Quote from: mximo on February 08, 2026, 04:54:22 PMAzul,

Their is no vote.

Whichever citizen of Talossa may have the Confidence of the House of Shepherds shall be appointed without delay by the Constable to serve as the Governor of Florencia; but, before he enter upon the powers and duties of the office, the Governor-designate shall sing the provincial anthem as his oath of office in witness of the Constable at least.

Since a majority is now in Confidence with the nomination, you shall appointed without delay by the you the Constable..

Mximo Carbonèl

We still require the formal process to happen within the Nimlet. Even just a post in the nimlet stating they have the majority support should be enough, Although a vote is preferable as a demonstration that they have the majority support

If all parties agree with this, then please propose and vote on the candidate in the Nimlet after which, the crown will be happy to make the appointment official

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on February 07, 2026, 08:46:24 AM

Quote from: mximo on February 07, 2026, 08:41:40 AMDear Cunstaval,

In accordance with our Constitution, the authority to appoint a Governor does not rest with the Chamber, but with the Cunstaval.

It is therefore your responsibility, in your capacity as the Crown's representative, to fully assume this duty. If the responsibility entrusted to you by the King proves too burdensome — which I can understand — it is incumbent upon you to step aside from your office and request that the King act directly.

The fact remains that the individual you have appointed does not enjoy the confidence of the Chamber. This is an established fact that cannot be disregarded.

Accordingly, it falls to you to identify and appoint another candidate for the office of Governor who is capable of securing the confidence of the Chamber, in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of our Constitution.

Yours faithfully,

Mximo Carbonèl

Actually from my understanding of the constitution it is only the crowns responsibility to intervene if the Nimlet cannot recommend a candidate to be sworn in, on their own, therefore the responsibility lies with the Nimlet, especially as you hold the majority of the seats

Section 7. Appointment of the Governor.
Whichever citizen of Talossa may have the Confidence of the House of Shepherds shall be appointed without delay by the Constable to serve as the Governor of Florencia; but, before he enter upon the powers and duties of the office, the Governor-designate shall sing the provincial anthem as his oath of office in witness of the Constable at least.

To my understanding this means that the Nimlet proposes someone who it has confidence in that then I as Cunstaval shall appoint

Quote from: mximo on February 07, 2026, 08:41:40 AMDear Cunstaval,

In accordance with our Constitution, the authority to appoint a Governor does not rest with the Chamber, but with the Cunstaval.

It is therefore your responsibility, in your capacity as the Crown's representative, to fully assume this duty. If the responsibility entrusted to you by the King proves too burdensome — which I can understand — it is incumbent upon you to step aside from your office and request that the King act directly.

The fact remains that the individual you have appointed does not enjoy the confidence of the Chamber. This is an established fact that cannot be disregarded.

Accordingly, it falls to you to identify and appoint another candidate for the office of Governor who is capable of securing the confidence of the Chamber, in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of our Constitution.

Yours faithfully,

Mximo Carbonèl

Actually from my understanding of the constitution it is only the crowns responsibility to intervene if the Nimlet cannot recommend a candidate to be sworn in, on their own, therefore the responsibility lies with the Nimlet, especially as you hold the majority of the seats

Quote from: mximo on February 06, 2026, 09:56:27 PMFollowing consultations with the members of my party, and in particular with my Prime Minister, I am unable at this time to offer my support to the governor appointed by our Representative of the Crown.

In accordance with Section 7 of our Constitution, which states:
"Whichever citizen of Talossa may have the Confidence of the House of Shepherds shall be appointed without delay by the Constable."

In light of this provision, I respectfully request that an alternative appointment be considered. The Representative of the Crown is empowered to appoint a citizen from another province, and Section 7 further outlines the parameters governing such appointments.

Accordingly, I will be voting against the motion of confidence concerning the governor appointed earlier this week, whith all the seats I hold.

Mximo Carbonèl
Senator from Florencia

You can find such a citizen and purpose them through the Nimlet, or resign from senate to be appointed yourself, or allow the interim appointment stand. Those are your options here.
The crown has done its best to resolve the matter and is now being dragged again into a political mess.
If the standoff lasts, the crown will remain silent until the members of the Nimlet solves this themselves


Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir
Cunstaval of Florencia

We have updated the appointment above based on the above discussions

@mximo
Your input on this would be appreciated

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 29, 2026, 03:50:57 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 29, 2026, 03:30:17 PM

In my capacity as Cunstaval of Florencia,
As representative of the Crown
We hereby appoint

Mximo Carbonèl

As interim Governor of Florencia,

Until this is either confirmed by the Nimlet or a formal vote of the Nimlet proposes an elected Governor.

As an aside, we advise the Nimlet to fix the issues with the constitution of Florencia in order to avoid the Crown having to step in, in the future as it is beneath the dignity of the crown to step into political issues such as this.

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir
Cunstaval of Florencia

I want to thank the Cunstaval for acting and ask for advice. The Florencian Constitution forbids someone from being both Senator and Governor. Has Mximo Carbonel resigned as Senator or are we planning to ignore our province's constitution?

Part of Section 7 of the Constitution:

QuoteThe office of the Governor of Florencia shall be also incompatible with the Sovereign, that of the Constable, that of any judicial official of the province or Talossa, and that of any Senator, whether for Florencia or another Talossan province...

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, should they accept the posting they shall be required to follow your constitutional requirements, should they not within 7 days we shall revisit this.

(Edited to make an appointment in line with the constitution a per following discussions)

I will point out to the Nimlet, the Crown has been waiting to see if you can resolve this between yourselves first.

At this point, we are ready to act, should the Nimlet ask it of us.

(I should point out, this has not been explicitly done)

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir
Cunstaval of Florenciă

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 21, 2026, 08:24:04 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

What I want is not to have this kind of language at all.  But we've gotten steadily more and more restrictive, and now we're walling people off from holding any kind of cunstaval position or provincial lead position at the same time, instead of getting to choose to combine them (current law possibility and current draft possibility) or have people hold those positions in different places (new draft possibility).

It's hard to imagine even a problem here, since no province has anything in place that could make this stuff problematic.  Since the whole point is to open up some possibilities here and eliminate the military governorship, maybe we could just pick either one or the other, and not make both illegal?  I'm very much a "worst case scenario" planner, but what's the actual danger?  In order to abuse any power in this position, someone would need to get their province on-board and the king.

Honeslty I think that may be something to look at in future updates. But the language of not being a Cunstaval and a provincial head of government of any province is my sticking point at this time. The rest of bill i am fine with, but I feel that if one is going to be a Cunstaval of a province, to also be a head of government of a province is not a great position to have. As it would be akin to the king becoming Senechal, or say the crown of the U.K.'s representative in Canada or any nation to become it head of government or a head of government in an other nation under the king of their nation. (Best example I can think of)
I just disagree with the principal.

I'm not saying there is a right opinion here as I think we have both raised valid arguments in this debate. But yeah the last language I suggested that says a Cunstaval can't be a head of government of any province (or language to that effect) is my personal line for this. As it has been from the start

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2026, 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 18, 2026, 06:52:36 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 17, 2026, 08:48:42 PM" No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province"
Is what the law current says, but it doesn't say that if the Cunstaval is from the same province (which is an idea you support) that they can also become head of government in the province they are Cunstaval in.

Yes, it doesn't say that right now.  But the law doesn't have to give that permission and say, "You can make your cunstaval the head of government if you want."  Unless the law says they can't, provinces are allowed to do it.  So right now, it's permitted.  You're asking for a new restriction.

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 17, 2026, 08:48:42 PMhaving it in law, to say that
"A Cunstaval also, cannot be Cunstaval and head of government of the same province"
Is basically all I'm wanting to add to this for the moment.

So if I add this new restriction, I've got your vote for the bill?

The law doesn't say this yes but it is established convention. But yes, I would support the bill is this amendment was made.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 17, 2026, 09:17:51 AMYou're kind of talking past me a bit, here.

Unless I'm mistaken, currently provinces are permitted to arrange their governments mostly how they please, including making the Cunstaval the head of any branch, right?  You're asking for these additional restrictions to be added on the provinces.

" No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province"
Is what the law current says, but it doesn't say that if the Cunstaval is from the same province (which is an idea you support) that they can also become head of government in the province they are Cunstaval in.

I'm only arguing that this loophole be closed as I have said before. I do think a larger look at Cunstavals might be something to look to in the future, but having it in law, to say that
"A Cunstaval also, cannot be Cunstaval and head of government of the same province"
Is basically all I'm wanting to add to this for the moment. As it is not stated in law that that can't be the case, but it is the case that a Cunstaval can't be a head of government in another province. So this addition would make the same principal apply across the board should one day a Cunstaval is appointed the serve in their home province.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2026, 07:05:48 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 16, 2026, 03:47:03 AMIn order to allow what you're suggesting would actually be a great shift away from current laws and presidents in Talossa. And will dilute to separation of powers.

Just to be clear: this aspect of the law would not be changed.  The current law already allows provinces to make their own decisions about that, and they can give any powers they wish to their cunstaval.  My bill isn't actually changing this.

So while I understand your criticism, it's a separate issue -- you're asking me to make an additional, complicated change that would restrict the provinces in a new way.

If I were to create this new restriction, I'm not sure how to word it.  It would be complicated to phrase it in such a way that it would be meaningful -- "you're not allowed to assign your cunstaval any powers" would essentially defeat our whole purpose here, so we'd need to... I don't know, make a list of powers that we're permitting them to assign?

I'm open to suggested amendments, if you have any language to add, but you're just demanding something outside of the scope of the bill.

That is a min understanding of what I said.

I my point was literally from the start was one specific thing, I only explained the above as reasons I believe my original point is actually more important than i put across before and why the bill should at least say that
"Should a Cunstaval be of the same province they are from, they shall not be eligible to be the head of government or executive of legislative branches of said province"

I think the wording is more clear than wha to have said in previous posts. I think other points about also being a senator or member of the legislature in a province should be thought about too, but that isn't a discussion for this bill. And my only priority here (which I should have been clearer about in my last response and I'm sorry that I wasn't) is to stop the possibility of the Cunstaval being the head of government in any province as has been my main concern from the start. Especially as this change has the potential to have a Cunstaval be from the same province which jm not against but only if the language of this bill reflects that in so far as saying in that scenario the Cunstaval will be ineligible to hold the executive office whilst they are Cunstaval. The law is always better with being clear on such things, especially in regards to separation of powers.
I'm just worried that if we don't pit that in now, it may cause issues down the line.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 02, 2026, 11:30:29 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 02, 2026, 11:18:33 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 02, 2026, 07:44:19 AMOh, I see. Well, that wouldn't be closing a loophole, that would be a significant change. In the past, some provinces have chosen to have their Constable also serve as the ceremonial head of state or the head of their government. So I don't want to prevent provinces from doing that. Provinces will already be now enabled to pass their own restrictions on who can hold the office, and they can add this restriction if they so choose.

That isn't exactly trye as the current convention in appointments of Cunstavals are supposed to be from a separate province.
As having a cunstaval also be the head of government in a province seems like a dangerous position with one person having too much power.

So doing so would be closing a loophole and formalising the principals behind currently conventions

Actually, there was a specific reform enacted to change the rule that Cunstavais need to be from a different province, since some people resented it.

I think provinces are probably the best judges of how to distribute power in their own province, right?  Most of them have chosen a weak executive.  They can decide to have any role or restriction that they want.

The major issue hear is Separation of powers as allowing a Cunstaval to become a head of a government, would be akin to allowing the King to become the senechal. And politisiing the crown in the province.

Allowing provinces to create laws about the limits of the Cunstaval outside of those granted under organic law, is honestly a good thing.

AndI support the idea of this bill.But, not in so far that it allows the politicisation of a possition that in its core, is the REPRESENTATIVE of the Crown and king in a province.

In order to allow what you're suggesting would actually be a great shift away from current laws and presidents in Talossa. And will dilute to separation of powers.

Which is why it should be clear in law that the Cunstaval of a province cannot become the head of government of ANY province, especially one they are Cunstaval over.

Honestly, it might be worth all saying that one cannot become Senechal too. (I think ministers, MC/sentarors and seats in provincial assemblies are debatebale but fine especially with the low active members we have, but I do think that holding executive power and the power of the crowns representative is a dangerous and undemocratic position)

I am only interjecting to say that I am keeping an eye on on the proceeding here, and will give the opportunity for the Nimlet to resolve this themselves before I make any moves after seeking advice on how to proceed.

I hope that this can be resolved without my intervention into a political argument.

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir
Cunstaval of Florenciă

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 02, 2026, 07:44:19 AMOh, I see. Well, that wouldn't be closing a loophole, that would be a significant change. In the past, some provinces have chosen to have their Constable also serve as the ceremonial head of state or the head of their government. So I don't want to prevent provinces from doing that. Provinces will already be now enabled to pass their own restrictions on who can hold the office, and they can add this restriction if they so choose.

That isn't exactly trye as the current convention in appointments of Cunstavals are supposed to be from a separate province.
As having a cunstaval also be the head of government in a province seems like a dangerous position with one person having too much power.

So doing so would be closing a loophole and formalising the principals behind currently conventions