Earlier this month Prince Reza 
Pahlavi, claimant to the throne of 
Iran, addressed a meeting of 
international academics, scientists,
strategists, researchers, artists,
authors, entrepreneurs, and other
intellectuals gathered in the City of
Toronto. The gathering was of
supporters of The Phoenix Project
​of Iran.  

This was the first research conference the group has put
together. The group itself was only founded in September of
last year by Dr. Alayar Kangarlu, a professor at Columbia
University. So far the organization seems to be gaining a lot of
​support.

Donald Trump's state visit to the 
United Kingdom should be winding 
down by the time this article is 
posted. It has been an interesting 
spectacle to watch. The Queen 
once again proved she can perform 
as national hostess to whatever guest
pays her a visit. And for Donald
Trump's part he seems to have
brushed up on royal protocol for
the visit which is itself a surprise
given ​his iconoclastic view of
tradition.

Meanwhile, Prince Charles did not let a golden opportunity to
champion one of his oldest causes go to waste. The Guardian
is reporting that a 15 minute chat turned into a 90 minute
discussion on climate change. That Prince Charles was unable
to change Donald Trump's mind on this issue is perhaps not
surprising. Afterwards Trump summed up the meeting thus;

I would hazard to guess this is one of the longest meetings on
climate change the president has ever had. If there was going
to be a chance to change his mind on this issue a face-to-face
meeting was the way to go about it. Trump famously has little
use for the written word. 

In the end Trump blamed other countries for the problem and
stated they should be the ones to fix it. Not a great result but
credit should be given to Prince Charles for making a
passionate case for action. The Prince of Wales often gets
criticized for meddling but I feel it is these instances where
the prince can use his unique position to try and do some
good that he really values.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The Victoria Day long weekend was somewhat busier than 
normal this year. There was also some news I wanted to touch
on that didn't warrant their own posts.

As in previous years I
treated my coworkers
to cake on Saturday. I
also had the chance on
Friday to listen in on
some of the newer hires
talking positively about
​the Royal Family.

On Saturday I learned that Australian
Prime Minister Scott Morrison, leader
of the right-leaning Liberal/National
Coalition, had won the election over
Bill Shorten of the Labor Party. Bill
Shorten has since resigned as leader.
From a strict monarchist perspective
the end of Mr. Shorten's leadership is
welcomed. He had proposed a binding
plebiscite on the future of the monarchy if he won (followed
by a referendum on the specific type of republic to be
adopted). His defeat makes this plan much less likely to
happen. Especially as Prime Minister Scott Morrison has
declared himself to be a monarchist. This would be a
good time for Australian monarchists in the Labor Party to
start encouraging a leadership candidate more friendly to the
​Australian Monarchy to step forward.

On Victoria Day I hosted a meeting
of the New Brunswick branch of the
Monarchist League of Canada in
Fredericton at the Maverick Room
(pictured). I had re-activated the
branch in October of last year
following a two year hiatus that
resulted from the previous chairman
stepping down. Despite the rainy weather we had ten people
show up. After a brief update on the branch's status and a
social time over dinner we discussed what initiatives we
should pursue as a branch going forward. One new member
was signed up at the meeting and a good time was had by all.

An interesting post showed up on the
Monarchists Facebook page stating that the
UK pressure group Republic no longer has a
functioning organization. The investigation
of this claim does provide some solid
evidence that something is wrong. This year
only three press releases have gone out. This
is paltry when compared to previous years. Their social media has likewise been much reduced in volume. This kind of
slowdown can often be attributed to a lack of volunteers
which stems from a demotivated base. However, the
slowdown does coincide with executive board elections held at
the start of the year so internal conflicts can't be ruled out.
The organization still exists but if it can't find a new strategy
beyond being snarky killjoys they are ​doomed.

I hope everyone had an enjoyable Victoria Day (whatever the
weather might have been).

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

Perhaps it is because I lived 
in Alberta a number of years 
ago or maybe it is because I 
still have family living there 
​but I find it very easy to get 
dragged into their political 
discussions. The recent 
Alberta election  has not been 
any different. And, as is my 
tradition, I began surveying 
various candidates on 
where they stand on the
Canadian Monarchy.

As always the question asked was simple:
What are your views on the monarchy?
​
​Follow-up questions were not asked. Each candidate was
permitted to say as much or as little they wanted on the topic. 

Contacted via: Facebook

"Hi, the monarchy and Canada's
relationship with it, is of federal
concern, and the Alberta New
Democratic Party has no position
on it."



(Full disclosure: This is a friend of a friend of mine)
​I'll note this is not entirely true. Her Majesty also serves as
Queen in right of Alberta. Much as federalism splits the roles
of government between federal and provincial levels, the
office of the Crown can also be said to be split. As such the
monarchy functions in Alberta in much the same way as it
does at the federal level. It should also be noted that I didn't
ask what the NDP's views on the monarchy are.

Contacted via: Facebook


"The monarchy is symbolic in
Canada."





A tad short but it will do. Often this type of comment is made
as a criticism (perhaps not in this case though). It shouldn't
be. Symbols are an important part of governance. When the
government invited the Queen to address the legislative
assembly during the 100th anniversary of Alberta's entry into
Confederation it was a symbol of the provincial pride in all it
has accomplished.

Contacted via: Telephone

"I like the tradition of it. I swore an
oath to defend Queen and country
when I was in the Canadian Armed
Forces"




(Full disclosure: I am related to this candidate)
I think this is where many Canadians stand. They don't have a
great appreciation for the constitutional and legal roles of the
monarchy but they like that it makes Canada a little bit
different. I have also noticed that those who have actually
gotten to see how the monarchy infuses our system first hand
of government are the ones who have a stronger support for
it.

Contacted via: Email

"To be honest - given the
circumstances that we find
ourselves within Alberta - I have
not even considered a position on
the Monarchy and the impact the
Monarchy may or may not have on
our every day lives." 

​Mr. Raincock's first email to me actually asked what he should
consider in regard to Canada's ties to the monarchy. And if I
wasn't collecting survey responses at the time I certainly
would have. But I held back. Maybe I'll send him some links
to arguments in favour of the monarchy. Maybe I'll
send him some quotes by prominent Canadians. Or
maybe I'll just recommend an interesting book I've read.

I think this pretty much wraps up this blog's coverage of the
Alberta election. It has been an enlightening, if not always
comfortable, experience.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

"A monarchy conducted with infinite wisdom and infinite 
benevolence is the most perfect of all possible governments." 
~Ezra Stiles

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

As regular readers of this blog already know I often survey 
political parties and their candidates to discovery their views 
on our monarchy. The focus has often been on the federal 
level but on occasion I have also surveyed provincial 
politicians as well. Over the last month I have surveyed the 
Freedom Conservative Party of Alberta to get their views 
on the Canadian Monarchy.

The FCA is a right-wing, autonomist
party operating at the provincial level
in Alberta. 

I sent the current slate of party candidates* the following two
questions. Their replies are below in roughly the order they
​were received.

Question 1: What are your views on the monarchy?
Question 2: If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving
Canada happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?

*I was unable to find a contact for Regina Shakirova of the
Calgary-Bow riding.

I contacted this candidate before I had decided to write this
article and is the only one contacted via phone. I believe his
views can be summed up as liking the 'tradition of the
monarchy'. Matthew noted that he swore an oath to defend
Queen and country while in the Canadian Armed Forces. He
was also kind enough to check with the party to see if they had
any official or unofficial stances. He relayed these to me via
Facebook:

"Yes, they want an autonomous Alberta in a united Canada.
So, we are not Republicans. Monarchy is safe." 

How happy I would be if most of the other candidates reached
even this baseline of support.

Full disclosure: Matthew is my cousin and we have helped
out each other's political campaigns in the past. So while I
have serious reservations about this party having any political
success, my personal view is that he should win his riding.

​What are your views on the monarchy?
"I tend to feel that we should respect traditions unless those
traditions are harmful. Therefore I tend to respect the
tradition of the monarchy. That being said, I dislike how it
has the ultimate power over law, even if that is symbolic.  As
to my own preference, something of a republic while
honouring the monarchy without granting it final power
over law would be my choice. But that's a pretty specific
idea."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"I am not sure what the people of Alberta would prefer. We ought to be what they prefer."

What are your views on the monarchy?
"My personal views as I explained to our party leader was
that I personally believe that the Monarchy is out dated and
has nothing to do with our daily lives. Under the Monarchy,
Canada has to pay the Royal family millions of dollars a
year for the figure head. I believe that times have changed
and the true meaning of the Monarchy has been lost in
today’s society. These are my beliefs and not necessarily that
of the parties." 

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"In a hypothetical independent Alberta or west, that would
be a question TBD in a referendum."

To Mr. Goodman's credit he also asked what my views were
on this issue (he was the only one to do so). This I did...along
with my reasons why. Which resulted in this follow up reply:

​"Wow! I want to thank you for the enlightenment. Honestly
you have given me food for thought. My ignorance has
narrowed my views on the Monarchy and what role it plays
in Canada besides a figurehead. Thank you again for being
passionate and believing in a huge part of our history. You
make some valid points to consider when it comes to
Alberta’s future." 

It is refreshing to see a politician who is both curious about
other views and willing to question their own beliefs. This was
a rare high point of working on this article.

What are your views on the monarchy?
"I have sentimental attachments to the British monarchy..
Sue me. We are fortunate in that the present monarchy is
benign."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
​"I think a republic is the way to go."

What are your views on the monarchy?
"The FCP has no official position on the monarchy. Canada is
actually a constitutional monarchy, even though most
Canadians don't realize it and the Crown had delegated most
of its powers to our elected leaders. This means we don't
have a system of proper checks and balances like our
American neighbours. My personal feeling is that the
monarchy is obsolete and should be abolished for a more
Republican system of accountability to the people. Canada is
a very weird country in the sense that we have a hybrid
system of a written constitution and a lot of unwritten
inherited British rules. Personally, I'm a big fan of actually
writing down the rules. In my experience people in power
don't always choose to act honorably."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"In the specific case of Alberta leaving, there would have to
be a discussion about what form it's government would take
on. Keeping the monarchy in the short term would allow for
the continuity of laws and governance. But once traditions
are broken by an act of succession, I think it's highly unlikely
that the people of Alberta would choose to continue as things
are." 

What are your views on the monarchy?
"For the first one I am of Irish heritage(The republic not
Northern) and grew up among a family that was not a fan of
the monarchy or British Government for that matter, where
Michael Collins was considered a hero. So me personally I
would cut all ties with the monarchy." 

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
​"For your second question I have always believed in the
power of the grassroots so i would support whatever form
that the people of Alberta wanted. But there is a growing
feeling that it if we did separate it would be as a republic."

What are your views on the monarchy?
"Republic, we love Canada but on equality ..."

Ok, then.

What are your views on the monarchy?
"I’m honestly divided on the issue, but I believe it should be
up to a constitutional convention to decide if we went down
that road."

If the worst case scenario of Alberta leaving Canada
happened do you see it leaving as a monarchy or as a
republic?
"I view this as an academic question at this point. In the
event that Alberta moved to become independent,
constitutional questions such as this should be decided by a
constitutional convention."

"In any case, I hope you’ll join our party."

No, no, no.

Overall, I was disappointed in the responses from the FCP
candidates. With the exception of a couple bright spots most
respondents were negative towards the monarchy. 

Despite the preference expressed for either a constitutional
convention or a referendum on the monarchy I don't think
they have the numbers on their side to actually get a republic.
Recent polling has continued the trend of Alberta having
some of the highest levels of support for the monarchy in
Canada. Given how support divides pretty equally along the
ideological spectrum there is a good chance that the same
people whose support they need to separate are the same ones
who support the monarchy. 

Their responses are also useful for pointing out a possible
deficiency in the Monarchist League of Canada's out-reach
efforts. We still have Canadians who incorrectly believe that
we send the Queen millions of dollars. We have Canadians
that are not aware of, or look down on, the constitutional
protections of having a monarch. The League should consider
this a strong indication that it is not reaching all the people it
needs to. After all, many of these candidates would have come
to age ​after the League's founding.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The tragedy that struck New Zealand on March 15th has
focused many minds on the threat posed by radicalized
individuals. The responses have varied as people try to come
​to grip with how to prevent these sorts of acts of violence in
the future.

This has led many to analyze the shooter's manifesto for some
clue as to how he was radicalized. The shooter actually laid
out how his political beliefs changed over time:

r/monarchism (which has in recent months been subject
to brigading from members of both communist and anarchist
subreddits, with such raids often including threats of violence
and discriminatory remarks towards others) has decided to
bring down the banhammer on any user that comes from
subreddits ascribing to the ideologies that led to the shooter's
radicalization. The mods have made only one exception to this
'New Zealand Rule':

While the killing of Her Majesty's New Zealand subjects
should be met with a firm response I'm not sure this ban is
the right one. r/monarchism's former policy was to welcome
anyone who was willing to debate in good faith:

And with each instance of brigading we did get a few people
who were curious about what we believed. Did it make up for
all the headaches that came along with being brigaded?
Perhaps not. But those were some of the more interesting
​conversations to have. And it is those people who this rule
change will effect, not those who intend to cause trouble.

​A second concern is that a person can be radicalized by just
about anything. While this shooter's path to radicalization
was through a set of ideologies that are largely unfriendly to
monarchism, that may not be the case in the future. What is
​the subreddit to do if a shooter motivated by Catholicism or
Russian Orthodoxy shows up? Fairness would dictate that
either this rule would have to go or half the subreddit's
membership would.

Finally, the requirement to disavow the proscribed ideologies
risks catching others in the same net. The main ones in this
case would be anarcho-monarchists, but potentially also
distributionists. Neither are particularly common but
their potential exclusion narrows the range of debate. If only
​by a small amount. 

I honestly don't think the rule change will be all that effective
or durable enough to remain in force permanently.

Full Disclosure: I am a mid-ranking mod of r/monarchism.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

I am told that today is International Women's Day. So it is
fitting I post a photo of an international woman.

Oh, and so far We've had a female prime minister for a grand
total of five months of that time.

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