ANNOUNCING: The Campaign for Keeping The Monarchy The Way It Is

[Açafat del Val]

The Talossan tradition of having a King is not working, does not work, and will not work again. The incumbent King has abdicated his office in practical terms, and there would be no true consensus for a replacement.

What is the purpose of a King in Talossa? Truly.

An elected head of state can grant coats of arms, knighthoods, awards, or other things just as well as an unelected king. The true difference is that an elected head of state is accountable and more easily replaced. People keep saying that it is easy to replace our King, but if it were so easy we would have done it already.

Holding on to the monarchy is a hypocritical effort. Are we not all equal before the law? Are we not all held to the same standards as each other? Why should one of us get to hold a office for life, enjoy public and political powers without countersignature, and be so important as to rule unilaterally?

It is not enough to have "checks and balances". I did not choose King John! Why should he get to veto any bills which I may hopper on the Clark?

Down with the Monarcy, and in with the Equality.

[Eðo Grischun]

I did not choose King John!

It is often said in defence of the current Monarch that John Woolley was elected, but you make a great point: That particular election was so long ago that hardly anybody (if anybody at all?) that is currently active in Talossa took part in that election.

[Ian Plätschisch]

there would be no true consensus for a replacement.

How do you know?

What is the purpose of a King in Talossa? Truly.

I explained that at the very beginning of this thread.

People keep saying that it is easy to replace our King, but if it were so easy we would have done it already.

So, anything that you cannot do unilaterally (or, to be more fair, with only simple majorities in the Ziu) is too difficult?

Holding on to the monarchy is a hypocritical effort. Are we not all equal before the law? Are we not all held to the same standards as each other? Why should one of us get to hold a office for life, enjoy public and political powers without countersignature, and be so important as to rule unilaterally?

It is not enough to have "checks and balances". I did not choose King John! Why should he get to veto any bills which I may hopper on the Clark?

Down with the Monarcy, and in with the Equality.

As I have been saying for a while now, voluntary associations should not be held to the same standard of democracy as "real" countries, if an alternative provides more enjoyment. I totally get the argument that having a Monarchy is in fact not enjoyable to some people, and I find that a much more compelling argument than handwringing about democracy.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

there would be no true consensus for a replacement.

How do you know?

I'm imagining a situation where we decide to keep the Monarchy as is but force-retire the absentee incumbent. Some people will say "oh God, no surrender, no King", and they have every right to; but others might think "if we are to persist with the monarchy, let's have someone who's universally respected and doesn't give anyone of any political persuasion the heebie-jeebies."

The practical problem arises that I could name a short list of such people. But all of them are either inactive, or "winding down their inactivity". To be blunt, it would be far easier for me to accept politically noxious but competent person as term-limited Head of State than someone genial, inoffensive, respected, and absent with a life term.

My personal belief is that no-one is qualified to be King of Talossa (someone who holds rights over the state by virtue of who he is, and these rights can't be revoked by the people or their representatives) except an Old Growther, someone who was Talossan back when it was a group of friends in East Side Milwaukee. If any of them were to show any interest in the job, then maybe you could talk me out of my firm stance on an elected Head of State.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

CAN WE HAVE A 50-WORD STATEMENT FOR THIS OPTION WITHIN 24 HOURS, PLEASE?!?

Thanks to Senator Plätschisch for his quick response.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The Crown will also have its own statement to contribute. I'll get back to you with it tonight.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Took me a bit longer than that, but here it is before the end of 24 hours:
Monarchy has helped keep Talossa strong for decades, sustaining us in crises when other Talossan institutions failed.  In addition to steadiness, monarchies are quirky and interesting to Talossans.  The throne is also one of few restraints on the increasingly powerful office of the Seneschal.  Defend the crown and the king!

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Wait a second... why is the Seneschal soliciting 50-word statements and helping to coordinate the election at all?

[Eðo Grischun]

Wait a second... why is the Seneschal soliciting 50-word statements and helping to coordinate the election at all?

Take note folks.  The Regent had no issue with it until the minute he discovered his own 50 word statement wasn't included on the ballot. 

The cynical answer to your question is because someone needs to herd the cats.  From what I've seen, the only thing the Seneschal has been doing is poking the various campaign leaders into action so that the Chancery has a statement from each of them.

The real question to be asking is why is the Crown wading hip deep in politics and positioning itself on any of these options?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, the demand for a statement was abrupt -- 24-hour-notice! -- and I hadn't given it any thought until I did indeed notice the choice.

But I'd like an answer, please.  Is that the official answer of the Government: that it is acting on the Chancery's behalf?

As for your real question... um, is it really a mystery as to why the crown would concern itself with a referendum on the future of the crown?

[Eðo Grischun]

As for your real question... um, is it really a mystery as to why the crown would concern itself with a referendum on the future of the crown?

As a Brit?  Yes.  It is absolutely strange. 

If a referendum on the Monarchy were to happen in the UK and the Royals got involved in any way at all it would cement the vote against them.