The Vacant Throne (We Really Mean Business Now) Amendment

[Ian Plätschisch]

Under these terms, when his Majesty is offering exactly what was demanded, it would seem particularly ungracious for the legislature to suddenly reverse itself and insist on forcible deposing. I would hope that this body would not be so shabby.

Well, it's not exactly what was demanded. Specifically the King is asking to officially be part of the process of selecting the new King, beyond simply announcing his preferred successor. At this point we can't know who he has in mind, and whether that person would be acceptable to the various elements of our population. We do not want to end up in a situation in which the King will only nominate candidates who would not enjoy broad enough support, because then we will be exactly where we are now.

Again I point out that the King could potentially resolve this easily by announcing who he would select.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I admit that I don't quite understand your point, honestly.  His Majesty specifically endorsed the process being considered right now and said he would abdicate as soon as a successor was chosen.  It seems quite backwards to suggest that a candidate must be named before the process can be established, so I assume that wasn't what you meant?

Look, as I understand it, the major point of contention was that republicans were generally in favor of an entirely inactive monarchy rather than an invigorated one, since an inactive monarchy would continue to lead to a decline in support for monarchy in general.  Likewise, monarchists were generally in favor of supporting the king, since lending any support to change meant helping destroy one of Talossa's oldest and most valuable traditions.  But both sides have agreed to give way, with monarchists accepting a pretty dramatic and historic shift in norms, while republicans are accepting the continuation of the monarchy for at least the near future.  The king appears to be endorsing the resulting deal, offering his own abdication once it has been accomplished.  It would be a shame to scorn that healing gesture!

What is the fear?  That His Majesty will renege?  No one thinks that King John I is going to do that.  Ask Dama Miestra if she thinks that the man can stick to a deal, and she will confirm.  Hell, my own principles are known to be made of cold iron.  And if the question is delay -- well, I don't think that's realistic.  Alea iacta est, and that can't be undone.

A hard and painful bargain has been struck, so let it abide.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

...the major point of contention was that republicans were generally in favor of an entirely inactive monarchy rather than an invigorated one, since an inactive monarchy would continue to lead to a decline in support for monarchy in general.  Likewise, monarchists were generally in favor of supporting the king, since lending any support to change meant helping destroy one of Talossa's oldest and most valuable traditions..... 

I suspect this very much depends upon the meaning given to the word "inactive".

There are at least two different meanings:
A) taking no action whatsoever, neither symbolic nor political, or
B) taking no political power (including vetos upon legislation), but still retaining symbolic significance.

It is my (personal) opinion that symbolic power is exactly what a monarch should retain and exhibit.  A monarch should be an essential part of the Kingdom's symbolic unity, and the formal source of its internal symbolic levels of recognition.  But the Monarchy should not, in any way, be a source of or instrumental in the Kingdom's political actions.  As an example I cite some other kingdoms, such as The United Kingdom, and the Kingdoms of the Netherlands, and Norway and Sweden.

We, in Talossa, can remain a Monarchy, and still be fully - totally - democratic.  All persons with political power must retain that power for only a pre-stated finite period of time, and also be freely elected by the citizenry.  And the time in office should be limited to at most five years (or such other period as we prescribe beforehand).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think you misunderstand.  In that quote, "inactive" refers to a lack of activity generally in Talossa, not the level of power assigned to the role.  His Majesty has not been able to devote much time to the country, regardless of what form that time takes.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

I think you misunderstand.  In that quote, "inactive" refers to a lack of activity generally in Talossa, not the level of power assigned to the role.  His Majesty has not been able to devote much time to the country, regardless of what form that time takes.

Thus, in this context, "inactive" refers, at base, to meaning A: " taking no action whatsoever".  The cause of that lack of action is a separate question.

Our function - as now presented to us - is to ensure that any future monarch's activity be judged against his/her then given powers:  i.e. to the powers given to any new monarch, be they be the same as or different from the powers now believed to be held by our current monarch, and to those previous to him.

So we must at this time, in resolution of potential ambiguity, also carefully consider what we mean by "inactive".

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I've let other Free Democrats have their say, and what follows is my personal take.

I don't have any fear at all that "his Majesty will renege", that Ián I has any real interest in staying on as King. I thought I was clear - but apparently not - that it was another part of his message that struck me badly. Here it is again:

We declare that it is our intention to abdicate our throne.  When we are satisfied that there will yet remain to our Kingdom a monarch to safeguard her honours and her majesties, we will lay down our Royal honours, and remain *very* happy to continue to enjoy the high honours we share with all of you -- the honours of a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but His Maj's declaration seems to be predicated on the Ziu and people endorsing a successor who is specifically of the same political mind as Ián I re: the role of the monarchy in Talossan life. 

My signature line, which expresses Free Democrat party policy, is "NO POLITICISED KING!" To condition the succession on the incoming Monarch being of the same political line as his/her predecessor is, ipso facto, politicising the monarchy.

Some may have a wrong idea, that the Free Democrats are chafing at the idea of a certain individual being the successor. But, not really. The consensus we have hammered out in this amendment that a 1/3 Cosă minority gets a veto over successors is an adequate safeguard against "anyone in particular". The scenario we are worried about is as follows:

JOHN I: I hereby decree X as my successor.
THE ZIU: Sorry, try again.
JOHN I: I hereby decree Y as my successor.
THE ZIU: Sorry, try again.
JOHN I: I hereby decree Z as my successor.
THE ZIU: Look, this isn´t working. Haven't you got someone who's not *ideologically* offensive to the minority? Like, for example, person A over here?
JOHN I: No. They're not going "to safeguard her honours and her majesties". Endorse a politically acceptable candidate or I'm going nowhere.

So: we worry that the succession will become a political struggle that will go on forever.

HOWEVER.

An informal poll of Free Democrat opinion shows no appetite so far for "blowing up the deal" at this point. So I see no reason why I should not Clark the Succession Amendment in time. Let it be known, though, that the outgoing King seems to have signalled an appetite for one last political fight on his way out. We hope and pray this is not what we face.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

So: we worry that the succession will become a political struggle that will go on forever.

Well, you guys are wrong.  This is not where he's at.  He isn't signaling a fight, he's just agreeing to the offer on the table.  I can't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure.

I'm glad that sense has prevailed.  As we move forward with the Succession Act, please remember to take out the conditional clause before Clarking.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Just an FYI: tomorrow is the last day for Clarking anything for this Cosa term, so whatever the parties agree to must be submitted ASAP.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Last minute question, sorry to be a jerk. I would like to Clark this with the words "(or, if female, Queen)" removed from Section 1. Two reasons:

- I'm kind of nostalgic for the ancient Talossan precedent whereby "King" is a gender-neutral term. (I'd honestly kind of like to start a new one whereby the King's consort is called the Queen regardless of gender :D )
- It's a friendly gesture to any Talossans now or in the future who might not identify as either male nor female.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Last minute question, sorry to be a jerk. I would like to Clark this with the words "(or, if female, Queen)" removed from Section 1. Two reasons:

- I'm kind of nostalgic for the ancient Talossan precedent whereby "King" is a gender-neutral term. (I'd honestly kind of like to start a new one whereby the King's consort is called the Queen regardless of gender :D )
- It's a friendly gesture to any Talossans now or in the future who might not identify as either male nor female.

Honestly that was what I was hoping to do when I proposed Monarch but I like how using King as a gender-neutral term is in fitting with Talossan history.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sounds fine to me.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I've put it in the Database myself, Mr SoS. Alea jacta est.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I've put it in the Database myself, Mr SoS. Alea jacta est.

Thank you. Clarked as RZ22.