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

Earlier this month former British 
Prime Minister Liz Truss managed, 
during her very short time in office, 
to advise His Majesty not to attend 
the environmental gathering known 
as COP27. By convention the king has
a duty to follow the advice of his
prime minister even if pretty much
everyone knows he doesn't want to.
Even now, with a brand new prime
minister in place, His Majesty is not
likely to attend. There is still a bit of debate over how much
this was a joint decision but for the sake of this article lets
assume King Charles III would want to attend COP27 to bring
further attention to increasingly worrisome environmental
issues. How could he do so?

The unimaginative might suggest he simply ignore his prime
minister's advice. He is not likely to do this. Not only would it
damage a working relationship that will (presumably) last
more than a couple months, it would feed into the perception
that he intends to 'meddle' in government affairs. Both factors
would reduce the monarch's considerable soft power which is
​worth avoiding.

As it happens there is a way for His Majesty to continue to
carry out most, if not all, of his previous work and it is by
learning from an incident that took place in Canada in 1973.
At the time Canada was hosting a meeting of Commonwealth
leaders. British prime minister Edward Heath, for whatever
reason, advised the Queen not to attend. The Commonwealth
was to the Queen what the environment is to the King. The
Queen was able to attend the meeting because she received an
invitation to attend as the Queen of Canada by Pierre Trudeau
(hey! History is starting to rhyme a little). This works as while
the monarch can be advised not to do something in their
capacity as monarch of that country, they can't be barred from
acting as monarch of another country. With this we have ​a
blue print for King Charles III regaining his voice.

Now, I could suggest that Justin Trudeau invite the King and
this would make a certain amount of sense. Justin Trudeau
has come under criticism for making very little progress on
his climate plan. Having a champion of climate reform
present distracts from this narrative and is the type of
ceremonial action the prime minister is good at. That said,
Trudeau hasn't been overly kind to the monarchy during his
time in office. Are there any other candidates? Well, yes,
actually. Papua New Guinea recently stated they wished to
deepen ties with the Royal Family. And climate change will
hit Papua New Guinea, and other equatorial nations with
particular severity. The King and his Papua New Guinean
realm could make common cause at COP27. And there is no
reason the King couldn't ask around the rest of the
Commonwealth for partners on other issues. King Charles III
is head of 15 countries. Perhaps he should make better use of
this fact.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Prince Charles has been sometimes 
criticised for the way he expresses his views 
on matters of personal interest to him such 
as environmental affairs. However, a 
monarch being involved in political affairs 
is hardly something that would doom a 
constitutional monarchy. Charles’s image is 
really bound-up with the drama of his two 
marriages rather than his personality. 

The politician from across the Commonwealth who has really
trash talked Charles the most, is perhaps Maxime Bernier, at
least in recent times. Bernier in his days as a cabinet minister
never revealed any republican sentiment but as the
momentum of his right-wing populist movement has grown,
he has become more vocal over the issue. At this point,
Maxime is unlikely to return to Ottawa anyway even if the
PPC vote does increase by a large margin, but, this still could
put pressure on the Tories.

The monarchy in Canada has actually proven to be a pretty
resilient thing however controversial it may be. This might be
attributed to the Monarchist League of Canada having been
able to stay focused on presenting the argument for monarchy
in a non-partisan way and working to maintain a degree of
influence, to the extent of perhaps having the chairman sit
next to the leader of the opposition at a state dinner, or having
the deputy prime minister attend one of their events.

But the biggest threat to the monarchy in Canada is the
perception of Prince Charles being political. However, the
monarchy’s European counterparts show that this does not
need to be so. The other monarchies in Europe appear to
generally be suffering less controversy than that of the House
of Windsor despite being perceived as being more political. It
is also important to remember that whilst the financing of the
monarchy in the UK is part of the debate, Canada does not
send a single penny to Buckingham Palace. It would be
difficult for any politician like Bernier to use “taxpayers
money” as ammunition against it.

It feels pretty unrealistic that there will be any real appetite to
skip Charles, even if we had the option. It is important to
remember that constitutional monarchy can be refereed by
the public fairly easily. The royal houses have proved to be
highly sensitive to public opinion. In the UK this was
famously the case with Edward VIII’s controversial choice of
wife but more recently in Spain when their king was
humiliated into abdication by his own scandals. Spain appears
to be the only other European monarchy to be suffering the
same level of crisis in public image as the UK has. Despite
what tabloids like to shake up in the English speaking world,
such a “royal crisis” appears to be bigger in Spain than it is in
the UK, to the extent that quite a few mainstream Spanish
politicians have actually advocated a republic in contrast to
the very small number of British republicans in Westminster
and even smaller number of them who actually have tried to
campaign for a republic. Charles doesn’t face the same
pressure as Juan Carlos did.

People have at times raised an eyebrow over Prince Charles
(and his sons) acting ‘woke’. But Dutch royalty has been able
to work pretty well with ‘wokeness’, advocating LGBT,
immigration, environmental affairs, and other such things
related to social justice.  This does frustrate some
conservatives but not to the extent of fanning republican
sentiment. The widespread support for the royalty continues
to be preserved.

With the more recent generation of royals, marrying
commoners has become increasingly natural. The Nordic
royals have been doing this for some time now but even in the
very conservative Japan it’s now been accepted. Charles’ wife
Camilla has not used the title “Princess of Wales” but this
reflects the sensitivity related to Diana. There shouldn’t be
any similar reason why Camila won’t be Queen consort.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s behaviour is hardly doing
the monarchy any favours but their antics do not appear to be
damaging Charles specifically.

Many heirs to the thrones have faced skepticism during their
early royal careers both before and after ascending to the
throne. But the best news for Prince Charles is that his public
image has improved no doubt as a result of his own efforts to
downplay his more controversial interests . People are already
forgetting about the bizarre portrayals of him of the past and
are starting to view him as a benign figurehead. A few in the
UK have proposed becoming a copycat Republic of Ireland
but Charles alone does more public engagements than the
Irish President despite Charles not being the Head of State.
He is just that committed.

With Prince Charles filling in for the Queen more than ever
due to concerns over her health, for example stepping in for
the Queen at the recent state opening of Parliament, some
people have felt the need to stir up debate over his position
but, it seems this has been received very favourably by the
British public. The British public likes what they are seeing
and respect for Charles is growing at the right time.

Loyally Yours,
Lord Ludichris

There are some poll results that get funnier the longer you 
look at them and consider the scenarios that could play out. A 
​recent YouGov poll carried out in the UK is one such example.
The idea of republicans actually getting rid of the monarchy 
only for the people to then elect Prince William is funny to 
me. And then there is the fourth place finish of 'Me' as the 
person those surveyed would like chosen. Finally, Nigel
Farage and Jeremy Corbyn make a match made in hell at 2%
of support each.

But seriously, there is some interesting information to be had.
For starters there is no unifying choice among respondents.
Even the Queen, who enjoys widespread support has uneven
support when voting is brought into the picture. There is also
an obvious disconnect between who people want and who
would actually get to vote for. David Attenborough has had 
plenty of opportunity to run for public office, takes public
positions on issues, and is obviously popular but has never
stood for election. Which leaves Boris Johnson as the most
credible candidate on this list to be president of a British
republic.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Royal Prerogative refers to the powers Her Majesty wields,
either of her own accord or under advice from her ministers.
They are vast and somewhat poorly understood. They are also
rarely used unilaterally. Even so, their mere existence has at
times led to calls for them to be taken away or modified in
some way.

In Canada the most obvious examples of powers that some
want limits placed on would be the power to prorogue
parliament, dissolve parliament, and call by-elections. As it
happens Britain has modified some of these powers so it
might be instructive to look at what results it has produced.

Westminster is known as the Mother of all
Parliaments. It is what our parliament and
many others base their structure on. This
can sometimes obscure the fact that the
British Parliament didn't stop evolving in the meantime. The
Westminster Parliament our own sought to emulate is very
different these days. One of the ways it has become different
only ​went into effect in 2011. The Canadian Crown may
dissolve Parliament (usually on the advice of the prime
minister). The British Crown has lost this ability. In technical
terms those powers were put into abeyance. James Bowden
over at the Parliamentum blog has an in-depth look at the
Fixed-term Parliament Act (the legislation that now governs
when parliament is dissolved in Britain).

The act was passed so that prime ministers could no longer
time elections in their favour. Now, this strikes me as a bit of
a solution in search of a problem. After all, their is good
evidence that voters punish politicians who blatantly try to
​game the system in this way. Which is something the British
Prime Minister ought to have kept in mind back in 2017 when
she used the act (and a willing opposition) to get an early
election called and returned to parliament politically
weakened.

You might expect this to mean the government would have a
short life. Normally, you would be right but the most
immediate effect of the Fixed-term Parliament Act has been
to make it harder for governments to be defeated. It is no
longer the case that merely losing a vote is seen as a matter of
confidence, it has to be explicitly stated in a separate motion.
Which means MPs can vote against a bill while later voting to
keep the government alive. And even if a confidence motion
does succeed parliament still has 14 days to find a new prime
minister and avoid an early election.   

This has had some pretty nasty effects on good governance.
The British Conservatives have been able to remain in
government while engaged in a civil war within their own
party. With both the Conservative and Labour Parties
statistically tied since the end of 2017 the Conservatives
want to avoid an election if possible. It has gotten so bad the
Queen has started to have to gently remind MPs to do
their job.

This means that MPs never face a reckoning for how they
vote in Parliament. Had the previous method still been in
effect Britain would likely by now have gone through an
election ​and a new parliament would have been sworn in. This
would have had two positive effects;
1. It would calm demands for a second referendum since
there is little chance the election campaign wouldn't become
an unofficial referendum on Brexit. 
2. Having just fought an election the various factions in
Parliament would be in no condition to fight another one.
This is part of the reason why new governments are given a
bit of leeway in setting the agenda.

Would this have prevented the Brexit votes from reaching the
heights of absurdity that they have now? It is a definite
maybe. At the very least it would avoid the deadlock I often
​decry in the American system. An important safety valve has
been removed from the British state and one would hope it is
restored promptly.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

In November of 2008 Her Majesty was
visiting the London School of Economics.
The financial crisis was well underway and
the Queen took the opportunity to pose
a question about the scale of the disaster
that everyone had been thinking; "If these
things were so large, how come everyone
missed them?" It was a fair question that
​deserved a proper response.

And on July 22, 2009, the Queen received one. A group of
experts had gathered on the 17th to hammer out an answer to
​the Queen's question. The list of participants was actually very
impressive:
Professor Tim Besley, FBA, London School of Economics
Professor Christopher Bliss, FBA, University of Oxford
Professor Vernon Bogdanor, FBA, University of Oxford
Sir Samuel Brittan, Financial Times
Sir Alan Budd
Dr. Jenny Corbett, University of Oxford
Professor Andrew Gamble, FBA, University of Cambridge
Sir John Gieve, Harvard Kennedy School
Professor C. Goodhart, FBA, London School of Economics
Dr David Halpern, Institute for Government
Professor José Harris, FBA, University of Oxford
Mr. R. Harrison, Economic Adviser to the Shadow Chancellor
Professor Peter Hennessy, FBA, University of London
Professor Geoffrey Hosking, FBA, University College London
Dr. Thomas Huertas, Financial Services Authority
Mr. William Keegan, The Observer
Mr. Stephen King, HSBC
Professor Michael Lipton, FBA, University of Sussex
Rt. Hon. John McFall, MP, Commons Treasury Committee
Sir Nicholas Macpherson, HM Treasury
Mr. Bill Martin, University of Cambridge
Mr. David Miles, Bank of England
Sir Gus O’Donnell, Secretary of the Cabinet
Mr. Jim O’Neill, Goldman Sachs
Sir James Sassoon
Rt. Hon. Clare Short, MP
Mr. Paul Tucker, Bank of England
Dr. Sushil Wadhwani, Wadhwani Asset Management LLP
Professor Ken Wallis, FBA, University of Warwick
Sir Douglas Wass
Mr. James Watson, Dept. for Business, Innovation & Skills
Mr. M. Weale, Nat. Institute of Economic & Social Research
Professor Shujie Yao, University of Nottingham 

Having gathered and had a wide-ranging discussion Professor
Tim Besley and Professor Peter Hennessy summarized the
discussion into a three page letter and submitted it to the
​Queen. The letter is quite interesting. Or at least as interesting
as economics can be. The letter is part explanation, part Mea
culpa for their part in being unable to see the economic
disaster unfolding.

The letter promised that a future meeting would look at what
could be done to prevent Her Majesty from ever having to ask
her question again. And in December the promised meeting
took place and a second letter was delivered to the Queen.
In summarizing the discussion the group proposed a course of action which I have quoted below:

​I'm actually curious if the Queen has opted to do this. It is
possible as the financial crisis did lead the Queen to start
becoming more involved. For instance it led to Mervyn King
being the first Bank of England governor being invited to
the palace for a chat with the Queen.

In the end a simple question from the Queen led a group of
people to thoroughly examine the causes of the greatest
economic disaster of our time and perhaps taught some
economists the value of seeing the big picture.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

A student organization at the University of Liverpool is in a
bit of hot water over a tweet it made on January 29th (since
deleted). The University of Liverpool Labour Students
seemed to advocate in the tweet that Queen Elizabeth II be
beheaded:

They have since apologized and stated the tweet was 'tongue-
in-cheek'. Now, this is not the first time in recent memory that
an organization/person connected to the Labour Party has
said some stupid thing and then justified it by claiming it was
all a joke.

But let us take them at their word that this was a joke rather
than a serious proposal. What kind of people joke about the
execution of another person, let alone their head of state?
Especially, when actual beheadings are becoming much more
common with the rise of ISIS. But civility is declining
everywheres it seems. The president of the Philippines has
joked about rape multiple times and in one notable
instance about eating someone. 

It is concerning when these 'jokes' are made because it shines
a light on what the person thinks are acceptable norms in
society. On the flip side it makes light of a terrible period in
English history. Had there been no outcry that tweet would
still be up ​and they would be fine with it.

To the credit of many Labour Party members on campus they
quickly distanced themselves from the comments made by
their student leadership. For my part I sent a quick email to
the Vice-Chancellor expressing my concerns about this
incident. This is important as the actions of a few students
reflects poorly on the University of Liverpool as a whole.

UPDATE: The Vice-Chancellor has replied to my email. The
full text of this reply is at the bottom of this post. 

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The good news is that, barring an absolute disaster, it is not
likely to happen. The bad news is that due to the negligence of
a certain prime minister Canada doesn't really have a plan to
​deal with the situation either.

The roots of the problem go back to Canada's evolution as a
country. During the colonial period and later during Canada's
time as a self-governing dominion the question of regency was
effectively a question of British law. However, prior to 1937
Britain approached the issue on an ad hoc basis with laws
being passed when needed and for specific situations.

In 1937 a more permanent law was enacted in Britain which
remains in place to this day. This being seven years after the
Statute of Westminster it did not automatically apply to
Canada. Hindsight being 20-20 Canada ought to have acted
then. Alas, Prime Minister Mackenzie King was not known for
being overly proactive.    

During World War Two the issue gained new urgency with the
German invasion of Denmark which cut Iceland off from its
lawful sovereign. Fearing that the Germans might actually
invade Britain and cut Canada off from its monarch it was
agreed action should be taken. At this point a regency act 
might have been agreed to but, for reasons that escape me,
Mackenzie King still didn't see the need.

Instead, the Letters Patent, 1947 were issued. While the
letters patent provided for the governor general to exercise
the monarchs authority under exceptional circumstances it
did not provide for a regency scenario. And this is as far as the
law has gone on this issue.

The result is that legal experts are not sure how a regency
would be arranged in Canada if one were needed.

With some difficulty. As this most definitely touches upon the
'Office of the Crown' all of the provinces would have to agree
to the proposed act. An almost guaranteed opportunity for
mischief. But lets put that aside for now.

The British regency act is solid and would probably work
for Canada too as the regent (being a member of the Royal
Family) would be known to Canadians. But, no matter how
smoothly the regency goes republicans would likely use it as
an opportunity to cause trouble.  

Another option would be to specify that no individual enters
the line of succession until they reach the age of majority. On
a certain level it sidesteps the issue of regency rather nicely.
However, negating a royal's hereditary rights on the simple
basis of age doesn't sit entirely well with me either. Even if it
would benefit the realm to avoid a regency.

As it stands the need for a regency law is low and is likely to
remain low. But if a future prime minister decides he wants to
open the constitution for other reasons maybe sneak a
regency provision in at the same time. Ok?

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

On Sunday CBC Radio interviewed Freelance
writer Julienne Bay about her husband recently
becoming a Canadian Citizen. Before I forget;
Congrats and welcome to Canada!

It is unfortunate that Mrs. Bay then goes on to disparage the
very ceremony she just witnessed. In this article I want to
address some factual errors made by Mrs. Bay as well as CBC
Radio.

The article is a summary of the radio interview (although no
questions are asked) which has a link on the left. The radio
interview is somewhat better than the summary but errors
appear in both.

"But Julienne Bay asks why new immigrants should
have any allegiance to a colonial power?"

Well, no she doesn't. Apparently you can't even get past the
image caption without an error showing up. Mrs. Bay argues
that Canadians shouldn't swear an oath to the Queen. She
doesn't argue that new Canadians shouldn't swear an oath to
a colonial power, nor do they swear such an oath now. How
could such an error come about? Well...

"All new Canadian citizens must swear allegiance to the British monarch." 

Ah, that is how that error came up. There are certain mantras
editors should be forced to repeat each morning:
- 'Between' cannot be used to link three groups. The correct
word is 'among'.
- Hillsborough is correctly pronounced as 'HILLS-bro', not
'HILLS-brah'.
- The 'Canadian Monarchy' is distinct from the 'British
Monarchy' and the use of one or the other depends on the
situation.
In this case there really is no excuse since Mrs. Bay repeats
the Citizenship Oath during her interview. Queen of Canada &
Canadian Monarchy is said several times. Does it matter that
Her Majesty is also the British Monarch. Not in the slightest.
Just once I'd like to see some cheeky editor refer to Canadians
swearing allegiance to the Queen of Jamaica to prove a point
about how silly this mistake is. But why is this mistake made
so often?  

"...given the role the British played in colonizing and
dividing many of the countries those citizens come
from."

Ah. That would be why. This is far too short an article to go
into the historical debate about the British Empire's legacy.
But let me address the point being made here. Did the British
really 'divide many countries'? If you look at Canada you can
say this is false. The British (and specifically Queen Victoria)
were very much in favour of a unified entity in North
America. But let's talk about India for a second (since it will
come up shortly). Britain kept an extremely culturally diverse
country together for nearly the entire history of the British
Raj. It kept most of its native ruling class in place and tried to
limit ethnic clashes. Much of this was undone by the Two-
Nation Theory that argued Muslims were united based on
their religion rather than ethnic, location, or social class.

"His mother, Bay says, "grew up hearing stories of
colonial India: forced taxes on commodities such as
salt and agricultural crops that sent Indians spiraling
into poverty.""

For starters, all taxes are 'forced'. Voluntary taxes aren't really
a thing. And the question must be asked what this has to do
with the Canadian Monarchy in a general sense and the
Queen in a specific sense. The Canadian Monarchy never
ruled India and neither did Her Majesty. And even if she did
would not the lion share of the blame go to the British
Parliament which actually governed India?

"And it's not just immigrants who feel this way. A
recent Canadian survey shows most citizens would
rather drop the constitutional monarchy."

This is actually the most blatant lie in the whole summary and
it can be laid squarely at the feet of the CBC. Mrs. Bay noted
the correct statistics in saying that a recent poll showed 38%
of Canadians would rather not have the monarchy long into
the future. This is compared to the 42% who do and the 20%
who don't care either way. Whoever wrote the summary failed
​to uphold the highest standard of accuracy in portraying Mrs.
Bay's viewpoint.

"Bay argues 2017 is a great year to enact such change.
Not only is it a milestone year as we mark 50 years of
Confederation."

And the CBC finishes off with a simple typo. Well done. But
wait. If Canada were only 50 years old all those references to
the British Monarchy would make sense. But such a ploy
seems too clever for the CBC.


"Pledging allegiance to the Queen only bolsters a past full of discrimination. Why not scrap mention of the Queen altogether?"

Because any claim made without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence. And the claim Mrs. Bay makes is just such a
claim. The Queen stays and you will need to do better than
that to remove her.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Today marks the 65th anniversary of the
​Queen's ascension to the throne. This
event is known as a 'Sapphire Jubilee'.
But what exactly is a 'jubilee'? In
simplest terms a jubilee marks an
important milestone. The term has its
origins in the Old Testament where every
50th year was to be declared a year of
jubilee when debts would be forgiven,
celebrations had, and slaves freed.

Within Christianity the first jubilee year
was held in 1300. The previous year and
seen an upsurge in the number of
pilgrims owing to war and disease
occurring in many parts of Europe. Some
pilgrims persuaded Pope Boniface VIII
that great indulgences had been granted
about 100 years before. The Pope decided
to institute a jubilee year for the
remission of sins and universal ​pardon.
Originally meant to be celebrated ever
100 years the duration was soon
shortened to roughly every 25 years. 

When monarchs started celebrating jubilee years is somewhat
unclear. George III was the first to celebrate a Golden Jubilee
(50 years on the throne). Relatively few monarchs have
reached such a milestone and in the British Isles relatively
few monarchs have reached their Silver Jubilee (25 years on
​the throne) the shortest jubilee celebrated. 

Traditionally royal jubilees occur in the following order:
Silver (25 years)
Ruby (40 years)
Golden (50 years)
Diamond (60 years)
Sapphire (65 years)
Platinum (70 years)

A 100 year anniversary is known as a centenary rather than a
jubilee. Obviously no monarch has celebrated a centenary of
their reign although Pharaoh Pepi II Neferkare of Egypt
supposedly came close with a reign of 94 years. Should Her
Majesty reign until 2022 she will be the first Canadian
monarch to celebrate a Platinum Jubilee.

Jubilees have often been occasion to celebrate including the
issuing of jubilee medals to worthy individuals, parades, and
similar events.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour