A Discussion on the Revision of the Peerage and Knighthoods of Talossa

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

What do you think would happen if Her Maj were to give one of those awards to Jeremy Corbyn, without telling Boris in advance? How would Boris and the lads react?

You see my point here. A lot of people only like the King acting "independently" when it cocks a snook at politicians they don't like. Which makes a mockery of the calls for a "non-political" Monarchy. Talossa cannot become the United States or northern Ireland, where the two major political factions spend their time on symbolic actions which are guaranteed to infuriate Those Guys Over There, esp. if it turns into Monarchy vs Parliament. That's how you get Greece 1916 or England 1689. (And if you don't understand why the investiture of the Baron von Tollbooth might be a problem for many people, I'm perfectly happy to explain by PM.)

There are two questions: what the King should be allowed to do, and what the King should do. A King who "does, just because he can" is not helping defend the Monarchy. Quite the opposite.

Welcome to Talossa,
I believe weirdness such as this is kind of what we do?
Throw eggs at someone's house back in the day, a knighthood for you.
Let's cut through some barbwire on an island that could have mines and unexploded audience on it, wow new province.
let's claim part of Antarctica that "no one else wants" (that we and at least 2 other micronations have also claimed), it is now ours, thank you very much.
The king of our nation picks some people who have been active citizens who have worked to better the nation and gives them a title as a reward, I don't see why this is so strange and weird in comparison to everything else we have going on.

I say, give us more!   

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

I can think of at least three types of honour that the Queen of England has total or functionally total control over (in one case I am thinking of a now dormant convention, but one that would not depend upon any formal Government approval to resurrect). Given peers have no legislative power in Talossa - or indeed any power - this is much more like the OM in the UK. No need for Governmental mucking about.

HERE HERE!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm not upset... Far from it! I think it's important to set out exactly what you guys see as the terms of this "compromise." There had been a lot of high talk about ending the arguments over the role of the monarchy, finding a compromise for "generations of Talossans," and so on. But it turns out that it really just means that you get what you want now, and you'll come back for more very soon. That's fine, I'm just glad that the cards are on the table.

You know what affects "generations of Talossans"? Landed Peerages, which... like the current Monarchical system... are lifetime, hereditary appointments. I do believe that the trappings of the Monarchy are important to the cultural of Talossa. That said, it is also important that those lifetime, hereditary titles be given with the consent of the Government... since the current Monarch proved upon the moment of His return that he clearly doesn't understand the importance of said titles within this country. The only thing about this discussion tied directly to the HC is the fact that a nation in which the Crown truly serves at the consent of the people... even in a seven year renewable term... lacks the power to screw up and grant lifetime titles to a non-deserving subject. Hereditary titles should go to lifelong, impactful servants of the country... of the people! Not just for successfully not dying while the boss was on vacation! So stop putting words in my mouth. You want clarification on something I said, you ask. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself

You are indeed, and I am grateful for it.  Leaders should be forthright about their beliefs and plans.  Thank you.

I will venture I have done a bit more for Talossa than briefly keep a seat warm, both recently and over the longer term.  I have been a Talossan for nearly fifteen years, and in that time I have accomplished a few things.  But I do understand your concern over unearned and silly titles, General.  I promise that I won't slide into complacency or inactivity -- as always, I will do my best for Talossa.  I take my new position as Guaïr very seriously (though I hope I won't be alone on the Sabor for long).

[Viteu]

Is this really an argument we care to have in the grand scheme of things? Like, my republican leanings are not secret, but this seems to really be nonissue.

The Organic Law references peerage twice, and one is rather passing:

Article II.6: The King may grant titles of nobility and confer awards and decorations.

Article III.2: Except as otherwise provided in this Organic Law, any Talossan eligible to vote may be elected or appointed to the Senäts, but only for his or her own province. No Senator, even though elected or appointed to the Senäts, may actually vote his seat until he has been a citizen for one year, or served for six months as Seneschál or Secretary of State, or received an order of knighthood from the King.

Article II only says the King can grant a title, not that anything actually comes with it except that it could grant someone under the age of 14 the right to vote if they are a knight under article III.  I really don't see this as an issue here.

Now statute—

Lex.F.1 puts members of the nobility and knighthood above others in the Table of Precedence, but ultimately what that means is unclear. So, okay, nobles and knights get introduced before regular citizens.

Lex.F.40.1 is more on point.  This creates the Dynastic Orders (those given by the Crown as a personal gift without advice of the government) and National Orders (those created by statue or tradition and granted on the advice of Government). So Dynastic Orders are given to the individual and really just stems from the King's inherent ability to say "ohh look, I made a peerage club; these people I like can be in it."  National Orders are those created by the Ziu and require the advice of Government before granting, so the King cannot just grant peerage for those Orders.

Lex.L.5 creates the Royal College of Arms to, among other things, advise and support the King in the warding of all such arm and titles of honour and nobility. No special privileges here.

Lex.L.7 does something with the privy councilors issuing a letter to the king, the purpose of which I cannot glean, and I don't know the history offhand. But this also appears to be ceremonial.

In fairness, as I see it, the only thing peerage gets you is to go Okay, so in fairness, the only thing peerage gets you is, definitively, in the never chance that we have an order of precedence, the King's club would be introduced before a regular citizen. Oh, and maybe in a circumstance where a 12-year-old has done awesome service and granted knighthood, and is voted as a senator, the ability to vote in the Senate.

That's it; that's all that follows. Something similar for decorations but those don't carry peerage. 

So okay, the most this will do is (1) prevent the King from unilaterally ensuring someone who is not 14 can vote if elected to the Senate, and (2) prevent the nobility and knights from being introduced as group eight in the Table of Precedence.

Honestly, if we're going to keep the King, I have no issue with the arrangement of peerage. Not to mention, say we do abolish the Organic and statutory authority of the King to grant peerage unilaterally, he could still set up a peerage without the consent of the Government, those peers just wouldn't be able to vote early in the Senate if elected or take precedence in the Table. But there would be nothing stopping the Monarch from issuing his own peerage. Frankly, much like the current arrangment, those that care will be honored, and those who don't will move on.

This seems an awfully minor argument to have and, as we are seeing, is being used to distract from the historic compromise.

So I offer one simple question—why, as a republican, do I actually care about this?

[GV]

just West of House...at night...

[GV]

Azul & Good Afternoon Friends,
I wanted to take a moment, considering the sudden of the Crown, to open a discussion that I feel His Majesty should be involved in... not just a Regent. I believe the recent actions of the King in the awarding a title of Peerage for the first time in nearly a decade for essentially babysitting the Kingdom for six months and additionally sidestepping the Government's recommendation for an Order of Knighthood, that the time has come for a complete overhaul of the system of Peerages and Knighthoods of the Kingdom.

Does that mean that I think they should go away... no, not even close. But I do believe that as we move forward with the Historic Compromise, we must pause and re-evaluate how our nation's highest Honours are divvied up. Peerages aren't something to be handed out for simple tasks... like warming a seat while the King is away.... again. Peerages are, by definition, not just the award of title but of land. While I applaud the efforts of the former Regent, awarding him a land grant is incredibly inappropriate for the service rendered. At best, adding the Grade of Knight Commander to the Order of the Nation (L'Urderi per la Naziun) for Sir Alexandreu... not a Peerage title.

I propose that, moving forward, Peerages and Knighthoods may originate from either the Crown or the Government... but, specifically in the case of Peerages, must be approved by both. Knighthoods, depending on Grade, may too originate from either... with the Government generally taking lead on approvals of Member, Officer, Commander/Knight and the Crown on Knight Commander & Knight Grand Cross.

Generally, I feel if we are going to have Peerages & Knightly Orders... we should do so in the manner that literally all other recognized nations do theirs.

Respectfully,
Gen. Txoteu Davinescu, O.SPM     

This entire discussion, while important, is a distraction from the Historic Compromise.  I agree with all who echo this sentiment.

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

Azul & Good Afternoon Friends,
I wanted to take a moment, considering the sudden of the Crown, to open a discussion that I feel His Majesty should be involved in... not just a Regent. I believe the recent actions of the King in the awarding a title of Peerage for the first time in nearly a decade for essentially babysitting the Kingdom for six months and additionally sidestepping the Government's recommendation for an Order of Knighthood, that the time has come for a complete overhaul of the system of Peerages and Knighthoods of the Kingdom.

Does that mean that I think they should go away... no, not even close. But I do believe that as we move forward with the Historic Compromise, we must pause and re-evaluate how our nation's highest Honours are divvied up. Peerages aren't something to be handed out for simple tasks... like warming a seat while the King is away.... again. Peerages are, by definition, not just the award of title but of land. While I applaud the efforts of the former Regent, awarding him a land grant is incredibly inappropriate for the service rendered. At best, adding the Grade of Knight Commander to the Order of the Nation (L'Urderi per la Naziun) for Sir Alexandreu... not a Peerage title.

I propose that, moving forward, Peerages and Knighthoods may originate from either the Crown or the Government... but, specifically in the case of Peerages, must be approved by both. Knighthoods, depending on Grade, may too originate from either... with the Government generally taking lead on approvals of Member, Officer, Commander/Knight and the Crown on Knight Commander & Knight Grand Cross.

Generally, I feel if we are going to have Peerages & Knightly Orders... we should do so in the manner that literally all other recognized nations do theirs.

Respectfully,
Gen. Txoteu Davinescu, O.SPM     

This entire discussion, while important, is a distraction from the Historic Compromise.  I agree with all who echo this sentiment.

The last thing I want is to distract from the far more important Historic Compromise and I'm more than little annoyed that some would be against open and free discussion on topics that are important to citizens. I started this thread to start a discussion, over a topic I am passionate about and interested in. Isn't that why we're micronationalist?! To come to this amazing sandbox and have discussions & make decisions on something larger than ourselves? I love this country and I take what we do here seriously... as the Baron and the King should! We have a country, our country... this Kingdom is NOT John or AD or Miestra or me! This Kingdom exists because we all chose to be here and be a part of something historic and incredibly special. If you wanna pause this discussion, that's fine... because the HC is important and I don't want it's opponents to use this thread as a way to weaken the amazing progress we've made. But if we pause any discussion over such a reason, does it not devalue the importance of public square that the Witt is? We all have a voice... have the right to have spirited debate, and as the incoming Leader of the FreeDems... I will champion the rights of all citizens to bring their concerns and thoughts to the Witt. Whether I agree with you or you agree with me, shouldn't we all have the right to engage in the public square?! I say yes! Because the more active we are, leading and engaging in spirited discussion... the better we all are!

Davinescu

[GV]

"The last thing I want is to distract from the far more important Historic Compromise and I'm more than little annoyed that some would be against open and free discussion on topics that are important to citizens."

This discussion is a good one.  So are every point you make.  Only ill-timed, that is all.

Periodic accountability of the monarch must be on our minds right now.