Gabrielle Giffords

Gabrielle Dee Giffords (born 8 June 1970) is Lord Marcher of Arizona, the Crown-appointed head of state of the March of Arizona, commissioned on 1 July 2027 for a term expiring on 30 June 2035. She was a member of the March Diet from 2000 and a member of the House of Commons for Tucson East from 2007 until her resignation in 2012.

On 8 January 2011 she was shot in the head at a constituency meeting outside Tucson, in an attack that killed six people and wounded thirteen. She survived with aphasia and lasting weakness on the right side. She did not return to elected politics. The sixteen years between her resignation and her commission were spent in recovery, in a chartered institute she founded to work on firearms law in the polities, and in the compact and water negotiations of the arid west, where her lack of party, constituency or water rights made her acceptable as a chair to parties who could agree on nobody else.

That absence of interest is the qualification on which her present office rests. The Lord Marchership is a Crown frontier office with constitutional, ceremonial, emergency and compact duties, and it certifies the emergencies of water, heat, border and defence without which certain executive powers may not be exercised. It requires a holder who is not a political actor. Giffords is the first person to hold it who had not been one for fifteen years before appointment, and the first to hold it from outside the March’s own party system.

She is also the first holder of a vice-regal office in the Realm with a permanent disability, and her commission produced a standing rule that no such office may be withheld for an incapacity that accommodation can meet.

Early life and family

Birth and family background

Giffords was born in Tucson on 8 June 1970 and grew up there. Her father managed and later owned El Campo Tire Warehouses, a chain of tyre and service depots across the southern March, and her mother worked as an art conservator. The household was commercial rather than political, and neither parent held office of any kind.

The March of her childhood was in the middle of the population growth that reshaped it after the Second Great War, and Tucson was the smaller and older of its two cities, more Mexican, more academic and more suspicious of Phoenix than Phoenix ever was of it. Giffords has described the distinction between the two as the first political fact she understood.

Education

She read sociology and Latin American history as an undergraduate, and held a Fulbright award in Chihuahua, where she spent a year studying local administration on the Mexican side of a border her later career would deal with from the other. She then took graduate study in regional planning.

The planning degree is the one that matters. Water allocation, land use, compact administration and the mechanics of arid settlement were the subjects of her graduate training two decades before they became the subjects of her working life, and her later turn to the compacts is a return rather than a swerve. She has said that nothing in the Diet or the Commons taught her as much about the March as a year of studying how a desert city decides where its water goes.

Religion

Giffords is Jewish, on her father’s side and by her own practice. The Realm maintains an established Church of America, but its law has guaranteed equal civil status to all faiths since the American Rights Act of 1866, and her religion was neither an obstacle to her election nor a question at her appointment to a Crown office. She is the first Jewish holder of the Lord Marchership, a fact recorded in the March’s own registers and remarked on at the time by nobody in particular.

Marriage

She married Mark Kelly in 2007, the year she entered the Commons. Kelly was then a serving officer of the Royal American Navy and an astronaut of the Realm’s space programme, and had flown as a mission commander. His twin brother flew in the same service, the only pair of brothers to have done so.

The marriage is treated in the March as a partnership of two public careers rather than a political alliance, and it has never been either. Kelly held no party membership then, and holds none now: he stood on her party’s ticket at the by-election of 2018 and left it the following year.

Business career

Giffords returned to Tucson in her twenties to run El Campo Tire Warehouses, taking over the management of the family firm and running it for several years before selling the business.

The period is the least glamorous part of her biography and the one her own accounts return to most often. It gave her a payroll, a fleet, a set of depots across the southern March and a working knowledge of what regulation feels like from the receiving end, which is a grounding no other figure in the March’s recent politics has had. It also made her locally known, in a commercial rather than political way, several years before she stood for anything. Her first Diet campaign was fought substantially among people who knew her as an employer.

Entry into politics

March Diet

She was elected to the March Diet for a Tucson seat in 2000 and sat until 2006.

The Diet is the March’s legislature, and its business is disproportionately the March’s peculiar business: water allocation, land use, heat, border administration, Indigenous compacts and the chartered bodies that hold the March’s resources. Giffords worked on all of it, and the six years gave her a practical education in the institutions she now heads. When she was appointed Lord Marcher twenty-one years later, she was the rare holder who had legislated on the compacts before being asked to convene them.

She joined the Liberal Federal Democrats in 1999. The choice was not obvious in a March where the Conservative and Crown Union and the Crown Frontier Party dominated and Labour had no base, and her own explanation has always been administrative rather than ideological: the LFD was the party of honest machinery, merit appointment, competitive tender and published accounts, and she came to it as a planner and a small employer who thought government worked badly and could be made to work better. It is a characteristic LFD account of itself, and in her case it appears to have been accurate.

Legislative record in the Diet

Her Diet work was almost entirely administrative and almost entirely local. She sat on the committees dealing with water and public works and with border and customs administration, and her name is on measures of the kind that do not attract attention: amendments to the reporting duties of irrigation districts, a revision of the Diet’s procedure for scrutinising chartered bodies, and a long and unglamorous rewriting of the rules governing municipal water tariffs in the smaller towns of the southern March.

Two things from the period carried forward. The first is that she learned the chartered bodies from the scrutiny side, which is a different education from the one a minister receives, and she has been notably unwilling as Lord Marcher to treat a chartered trust as though it were a department. The second is that she worked repeatedly with the compact nations’ representatives in a legislative setting, years before she had any occasion to convene them, and the relationships formed then are the ones she drew on in 2027.

Member of the House of Commons

Election and the seat

She was elected to the House of Commons for Tucson East in 2007 and re-elected twice.

The seat was marginal and was held against the March’s grain. Tucson East contained professional and university districts that voted LFD, suburban growth that voted CCU, and rural precincts where the Crown Frontier Party was strong, and no other Liberal Federal Democrat had held it. Giffords held it on a personal vote rather than a party one, which was understood at the time by everybody including her, and which is the foundation of the non-partisan standing she later carried into a Crown office.

Constituency practice

Her parliamentary reputation was built almost entirely on constituency work rather than on the front bench. She held open meetings across the seat at a frequency that her own staff considered excessive, ran a casework operation larger than her seniority justified, and was physically present in her district to a degree that colleagues remarked on and occasionally mocked.

The practice was called Commons on Your Corner: an advertised open meeting held in an ordinary public place, without appointment or screening, at which any constituent could raise anything. It was the manner of the member, and the attack of 8 January 2011 happened at one of them. The March has never been able to separate the two facts, and neither has she.

Positions in the Commons

Giffords sat on the party’s centre and was, by the standards of the LFD, unusually interested in the March’s material problems and unusually uninterested in the constitutional questions that occupy the party’s national leadership. Her recorded interests were water, the border, veterans, small business regulation and the administration of federal programmes in a polity a long way from New Westminster.

She was not a rising figure marked for office, and no ministry approached her. Her career at the point it was interrupted was that of a competent constituency member in her second term with a marginal seat and a local following.

The Tucson shooting

8 January 2011

On the morning of 8 January 2011, Giffords held a Commons on Your Corner meeting in the forecourt of a supermarket in a district north of Tucson. A gunman approached the gathering and opened fire.

Giffords was shot once in the head, the bullet passing through the left hemisphere of her brain. Six people were killed and thirteen wounded. Among the dead were a judge of the federal courts and a child of nine. The gunman was restrained by people present and arrested at the scene.

He was Jared Lee Loughner, then aged twenty-two. He was found to have no coherent political programme and to have been severely mentally ill for a considerable period before the attack, during which he had come to the attention of institutions that did not act. He was tried, convicted and imprisoned.

Response

Giffords was operated on within the hour and survived. Her survival was not expected in the first days and was reported as unlikely.

The Realm’s response was large, immediate and almost entirely without policy consequence. Both Houses adjourned. The Commons held a day of tributes. Ernest V came to Tucson, privately and without ceremony, and visited the wounded and the families of the dead. There was no proclamation, no address and no publicity, and the visit was not reported at the time in any detail. It began an acquaintance between the King and Giffords that continued by correspondence and occasional meeting for sixteen years, and which the March learned of only when he commissioned her.

The failure of legislation

Nothing was enacted.

Bills were introduced in the Commons in the months after the attack on the reporting of firearms sales, on the records held by dealers, and on the interaction between mental-health adjudication and lawful purchase. They were debated and not carried. The polities legislated variously and inconsistently, as they always had.

The Realm’s own explanation is exhaustion rather than principle. It was five years into the security settlement that followed the May Day Bombings of 2006, an emergency that had produced sweeping federal powers and a long argument about them, and there was no appetite in any party for a second round of emergency legislation on a different subject. The comparison between the two responses, one enormous and one absent, has been made in the Realm’s constitutional writing ever since and has never been comfortably answered.

8 January is marked in the March. Tucson observes it, the Diet adjourns for part of the day, and the federation does not observe it at all.

Recovery

Injury

The injury was to the left hemisphere, which in most people carries language. Giffords was left with aphasia, a lasting difficulty in producing speech which is not a difficulty in understanding it or in thinking, and with weakness on the right side of the body that has never fully resolved.

The distinction between aphasia and impairment of thought is one her office has had to make repeatedly, and one the March now understands better than it did. She reads, follows and decides normally. She speaks with effort.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation ran for years and was only partly successful, which is the ordinary outcome. The most distinctive element of it was music therapy: singing reached speech when speaking could not, because the melodic faculties survive an injury of this kind more often than the linguistic ones do, and she recovered a substantial part of her speech by first recovering her singing.

Kelly took extended leave from the service. His two daughters, then in their teens, were a constant presence through the period, and Giffords has described the household of those years as the reason she recovered as much as she did.

Resignation

She resigned her seat in 2012, and did so in person.

She came to the House of Commons, which was not required of her and which her doctors did not advise, and gave up the seat in the chamber rather than by letter to the Speaker. The Commons was full. The act took a considerable time. It is the single most reproduced image of her from the period, and it is the reason the March’s political class regarded her, from that point onward, as a figure whose standing was personal rather than partisan.

The by-election was held later that year. The Liberal Federal Democrats retained Tucson East narrowly, on a vote generally understood to have been cast for her rather than for the party, and lost it at the following general election.

She was approached to stand again on at least four occasions across the next fifteen years, twice by the LFD leadership directly, and refused each time.

Firearms advocacy

The Realm’s firearms settlement

The Realm has no constitutional right to bear arms. The Charter of 1783 is silent on the subject; its militia clause concerns the forces the polities may maintain and has never been read as conferring an individual right, and the enforceable liberties of Article IX, as extended by the American Rights Act, have never been held to include one.

What exists instead is a customary right of great age and considerable force. Firearms ownership is wide, old and defended as frontier practice and settled custom rather than as constitutional entitlement, and it is a polity matter: the federation legislates almost nothing, and the polities legislate everything, with the result that the law of the March and the law of the Province of Massachusetts Bay have almost nothing in common. A federal campaign on the subject is therefore not one campaign but forty-nine.

This is the settlement Giffords spent a decade working inside, and its shape determined her method.

The Institute for Arms and Public Safety

In 2014 she founded and chartered the Institute for Arms and Public Safety, a body incorporated for research, the drafting of model statutes and the conduct of litigation. It was deliberately not a party organisation and took no party money, and its charter forbids it from endorsing candidates.

The choice of a chartered body rather than a campaign was characteristic of both the Realm and of her. The chartered corporation, incorporated by particular Act with named duties and named privileges, is the Realm’s oldest device for doing public work outside government, and it allowed her to work on a contested subject for a decade without acquiring a party alignment. That she emerged from that decade with no party is the reason she was appointable in 2027.

Record

The Institute’s record is a series of polity victories and no federal one.

Model statutes drawn by its staff were enacted in the region of a dozen polities in various forms, covering dealer records, adjudication reporting, storage requirements and the standards applied to private sales. Nothing passed the Commons. Giffords has never claimed otherwise, and her own summary of the period is that a federation which leaves a subject to its polities can be moved only polity by polity, slowly, and that the work was worth doing at that speed because no other speed was available.

The model statutes themselves were narrow by design. They dealt with what a dealer must record and for how long, with the transmission of mental-health adjudications to the bodies that check purchasers, with the standards for storage where children are present in a household, and with the conditions attached to private sales at organised gatherings. They did not touch categories of weapon, and the Institute’s charter has never permitted it to advocate prohibition of anything.

The narrowness was strategic and is the reason the statutes passed where they did. A body proposing to record and report rather than to forbid could be argued with on its own terms in polities where a body proposing to forbid would not have been heard at all. Giffords has described the approach as the only one available in a federation that leaves the subject to forty-nine legislatures, and her critics on both sides have described it, from opposite directions, as insufficient.

Compact and water work

The turn to water was a consequence of the firearms work rather than a departure from it. Legislating in a dozen polities put her inside a dozen legal systems and, necessarily, inside the compacts between them, and the compacts of the arid west were where that particular competence was most badly needed.

From the later 2010s she was increasingly asked to chair negotiations rather than to advocate in them. The qualification was negative and decisive: she held no party allegiance, no water right, no land in an irrigation district and no constituency, and she was therefore acceptable to parties who could agree on nobody with an interest. She chaired basin working groups, inter-polity technical panels and compact review processes across the March, the Free State of Colorado, Deseret and the Commonwealth of California.

Through the same years she built a working relationship with the compact nations of the March, whose claims run with the land and whose consent the compacts require. That relationship was a decade old when she was appointed, and it is the reason the Council of Nations and Compacts accepted her convening it in her first year rather than treating a new Crown officer with the reserve such an officer would ordinarily receive.

She held no Crown office and no elected office for fifteen years. Her appointments in the period were chartered and compact ones, which is what made 2027 an elevation rather than a promotion.

Lord Marcher of Arizona

Appointment

The Lord Marchership fell vacant on 30 June 2027 at the expiry of Janet Napolitano’s eight-year commission. The Lord Marcher is appointed by the Crown on the advice of the High Steward, the March’s head of government, with the March Diet consulted, and the office is therefore made in the March rather than in New Westminster.

Giffords was recommended and the appointment was broadly welcomed. The Diet’s consultation produced cross-party support with one significant exception: the Crown Frontier Party abstained. Its position was that it could not endorse a person who had spent a decade drafting firearms statutes for enactment in the polities, and could not oppose a person who had been shot at a constituency meeting, and that abstention was the only honest course available to it. The reasoning was stated publicly and was widely regarded as fair.

The objection raised elsewhere concerned her husband, and is dealt with below.

Installation

She was installed at Phoenix on 1 July 2027.

The oath of a Lord Marcher is taken aloud and cannot be taken by any other person. Aphasia made it long. It was administered without hurry, nobody moved to assist, and the room did not fill the silence. Accounts of the installation from every party agree on the description, and the March has taken a certain quiet pride in the conduct of the room ever since.

Ceremonial practice

The March did not alter its ceremonial for her, and she performs all of it.

Proposals were made before the installation to shorten the annual forms, to delegate the readings that need not be hers, and to move certain instruments from spoken to written delivery. She declined them, and the ceremonial of the office stands unchanged. The consequence is that the March’s formal occasions take longer than they did, which the March has accepted without evident complaint.

Relationship with the High Steward

Her working relationship with the High Steward is close, in the pattern established by Barry Goldwater and Bruce Babbitt between 1987 and 1995, which the March regards as the model for how the two offices should function. She is a working head of state rather than a decorative one, and the division between the Crown office and the ministry is maintained without distance.

Emergency certification

The Lord Marcher’s certification is required before certain executive powers may be exercised in declared emergencies of water, heat, border or defence.

Giffords has certified twice, both for heat. The March treats heat as a category of government rather than a condition of weather: the right to shade is working law, public cooling centres open automatically once a threshold is crossed so that no official has to decide on a bad afternoon whether the day is dangerous, and heat mortality is a figure the law requires to be published. Certification engages the further powers that sit above that automatic machinery, and she has engaged them twice in a single year.

The Council of Nations and Compacts

The central act of her tenure has been the convening of the Council of Nations and Compacts, the formal process by which compact disputes rising above the level of ministry negotiation are dealt with. No Lord Marcher had convened it on a dispute in decades; its yearly sessions had gone on as formalities, receiving notice and giving advice.

The occasion is the condition of the western rivers. The compacts allocate more water than the rivers now carry; the household minimum guaranteed by the American Rights Act outranks agricultural and industrial allocation and has been applied by the courts; and the irrigation districts have contested the application. The compact nations’ claims run with the land and cannot be settled in a negotiation to which they are not party, which is precisely the case the formal Council exists for.

The Council is sitting. It has produced no agreement.

The Greens hold the only stated water policy in the Commons, which would renegotiate the compacts on the water that exists, maintain the household minimum and place the reduction on the largest allocations. That policy arrives at the March not as a programme to be implemented but as a position the Council process has to absorb alongside the others.

The Loreto proposal

The purchase of the Baja peninsula in 2027 made the Territory of Loreto the March’s neighbour, and the two Crown officers now administer adjoining territories under wholly different arrangements.

At present the Loretano legislature proposed that Giffords should serve as Loreto’s own head of state. The territory is governed under a transitional Crown administration through a Commissioner appointed from New Westminster, which reads to Loretanos as administration rather than self-government, and borrowing a neighbouring Crown officer of local standing would give the territory a head of state without waiting for its constitutional form to be settled.

The proposal encountered no serious constitutional objection, because the Realm has done this before. The Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Pennsylvania and the Lower Counties on the Delaware is a single Crown officer serving two polities, an arrangement of great age which survived the Crown Assumption and functions still. The Loreto proposal follows it in form: one officer holding two commissions under two charters, rather than one office enlarged to cover both territories.

The second capacity would carry a Loretano title, Governor-Palatine of Loreto, rendered in both of the territory’s languages.

Giffords has said that she would serve if asked properly, conditional on the law being settled first. It is the most she has said publicly about her own jurisdiction and it has put pressure on everybody else. The March Diet is supportive, on the view that the March’s institutions are proving their worth. Drafting is under way and enactment is expected within the year, subject to the concurrence of Loreto’s assembly, the March Diet and the federal ministry.

Political positions

Firearms

The only subject on which her position is fully on the record. She holds that the customary right is real and that its regulation is a proper matter for the polities, that dealer records, adjudication reporting and storage standards are the practical instruments, and that a federal statute is neither achievable nor necessary. She has never argued for prohibition and her Institute’s model statutes have never contained one.

She has said nothing on the subject since 1 July 2027.

Water and the compacts

She will not state a position, and it costs her.

The reasoning is constitutional. The office certifies water emergencies, and a Lord Marcher known to hold a view on allocation could not be trusted by the parties whose allocations a certification would affect. Her silence is therefore the condition of her usefulness.

It is read by irrigators as favouring the cities and by the cities as favouring the irrigators, and by a growing number of people in both as an elegant way of avoiding the only question that matters in the March. That criticism is serious, is made by serious people, and she has not answered it.

The Crown

She has taken no public position on the constitution of the monarchy and is not expected to. Her practice treats the office as a trust with duties attached rather than as a dignity, and her few formal addresses have concerned the March’s institutions rather than the Crown’s.

Federalism and the March

Her recorded view, from the Diet and Commons years, is that the March’s peculiar institutions exist because ordinary polity government was judged insufficient for permanent frontier conditions, and that the case for them has to be remade in each generation rather than assumed. She has been notably unsentimental about the March’s constitutional distinctiveness and notably protective of its practical machinery.

The border

Border administration is March business and falls within her certification remit. She has visited the crossings and the border districts more often than any recent holder, which her critics attribute to the Chihuahua year and her supporters to the same thing.

The Rights Act

She has expressed no view on the case now before the Royal American Supreme Court seeking to extend the enforceable duties to income security. The household water minimum, which is itself a duty under the Act, is the instrument that has done more for the March’s poorest districts than any statute of the Diet, and she has said so.

Personal life

Family and residence

Giffords and Kelly have no children together. Kelly has two daughters from an earlier marriage, both now adult, who were present through the recovery years.

She keeps a private residence in Tucson and lives officially at March House in Phoenix. The retained Tucson house is read in the southern March as a statement that she has not become a Phoenix figure, and she has not discouraged the reading.

Her household is small, legal and drawn from the compact work rather than from the March’s ceremonial establishment. It is staffed with lawyers rather than courtiers, which tells the March accurately what the office is being used for.

Temperament

The accounts of her from every period agree on the same qualities and disagree on what to call them. She is exact, slow to commit, difficult to hurry and unusually willing to say that she does not yet know. Colleagues from the Diet describe a member who read the papers; colleagues from the Commons describe a member who answered constituents personally; the compact parties describe a chairman who would let a room sit in silence rather than fill it.

The aphasia has amplified all of this rather than produced it. A person who must work for every sentence does not speak carelessly, and the March has learned that a pause from the Lord Marcher is not hesitation and should not be filled.

Mark Kelly’s seat

Mark Kelly was elected to the House of Commons for Phoenix East at the by-election of 2018, six years after Giffords left the chamber and on the death of John McCain, standing as a Liberal Federal Democrat. He left the party the following year over its refusal to give time to a firearms bill, sat as an independent with no whip for a decade, and was elected Speaker of the House of Commons on 18 September 2028. The seat was renamed Phoenix East and Tempe at the boundary review of 2022.

His seat is a standing constitutional awkwardness. A member of the elected chamber is married to the head of state of the polity in which his constituency lies, and no rule addresses the situation because no rule anticipated it. He absents himself from divisions that touch March instruments, which is not a requirement and satisfies most people.

The matter has been raised once in a form that mattered, when a measure before the Commons touched an instrument issued under her hand. Both of them handled it with conspicuous care, he by abstaining and stating why, she by referring the question to the High Steward before it arose. Nothing was decided at the time. The question was settled after her commission, when the Commons resolved in 2027 to keep a register of members’ interests, the first in the Realm’s history, which requires a member to declare the offices held by a spouse and does not require recusal. Kelly registered first and abstains anyway. The arrangement continues because nobody has found a principled way to end it.

Health

Her condition is long settled rather than progressive. The aphasia and the right-side weakness are permanent, have been stable for many years, and are accommodated rather than treated.

Her commission produced the Realm’s first general instrument on the subject. Following her appointment, a standing rule was adopted that no Crown office may be withheld from a candidate for an incapacity that reasonable accommodation can meet, applying to the Governor-Generalship and to every polity Crown office. It is the most portable consequence of her tenure and the one likeliest to outlast everything else she does.

Public image

Within the March she is regarded as the March’s own, across party. Tucson elected her, the March was attacked through her, and the March now has her as its head of state, and the sense of local ownership cuts across a CCU and Crown Frontier grain that ordinarily governs everything.

Outside it she is better known than the office, which is faintly awkward for a post that is constitutionally provincial. She is the most nationally recognised Lord Marcher since Goldwater, and the comparison is drawn constantly. It is instructive chiefly for the contrast: he arrived at the office with national stature accumulated through a party career of forty years, and she arrived with national stature accumulated by having no party at all. The March has noticed that its two most recognisable holders reached the same standing by contrary routes.

She speaks rarely and always from preparation. Set-piece addresses are worked over in advance and delivered slowly; interviews are few; nothing is extempore. The constraint is the injury and the practice has become a style, and it suits an office in which very little should be said quickly.

She is not much criticised, which a number of people in the March consider unhealthy in a head of state. The serious criticism that exists concerns the water silence.

Assessment

It is early to assess a commission one year into eight, and the March’s own commentary has been careful to say so. What can be said is that the office is being used rather than worn. The Council of Nations and Compacts is sitting on a dispute for the first time in decades, the certification power has been engaged twice in a year, and a general rule about incapacity and Crown office now exists that did not exist before her.

Against that stands a single large reservation, which is that the most consequential question in the March is the one she will not discuss, and that a head of state whose usefulness depends on having no view may in the end be useful chiefly to those the present allocation favours. The argument is unresolved and will remain so at least until the Council reports.

Honours

Giffords holds no honours. None has been offered and none has been declined, and the question of whether she would accept one has not arisen.

Her former party maintains the tradition of the citizen premiers, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who declined all honours and remained plain misters on the principle that the head of government answers to the people and not to the Crown’s gift. Whether that tradition would bear on a Crown officer rather than a minister is an interesting question that nobody has had occasion to test.

Electoral history

The following table records her contests. No vote totals are given.

Offices and succession

She succeeded Janet Napolitano as Lord Marcher and is the incumbent. The proposed office of Governor-Palatine of Loreto, if the enabling law is completed, would be held under a separate Loretano commission.

Trivia

See also

• March of Arizona, the polity of which she is head of state
• Barry Goldwater, Lord Marcher from 1987 to 1995 and the office’s model holder
• Territory of Loreto, which has proposed sharing her as its head of state
• Liberal Federal Democrats, the party she sat for and left on appointment
• American Rights Act, whose household water minimum outranks irrigation
• Alliance 90 / Green Realm, whose water policy her Council process must absorb
• Ernest V, who visited Tucson in 2011 and commissioned her in 2027
• The May Day Bombings, the emergency whose settlement exhausted the Realm’s appetite for another

People · Lords Marcher · March of Arizona · Crown Offices · Liberal Federal Democrats · Firearms Law · Water and Compacts