The relationship between nations and the British monarchy has long been a complex and contested topic. From its historic role as a colonial powerhouse to its modern ceremonial figurehead, the monarchy is emblematic of both unity and division within the Commonwealth. Today, this tension manifests in a growing movement of individuals and groups seeking to redefine their relationship with the Crown, or to sever it entirely. One such instance has emerged in Dawson City, a small town in Yukon, Canada, where a governance crisis has unfolded following the refusal of newly elected officials to take an oath of allegiance to King Charles III.
Dawson City, with a population of around 2,400, is steeped in history. Known for its pivotal role in the Klondike Gold Rush of the late 19th century, the area also holds deep significance for the Tr’ondek Hwech’in First Nation, who were the land’s original stewards before being displaced during the gold rush. This historical backdrop underscores the tensions currently playing out in the town’s council chamber. The election, held on October 17, saw the selection of new officials, including Mayor-elect Stephen Johnson. Yet, nearly forty days later, these officials remain unable to assume office due to their refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch, a legal requirement under Yukon law.
The refusal stems from a sense of solidarity with Darwyn Lynn, an indigenous councillor-elect and member of the Tr’ondek Hwech’in First Nation, who has expressed discomfort with pledging allegiance to the Crown. For many Indigenous communities in Canada, the monarchy represents a painful legacy of colonialism, displacement, and systemic harm. Johnson and the council’s stand, while unprecedented, is not entirely without context. It reflects a broader discourse in Canada about the relevance and implications of monarchy in a modern, multicultural society.
The oath of allegiance in Canada requires officials to swear fidelity to “His Majesty King Charles III” and his “heirs and successors according to law.” This legal mandate binds every level of governance, from federal to municipal. However, Johnson and his fellow councillors view this requirement as misaligned with their community’s values and aspirations. Johnson emphasised that their decision is not intended as a display of disrespect towards the King nor as a rallying cry for republicanism. Instead, he framed the refusal as a collective gesture of support for Lynn, rooted in principles of inclusion and reconciliation.
In a statement to the press, Johnson clarified the intent behind their actions: “We can’t do anything legally required of us under the Municipal Act. It’s a bit of a sticky situation. This is being done with no disrespect to His Majesty King Charles. And also, we’re not doing this to go, ‘Rah, rah, look at us,’ to poke everybody across Canada, to get rid of the Crown. It was just something we wanted to do together to show solidarity in what we do here in this town.”
The implications of this refusal have already begun to ripple beyond Dawson City. The council has requested Yukon authorities permit them to take an alternative oath, though there has been no clear resolution. Under current legislation, failure to take the prescribed oath within forty days of an election nullifies the victory of any official who does not comply. This legal quagmire not only prevents the council from carrying out its duties but also raises broader questions about the compatibility of monarchic tradition with the democratic and multicultural ethos of modern Canada.
This episode in Dawson City is emblematic of a larger debate about the monarchy’s role in Canada. As a former British colony, Canada’s constitutional monarchy is deeply embedded in its institutions. Nevertheless, the monarchy’s influence has become increasingly symbolic, with many questioning its continued relevance. The ascension of King Charles III to the throne has further invigorated these discussions, as his reign marks a significant generational shift and an opportunity to reassess long-standing traditions.
The monarchy’s association with colonialism looms large in these debates. Indigenous peoples, in particular, have borne the brunt of colonial policies enacted in the name of the Crown. From forced assimilation to land dispossession, the Crown’s historical role in marginalising Indigenous communities remains a source of deep contention. For many, swearing allegiance to the monarchy feels incompatible with the pursuit of truth and reconciliation, a process that is central to healing Canada’s colonial wounds.
Darwyn Lynn’s objections to the oath are rooted in this fraught history. For Lynn, pledging loyalty to the Crown symbolises an endorsement of a system that historically worked to erase Indigenous cultures and identities. The Tr’ondek Hwech’in First Nation, whose ancestral lands include Dawson City, endured profound disruption and disempowerment during the gold rush and subsequent settlement of the area. Acknowledging this history is essential to understanding the significance of Lynn’s resistance and the solidarity shown by the other council members.
Canada is not alone in grappling with the legacy of the monarchy. Across the Commonwealth, similar questions are being raised. In Australia, debates about becoming a republic have persisted for decades, often reignited during moments of royal transition. Jamaica, too, has signalled its intention to sever ties with the British monarchy, a sentiment echoed by other Caribbean nations. These movements reflect a broader reckoning with colonial history and an increasing desire for self-determination.
While the practical implications of retaining the monarchy may seem minimal in countries like Canada, where the monarch’s role is largely ceremonial, the symbolism carries weight. For critics, allegiance to the monarchy represents an outdated allegiance to colonial power structures. Advocates for severing ties argue that becoming a republic would be a step towards modernising governance and reflecting the diversity of contemporary society.
However, not all Canadians share this perspective. For many, the monarchy remains an important symbol of continuity, stability, and national identity. Supporters argue that the monarchy provides a unifying figure above the fray of partisan politics. They also point to the logistical and legal complexities of transitioning to a republic, which would require significant constitutional changes.
In Dawson City, these abstract debates have taken on tangible consequences. The governance impasse underscores the tension between adhering to tradition and evolving to meet the demands of a changing society. The council’s actions also highlight the importance of solidarity and allyship in addressing historical injustices. By standing with Lynn, the council has brought national attention to the need for reconciliation and the reconsideration of colonial legacies.
As the 40-day deadline looms, the situation remains unresolved. Whether Dawson City’s council will be permitted to take an alternative oath or whether the election results will be nullified, forcing a new vote, remains to be seen. Regardless of the outcome, the incident has already ignited a broader conversation about the relevance of the monarchy and the need for more inclusive governance.
The events in Dawson City may seem small in scale, but they are part of a larger movement questioning the monarchy’s place in the modern world. From grassroots initiatives to national referenda, people across the Commonwealth are reassessing their ties to the Crown. Whether this leads to a gradual transformation or a more dramatic break remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the voices calling for change, whether motivated by history, identity, or the pursuit of justice, are growing louder.
This moment in Dawson City offers an opportunity for reflection, not just for Canada but for all nations that continue to operate under the framework of constitutional monarchy. It challenges us to consider the legacies of the past and the possibilities of the future. For the residents of Dawson City, the choice to refuse the oath is a powerful statement of values and an invitation to engage in a deeper conversation about what allegiance truly means in a diverse and democratic society.
