronation is a sacrament between the King and God. If His Majesty wished for Orthodoxy to participate in this sacrament, I do not think it is for us to judge in this manner. What this event may result in no one can say, but to judge it at this state or even later I think would be a grievous error. This coronation is between God and His Appointed, and thus beyond our consideration, especially concerning the intimate act of the anointing of oil.
My books are available here: https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AElwin+Ransom&s=relevancerank&text=Elwin+Ransom&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1
If you are able to donate I would welcome your support on Patreon or via the crypto wallets below: https://www.patreon.com/godkingandnation