For what it's worth, I don't much think there should be a guaranteed succession upon the ending of the monarch's term (life, abdication, or whatever).  Or at the very least, I don't think that the current monarch should be naming their IMMEDIATE successor (for public/popular review or otherwise).

At least partially, I think that is too prone to either:

• Simply going to whomever the King is tight with at the moment -or-
• You wind up with a Charles III situation where the heir apparent simply sits there like week-old crudite and YET ANOTHER person is locked into a near lifetime of relative inaction.

This is at least based on the assumption that the named heir will be expected to "hold themselves above the fray," and I don't see why they wouldn't be.  And its not like Talossa has the personnel to really sustain itself at current.  Locking down a second (presumably) active individual seems like a bad idea.

As it stands, I don't see how the preference of a single individual is at all preferable to the vagaries of partisan preference.  I know the current monarch has used to analogy of "the grumpy old man who saves the town from itself," and I guess that would be great if I at all trusted the current occupant to do right by Talossa.  And, quite simply, I don't.

The problem with monarchy is that it is almost impossible to fully divorce the structure from the personality.  It's right there in the name, baked right into the clay, that you cannot fully do so.

So the way this reads to me, and I'm not sure this is the intention, is that the anniversaries are: 5, 10, and 35 (which is 25 years thereafter [which means "after that time"]).  You might just want to trim this down and lead with something like

"Each citizen, upon being a citizen for 5, 10, 25, or 50 years" may request a certificate...."

Honestly, I think the bill SHOULD top out at 25 or 50, because if you're a citizen passing milestones beyond those... the Ziu and King really ought to be passing special legislation for you.

Structurally, with the Baron's revisions, I think this bill is going to operate like you want it to.

One other thought, if your bill is to congratulate the Cjovani, why not make it "Cjovani Day?"  "Provincial subcultures day" feels kinda mealy.

Second point isn't a bar to the bill insofar as the CRL is concerned.  Approve

RZ1: Per
RZ2: Per
RZ3: Contrâ
RZ4: Contrâ

Estimats Senators,

As per the standing rules and traditions of The Senate, please lodge your votes here or elsewhere as appropriate.

In terms of the general CRL proofreading, this appears to pass muster just fine.

I think it also will help cut through potential parental entanglements as well.

Estimats Senators,

Gentle reminder that 7 days remain for nominations for the Mencei.  At current, there is one nomination.

Estimat SoS,

Where can we access results of provincial elections held by your office?

*switching to the tin-foil hat*

I'll nominate Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu for the seat of Lord President.

Estimats Senators

In accordance with the standing rules of the Senate, the Mençei is chosen at the beginning of each term.  It says in the absence of a Mençei, the Dean of the Senate shall conduct the election.  However, there is a sitting Mençei (me), so I believe it falls to me to conduct the election.

Thus, pursuant to Standing Rules 2.3, "The Acting Mençei shall allow for nominations to be lodged for a period of at least a week from the beginning of a term. Should a Senator receive nominations from a majority of Senators, the nomination period shall end and the Senator be considered duly elected; otherwise, a ballot shall be held using Instant Runoff Voting. Seniority shall resolve any ties that may occur during any stage of elimination."

I would like to open nominations from this date (2/6, also coinciding with the Secretary of State's certification of the election) for a period of 2 weeks (concluding 2/20) to allow our newly and re-elected colleagues an opportunity to pay their fees.  Should a Senator receive nominations from a majority of the body, that shall conclude the election immediately.  Otherwise, we shall proceed to a formal election on 2/20.  Please make your nominations in this thread.

Submitted Mine.

I'm in agreement with you on a lot of this stuff.  If I recall, the Ohio contingent screamed blue murder about the catchment changes, but it largely fell on deaf ears.  You can say "that's on me."  But what does that mean, in this context?  What does taking responsibility for that mean?

I might consider tying Maestro or Arvitier Prima with the Senator, just to reduce the necessary personnel.

"Benito" MIGHT sit ok, if the province hadn't previously been named Mussolini.  How about:  Lançacuratx-Utulfaçeir.  Stays with the "named it twice" idea.

Part of my own Peculiarity in terms of Talossan thinking is that we have built institutions that do not reflect the reality of the situation.  Which... We ARE a nation founded in the bedroom of a Milwaukee adolescent.  There needs to be some pontifical whimsy.  Otherwise, what are we really here for?

BUT, I think we need to start thinking of some of our issues and problems in terms of small group dynamics.  Our operations, and the interactions that surround them, are much more in line with those of a fraternal lodge or civic organization as opposed to the majesty of the contemporary nation-state.  IE, we keep thinking macro when we need to start thinking micro.

Life appointments are death sentences, at least in terms of activity.  No carrot and minimal stick.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 21, 2023, 10:50:59 PMI would just add that the "incentive to become an inactive drag on the office" applies to, not only the monarchy, but the Uppermost Cort.

Agreed.  And again, it's part of the design of the institution.

Life is long, if you play your cards right.  Even a few years can be an ETERNITY in micronational terms.  Life appointments, no matter to where, are going to be a problem.

Much of the digital ink being spilled around the question of the monarchy seems to fall into two basic areas.  The question of the monarchy ITSELF (ie, monarch v. republican) and the second but related question of THIS monarch (ie, The Wolf v. someone else).  And I think, though they can be discussed separately, it might behoove us to think structurally about potential reform.

Why do monarchs go inactive?  The Wolf isn't the only one to really do so in Talossan history, Robert II and Florence also had their quiet stints (though in the fast-paced micronational world of 20+ years ago, things were different).  But I would suggest, at least given our current constitutional order, that they do so out of boredom.  Forced into apolitical roles, they are the ostensible guardian of Talossanity but also somewhat removed from it.  The rollicking debates, such as they are, are theirs no more.  Theirs is a job that is cutting ribbons, shaking hands, and being an attractive but useless gewgaw.  At their most active, such as threatening citizens, their involvement at least raises eyebrows if not hackles.

And, in an open and democratic system, that is as it should be.  For the health of the society, an unfair thumb on the scale is not good.  But I can imagine that it makes the view from the throne at least somewhat boring.  Having attained the highest office there is, and guaranteed it IN PERPETUITY, there are no more worlds left to conquer.  I would be unsurprised if Alexander wept.

I cannot speak to the motivations of the current rump on the seat.  But I can speak to his actions, or lack thereof.  They don't speak of an engaged or interested person.

I think this is essentially built into the Talossan monarchy, down to the studs.

Opposition to limited-term monarchy is that this simply makes the individual a "president," and that's no fun... because having a monarchy is fun.  But how much good is a dead rump on the seat really doing?  Who is having fun here?  I'm not even convinced the monarch is.

If you want a dedicated monarch, you need to incentivize activity for someone to fill the role well.  And without limited terms/potential reelection to stimulate responsiveness, what is a self-respecting people to do? 

I would like to bring back up an idea the NPW had floated before, that of the fragile throne.  What if the durability of the institution was flipped from the default?  Let's make the sitting monarch almost impossible to remove, but the INSTITUTION of the monarchy easy to abolish.  The sitting monarch is incentivized to protect the institution, as opposed to ride the security of their own seat.  A failure of the individual becomes a failure of the institution.

It would also be interesting to create a bifurcated constitution.  A greater constitution guaranteeing rights, freedoms, and certain responsibilities would run as a relative constant in Talossan life, but with the accession of each new monarch, a lesser constitution is negotiated between the monarch and the people that spells out the operations of the government for the time.  Talossa is NEVER more active than when it is debating its own makeup, afterall.