The Royal St. John's Regatta is North America's oldest annual
sporting competition. It also has had interesting ties to the
​monarchy since its earliest days. 

The earliest records for the event date from 1816 but there is
credible conjecture that the event was held earlier. Ship crews
would often compete against each other in rowing
competitions as a form of entertainment. It is from these
informal matches that the regatta originated.

The 1818 regatta was more put together affair. It was held on
September 22nd to coincide with the 57th anniversary of King
George III's coronation. It is from this date that the organizers
of the regatta mark their anniversary with the regatta
celebrating its 200 year anniversary in 2018.

Since 1818, there was a tradition
of using coronation anniversaries
 to set ​the date of the regatta as
this pictured betting slip from
1937 attests.

Members of the Royal Family who
have attended the regatta include
Prince Albert Edward (later King
Edward VII) in 1860 and Queen
Elizabeth II in 1978. In 2016
Princess Anne visited St. John's to
unveil the championship rings to
​be given out in 2018.

In 1993 the regatta was given its royal
designation through the efforts of Don
Johnson, Frederick Russel, and Geoff
Carnell. As a result a new crest was
developed incorporating Saint Edward's
Crown above a fixed-seat row boat. The
Royal St. John's Regatta is one of only
four organizations in Newfoundland to
have a royal designation. 

The regatta also has a coat of arms which can be seen here.

The Royal St. John's Regatta is held on the first Wednesday
of August, weather permitting. It is a civic holiday in the city
of St. John's but is unique in that the day off is entirely
dependent on whether the weather is suitable for rowing or
not. If called off the regatta will be held on the next suitable
day.

Besides the rowing there are many food stalls and games of
chance along the shoreline as well as live music provided by
the Church Lads Brigade Regimental Band which gives the
event a festival atmosphere. Hope to see you there.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

There has been a couple of initiatives
undertaken by the Ontario Government
recently which might be of interest to
Canadian monarchists. The first is the
renaming of Ontario's medal of merit to
the Queen Elizabeth II Ontario Medal
for Good Citizenship. A bit wordy but it
is a welcome tribute to a Queen who
spent her entire life encouraging good
citizenship. This change was made with
not a word of objection. The second
change that was made would result in a
bit more discussion and debate.

The Ontario Government announced on June 30th that they
​would be restarting the practice of awarding the designation
of 'King's Counsel' in honour of the King's accession. I
previously wrote an article outlining the history of this title
so I won't go over that again here. Until the recent
announcement that new lawyers would be made king's
counsel, Ontario was one of only two provinces that did not
award this designation.

The government almost immediately came under fire for the
most quintessential of Canadian political mistakes: patronage.
While some of the recipients were worthy appointments, 
most were blatant patronage picks. Premier Ford seemed to
waffle on his response to the scandal, first denying being
involved in making the list and later promising clear rules and
a formal process for receiving the designation going forward.

​These are welcome developments, despite the rather rough
implementation. Ontario was one of the provinces that opted
not to create their own Platinum Jubilee Medal in the wake of
the federal government's failure to do so which left the
Ontario Government's position on the monarchy unclear. It is
unclear if these initiatives are coming from Premier Ford, or
someone in his cabinet. The Premier did give a great tribute
to the late Queen after her passing. Regardless of who exactly
is responsible, good news is good news and worth celebrating.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Earlier this week Prince William 
announced his plan to end 
homelessness in the United 
Kingdom. The initiative is called 
'Homewards' and takes inspiration 
from a similar program in 
Finland, which has nearly halved its
homeless numbers since 2010.
Under the Homewards program the homeless will be given a
place to stay before other issues such as drug use, joblessness,
or mental health issues are sorted out. Efforts will also be
made to identify those at risk before they become homeless in
order to offer assistance.

The project currently has 16 private sector partners across six
locations. Land from his private estate (Duchy of Cornwall)
will be used to build social housing. The job ahead is immense
with an estimated 300,000 people in the UK dealing with
homelessness. A number that is expected to rise with rising
inflation and energy costs.

Prince William credits the influence of his mother, Princess
Diana, for him taking on this cause. She felt the then 11-year
old Prince William should be exposed to how those of much
humbler means were forced to live and the experience seems
to have stuck with him. This is not Prince William's first
initiative to raise awareness of homelessness in the UK but
it is the first with the greatly expanded resources and soft
power that come with being the Prince of Wales at his
disposal.

As with any attempt at doing good these days there are
detractors. Most of this uninformed criticism focuses on
Prince William's relative wealth (much the same as people
who complained about His Majesty flying in private jets while
trying to negotiate carbon reduction). I think this misses the
point.

Once upon a time elites honoured the principle of noblesse
oblige even if they did not always live up to it. And it is far
better for elites to view themselves as having an obligation to
help their fellow citizens than for elites to view their fellow
citizens has a hinderance to their interests. The latter view has
infected the elites in the USA for many years and has created an increasing number of monsterous examples who I will not
discuss here. A country's elite should look to better the lives of the less fortunate and in this regard Prince William is setting
a wonderful example. 

​Of course some also argue that reducing homelessness should
be a government responsibility and royal action in this area
limited what government can do. Bull crap. Again referring
back to Charles, when he was still the Prince of Wales; he got
the wheels rolling on climate action long before governments
were onboard with it. Rather than squeeze out the Members
of Parliament and governments of the day I think it provided
both inspiration and admonishment to the political elite who
are ever-eager not to get too far ahead of popular opinion. By
making ending homelessness a royal issue it implicitly raises
the question of what the government is planning to do to fight
it. Now this initiative could fail or it could take longer to
accomplish than people thought it would (which many
wrongly count as failure) but at the end of the day Prince
William is willing to do something about homelessness and
that is to be applauded.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

I have, for a while now, been 
critical of Prime Minister 
Justin Trudeau's handling of 
the monarchy. Perhaps,
surprisingly, he has done
several positive things for the
monarchy in a very short 
amount of time and it is worth 
examining what the effects of 
his actions will be. 

Trudeau faced a fair amount of 
criticism, even from within his own
caucus, for failing to issue a medal to
mark the late Queen's jubilee. While
no coronation medal was issued, a
medallion was. Now, I hate to be the
one to nit pick but medallions are
generally sold while medals are
given to recognize some worthy
person. Given the recent times we've
been through there are a large
number of Canadians who ought to be honoured. Trudeau's
​reluctance to issue a medal on both occasions is curious.  

The government confirmed that the King's portrait will be
on the Canadian $20 bill as well as all coins issued. The coins
were never really in doubt but there were suggestions around
not having the King on the $20 bill. Trudeau has put that
​speculation to rest.

While the events were described as low-key, Trudeau's
government didn't have to hold them at all so the fact that he
did shows some desire to acknowledge the monarchy.

Trudeau's government has created a new Canadian crown.
It is a heraldic design only and shares elements with the
Tudor Crown, Saint Edward's Crown, and (probably
unintentionally) the Loyalist Coronet.

Now, some dislike this design. There are criticisms about how
the design was decided on (without consultation), removal of
religious symbols (crosses and fleur-de-lis), and the addition
​of a snowflake to the top of the crown. Even the direction of
the ermine arrows was critiqued (I am not going to discuss
ermine arrows!). 

Okay, first of all, I understand why there was no consultation
with Parliament. There may still be people old enough to
remember the Canadian Flag Debate and all the acrimony 
that caused. The monarchy is meant to be a unifying symbol,
intentionally making it a source of division would be perverse.

Second, as a Christian myself, yes, I would prefer to have my
beliefs represented. However, the Canadian Monarchy, unlike
the British Monarchy, has no connection to an established
church (which is also reflected in a recent change to the
King's Canadian titles). It is weird then for such a connection
to be present in the crown. Given the monarchy's association
with a single faith has been a point of attack for republicans
this may blunt that particular charge.

The new design plays up the theme of Canadians being tied to
the land they live on with the crown's representations of
rivers, mountains, maple trees and snow. Also, that snowflake
is a bestagon. 

This does mean that future Leadership Surveys will need
to change out the crown used but thats a me problem.

The new passport design was
released to mixed reviews. Some
praised the artwork while others
criticized the lack of historical
references. But despite this the
passport retains the coat of arms
and its royal symbolism (even if 
the cover is a bit awkward). As a 
side note the coat of arms still uses
Saint Edward's Crown which may
indicate a lack of coordination between the government
departments. Most likely, differing time tables on when things
needed to be done prevented the new crown from being
​included.

Recent terrible polling for the monarchy has led other leaders
in the Commonwealth musing about future republics. To his
credit, Trudeau wasn't one of them. In the past I did critique
his defence of the monarchy. His comments after the King's
coronation were quite a bit better and came at a time when
they were needed. Likewise, his comment before the funeral
of Queen Elizabeth II about appreciating the monarchy's
'steadiness' shows a degree of growth, if not in his thoughts
regarding the monarchy, at least in how he presents those
​thoughts.

Some of the actions above have attracted criticism but that is
unavoidable in the current political climate. Overall, I think
Trudeau has set the monarchy up well for the future. I still
have grievances with how Trudeau handles the monarchy
file (the free portrait program especially) but he has done a
​solid B+ job recently. 

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The King's coronation this past 
Saturday went off without a 
hitch and frankly was a beautiful
affair. It is hard to believe that 
the British were once held to be 
rather bad at pulling off such 
highly orchestrated events. And, 
as with all things these days it
seems, someone is worried that 
too much money is being spent.

The final cost won't be known for some time but unofficial 
estimates put it at $125 million on the high end. Now, it 
would be rather trite to call that a rounding error in a country 
with a yearly GDP of 3 trillion dollars, so I won't. Instead, I
want to do a small comparison with republics. Specifically, I
​want to take a look at inauguration costs (all sums given in
US Dollars).

The USA is to republics what the UK is to monarchies; the
arch-typical example everyone seems to compare themselves to. In the US there is a presidential inauguration every four
years. The price varies (but rises with inflation) and private
donations cover some of the costs but taxpayers in the US are
​usually on the hook for about $100 million.    

The French in inauguration is a bit of an all day affair. There
is the constitutionally required parts followed by various
events around Paris. The Germans have much more low-key
inaugurations.

What both France and Germany have in common is the
difficulty in finding cost breakdowns. The French example
probably reaches the $100 million threshold while the
German example probably doesn't.

Again, a full costing does not seem to be available but they did
spend $110,000 on catering for the 2018 inauguration. Its a
bit iffy if Ireland reaches the $100 million threshold. The
main determiner is staffing costs for security and clean-up
which might push it up a bit. An educated guess would be
$500,000 all told.

Coronations don't happen at set intervals and can vary
between a few years and many decades. Usually a long reign
means a short interval will follow. If you averaged it out you'd probably come out with something close to one coronation
every 20 years. I'm going to say once every ten years for the
sake of the argument I'm making.

Presidential terms vary but for the examples I've used its; US
four years, France five years, Germany five years, and Ireland
seven years. The result being that the US and France spend
twice as much on inaugurations than the UK spends on
coronations. Ireland probably spends more if a 20 year
average interval is used and Germany might have spent more
on inaugurations during the Queen's reign.

All of which is to say that the King's coronation is not out of
line with what other countries spend on ceremonial transfers
of power and may be on the less expensive side due to longer
intervals on average compared to republics. There is also the
point to be made that since the coronation covers many
different realms its a bargain for all involved. I don't think a
Canadian republic would long avoid having its own, perhaps
modest, inauguration event. The result being the introduction
of a cost it doesn't currently have. Plus, the coronation was
a far more spectacular event than any inauguration. People
​need to learn to stop being penny wise, pound foolish.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

With less than a month to go before the
coronation there has been an increase 
in government announcements in 
regards to the various aspects of the
celebration.

The Department of Canadian Heritage 
recently released the design for the
King's Coronation Emblem. It is full of
symbolism regarding the outlook of the
King and how he views his role. From
their website:

There has been some speculation on why King Charles III
opted for the Tudor Crown rather than St. Edward's Crown in
his cypher. Arguments largely fall into four categories:
1. To differentiate his reign from his mother's reign.
2. The Tudor Crown has a strong link with male monarchs.
3. A call-back to King Charles I after whom the King is named.
4. The simpler design fits the King's aesthetics better.

As briefly mentioned in the official description the emblem is
meant to convey people coming together and it is known the
King values his ability to bring people together to discuss
issues of concern.

Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, Fraser Herald at the Canadian
Heraldic Authority, has worked in Canadian heraldry for over
30 years and was the first women to hold a state herald
position in the Commonwealth. She previously designed the
Queen's Platinum Jubilee Emblem. In early 2023 she was
made a member of the Royal Victorian Order, which is a
personal gift of the reigning monarch.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Contract law is boring. But it is boredom built upon a strong 
foundation of people trying to mediate their relationships 
with each other via law rather than force. This makes some 
aspects of contract law, if not exciting, at least somewhat 
interesting. One such aspect is the Royal Lives Clause (or RLC
for short). But before we even get to discuss this we need to
understand something about Common Law.

In the 1600s a certain Henry, Duke of Norfolk set up a rather
complicated succession plan for his estates which involved
them transferring down through his sons and even later
descendants in very specific ways. Henry dies, everyone gets
their estates, and everything seemed to be going smoothly.
That is until the eldest son died. As per Henry's oh-so-clever
plan the estates of his other two sons would both shift
ownership. The second son refused to relinquish his estates.
The fourth son sued and it all ended up in the House of Lords
to sort out. They saw just how stupid this could become and
nixed the idea that such shifting estates could go on forever.
They didn't specify how long it could go on and wouldn't
revisit that ​question until 150 years later. The 'Rule Against
Perpetuities' sets out that certain aspects of contracts can't
last for longer than the life of a person plus 21 years after their
death. If you have ever been involved with a legal trust you
may be aware that taxes on the trust must be paid every 21
years. This is an ​application of this rule.

English judges long realized (even before the clever plans of
the above mentioned Duke of Norfolk) that putting certain
limitations and conditions on property made it harder to buy
and sell and that certain aspects of the law could allow the
avoidance of taxation. The Rule Against Perpetuities was a
means of limiting the potential for misuse of these sorts of
​contracts. This is why that summer home your family placed in a trust is still taxed every 21 years (even if the option to dissolve the trust is never taken) rather than being a tax free
estate until the end of time. A trust also automatically
dissolves 21 years after its last primary recipient dies.

Ok, Henry, there is a rule for that. The very rule this article
set out to discuss; ​Royal Lives Clause. Royal families tend to
be well-documented which makes them useful for tracking
​the whole '21 years after death' thing as this is an event people
will note. Its also harder for a member of a royal family to just
disappear. So from the standpoint of a lawyer the lives of
royals are a much better marker than your Aunt Ellis who
disappears for years at a time and has been using a fake ID
for most of her life. An example clause would look like this:

"The option must be exercised before the end of the period
ending 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the
descendants of King Charles III, king of England"

I used this example specifically because Disney recently
invoked this clause in its turf war with the Government of
Florida. Importantly, this clause still sets an end date (but
picking a family with members who routinely make it into
their 90s was a smart move) it is not perpetual and thus a
legal ​contract.

Putting aside the House of Mouse, the Royal Lives Clause is a
common legal tool in Britain and the the Commonwealth. It is
often used in Alberta for oil and gas contracts for example.
Similar rules have been used in the US with the Kennedy and
Rockefeller families.

The clause has become a bit rarer in Britain as a new set
period of 125 years was introduced as an alternative. In most
cases the two are roughly equivalent but the new rule is
somewhat more predictable. For this reason other areas, such
as British Columbia, have adopted the 125 rule as well. That
said, it doesn't negate using the Royal Lives Clause if you so
wish.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

"I do not consider myself to be a rabid 
monarchist. I am pretty laissez-faire about
our relationship with the monarchy. It does
not bother me in my day-to-day workings,
not only as a citizen of our country but also
as a member of Parliament. In my humble
opinion, monarchs can truly be above
politics. They do not have any political
affiliations. In fact, if the King were to
meddle in domestic politics, that would be
seen as highly inappropriate and would probably result in a
constitutional crisis.
​
It is important to realize that our oath to the King, to the
heirs and successors of the King, is not to an individual
person; it is rather to that person as an embodiment of the
Crown as an institution. It is a symbol of the Canadian state,
a ship that continues to sail on despite the occasional
changing of its captains. The monarch's continual rule
provides legislative and policy consistency over long periods
of time. Governments come and go but the Crown remains.

Canada is not alone in this. Constitutional monarchies in
western Europe include the United Kingdom, Denmark,
Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Monaco, Belgium,
Luxembourg and Sweden, countries we would all uphold as
successful, with strong social foundations, strong democratic
participation and, in many cases, serving as models for what
Canada could aspire to be. Asia, Japan and Thailand are
also constitutional monarchies as well.

When we are talking about the institution of Parliament, and
this is what I like to talk to my students in my riding about,
because we often talk about Parliament and the House of
Commons interchangeability, Parliament means the House,
the Senate and the Crown, which is represented by our
Governor General, all three constituent parts that are
required to pass a bill into law. No bill could become a law
without any of those bodies playing an important role.

I also want to address the need for the monarchy to address
past injustices. I may be saying that the monarchy is okay to
stay in Canada, but that does not mean it cannot and must
not change with the times in which we find ourselves. Many
people around the world have a very troubled history and
relationship with the British Crown. It has to confront and
deal with legacies of colonialism, of slavery and, particularly
in Canada, the treatment of indigenous people and
residential schools.

His Majesty King Charles III has an unparalleled
opportunity to move the monarchy forward in a way that is
acceptable and more relevant to today's generation. As a
king, he has the opportunity to go further than his
predecessors, to truly understand the 21st century in which
we find ourselves. It is my sincere hope that in his first visit
to Canada, he takes the time to meet with indigenous elders
to truly understand the Crown's role in the residential school
system and in colonialism. He owes that to Canada's
indigenous peoples, he owes that to the wider public here to
fully address those past wrongs and to set a path forward.

I will not be supporting this motion today. I will continue to
stand in the House and represent my constituents and their
far more pressing needs."

~Alistair MacGregor, Politician and Tree Planter

​Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

There has been, since 2020, a woman in 
Canada claiming to be the real Queen of 
Canada. Her name is Romana Didulo. 
The basis of her claim to the throne? 
Nothing. No secret royal parentage and 
certainly no popular acclaim or noble 
support. Some media outlets in their 
eternal quest for neutrality use the word 'pretender' and 
repeat her self-granted title. But in this instance this is not a 
neutral stance to take as the word pretender implies some sort
of legal claim which Didulo simply does. not. have. The term 
the media is looking for is 'false pretender' as she is merely a
grifter and charlatan. Also, she has no claim to her second
self-declared title of 'Queen of the World' in case anyone was
​wondering.

For the same reason someone might discuss a train wreck or
terrible crime. How can you not talk about the spectacle of it
all? But if this was just about some looney making absurd
claims it wouldn't be worth an article. No, the reason I am
writing this post is because Didulo presents several kinds of
​threats to Canada, its people, and its monarchy.   

This is actually a larger section of this article than I think
people should reasonably be comfortable with. To date she
has instructed her followers (estimated to number between
60,000 and 70,000 based on subscribers to her Telegram
account) to 'shoot to kill' healthcare workers in November of
2021. She has also threatened execution against various
supposed enemies and sent pseudo-legal cease and desist
letters to various schools and other organizations.

Perhaps the most troubling thing she has done (despite her
efforts to distance herself) was to encourage 30 of her
followers to storm a Peterborough police headquarters and
'arrest' the officers present in August of 2022. This ended
about as well as one ​might expect.

While currently not an existential threat to government
institutions, the fact she has followers willing to go to extreme
​lengths does make her potentially dangerous.

In most instances Didulo is more an annoyance than a threat.
Cease and desist letters can be trashed, threats of violence
reported, and protests ignored. Ironically, she is of greatest
danger to her supporters. By encouraging them not to pay
taxes and fees she has caused several to lose their homes. By
extorting money to fund cross-country tours she has reduced
several members to poverty. She has also left some of her 
supporters stranded on the wrong side of the country when
they started having doubts. She's an all-around dick is what
I'm trying to say. And while it is hard to have sympathy for
these people I will play moron's advocate and argue that,
maybe, the government shouldn't allow a swindler free reign
(heh, pun) to destroy the lives of the gullible and easily led.
That might ​just be me though.

This one is a bit more nebulous. Monarchy is a venerable
institution. A person making a mockery of it degrades its
prestige. Didulo's personal behavior doesn't make this any
better as she is reportedly quite tyrannical towards her own
supporters. This reinforces a stereotype common in media
that monarchs can't possibly be good people. In one rather
pathetic account a mother wrote how she took her children to
see this 'Queen of Canada'. Didulo has no conception of the
role she is trying to claim. No regard for its responsibilities
nor its restrictions. All she sees is a licence to do what she
pleases. That isn't monarchy, its anarchy.  

This is a good question. She was brieftly detained after her
threats against healthcare workers in November, 2021 for a
psychiatric evaluation which she somehow passed. Computer
equipment was also seized. But other than this minor hiccup
she has been left alone. What could she be charged with?

Impersonation - In Canada it is illegal to impersonate
another person. However, Didulo isn't doing this. It is also a
crime to impersonate a police officer or military member but,
crucially, this doesn't seem to apply to any other government
position.

High Treason - Didulo hasn't tried to kill the king and
claims the Queen was killed long before her actual death. She
also has not engaged in war with Canada.

Treason - Didulo hasn't tried to overthrow the government.

The above leads to an interesting observation; you could build
up a parallel government in Canada and provided you left
actually removing the existing government to last there isn't
much the government could do. This seems like a loop hole 
that ought not to exist. 

Thus far Romana Didulo has been very good at knowing how
far she can push without trouble coming back to her. She is
playing a dangerous game though. No one has full control
over their followers, especially radical ones, and there will
always be a risk of one doing something that gets Didulo in a
great deal of trouble. Hopefully, no one gets hurt in the
process.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

It has been quite a year. Queen Elizabeth II oversaw a historic 
platinum jubilee. Her death, while saddening, resulted in no 
mad rush for the door at the prospect of King Charles III as 
republicans had long predicted (hoped?). Instead, the new 
king has taken to his role with vigor and the people have been 
largely supportive. The Queen's presence benefitted the
monarchy but she knew more than anyone else that the
institution of monarchy isn't about any one person. Over the
last few years she had been slowly easing the public into the
new reign. Quite the contrast with the republican system in
which preparing a successor is almost never seen as desirable.

"With all my heart I wish each of you a Christmas of peace,
happiness, and everlasting light."

The Prince and Princess of Wales shared a painting by Prince
George a few days ago. It appears he has his grandfather's
talent with the brush.

This year will mark the return of the New Year's Levee for
many of Canada's vice-regal offices. It is sometimes forgotten
that the New Year's Levee is a distinctly Canadian tradition
that has its origins in court protocol of the French monarchy
and was adapted by fur traders and early governors of New France (Quebec) as a time to pay one's respects to the crown,
receive news from Europe, and let loose a little bit. British
authorities continued these traditions and are now celebrated
across the country.

While the last few years have demonstrated the foolishness of
trying to predict what will happen in the coming year there 
are a few things to look out for:

​The Coronation
While the exact details have not been worked out, the King
rejected the idea of a 'bargain bin' coronation. One change
likely to be seen is in the title 'Defender of the Faith'. The King
has stated in the past that the monarch, while adhering to
one faith, should seek to protect all faiths and stated a
preference for 'Defender of Faith'.

Fiji
The Fijian parliament is in a minority situation and the
coalition government has stated they wish to restore the Great
Council of Chiefs which was previously parliament's upper
house. The Great Council of Chiefs famously continued to
recognize Queen Elizabeth II as paramount chief long after
Fiji became a republic. While I'm not getting my hopes up for
​a royal restoration in a country that still uses some of its royal symbols it is a step in the right direction.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour