ANNOUNCING: the Campaign for an Elected Head of State

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Peerages are so fascinating that no-one has given any out since Reunision, lol. (cue: the Regent declares some superannuated reactionary the Duke of Earl or the Count de Monet or some such, just to annoy me :D)

There's a reason why, after Reunision, Talossan culture has more or less reverted to the older traditions (preserved by the Republic during the national schism), while RUMPish innovations have died out. This, the cultural tradition, is the continuity, which is far older than the current Absentee monarchy. The exception to this is heraldry, which meh. I have a coat of arms and I don't regret it. Why would I wipe it out? Açafat dal Vàl, a firebreathing Republican, is in the College of Arms.

Of course Talossans can do whatever they want as a subculture.  If a heavily Royalist province declared its own feudal chieftain and thanes or whatever, I would consider it silly but harmless as long as it didn't affect the actual political system. But the fact that the RUMP didn't stick around "do their culture" when they no longer had an absolute majority and force it down everyone's throat... says it all really. If you don't want to participate in Talossa as a minority, then your interest was never in Talossa, just in being the boss. Precisely because it relies on edicts from central government and cannot survive without it, he bogus peerage belongs on the same scrapheap of dead-ends in Talossan cultural evolution as consonant mutations.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Peerages are so fascinating that no-one has given any out since Reunision, lol. (cue: the Regent declares some superannuated reactionary the Duke of Earl or the Count de Monet or some such, just to annoy me :D)

In Talossan history, there have only been a handful of peerages.  The Earl of Kenwood in 1987, the Viscount of Vuode in 1999, five grants in 2005-2006, and only two since.  Of the recent grants, one was done for purely governmental reasons (to ensure continuity of government) and one was done by right of blood (elevating the Prince of Prospect).  Peerages are uncommonly rare.

There's a reason why, after Reunision, Talossan culture has more or less reverted to the older traditions (preserved by the Republic during the national schism), while RUMPish innovations have died out. This, the cultural tradition, is the continuity, which is far older than the current Absentee monarchy. The exception to this is heraldry, which meh. I have a coat of arms and I don't regret it. Why would I wipe it out? Açafat dal Vàl, a firebreathing Republican, is in the College of Arms.

I'm glad that you tolerate heraldry and one of your allies enjoys it, but maybe those aren't the best yardsticks for whether or not you should "wipe it out."

Precisely because it relies on edicts from central government and cannot survive without it, he bogus peerage belongs on the same scrapheap of dead-ends in Talossan cultural evolution as consonant mutations.

Didn't an edict from central government eliminate consonant mutations?  Not sure you've thought out this metaphor.

Listen, if we are going to start wiping out things, then we should think it through.  If you want to create a new republic of Talossa, we should look at what happened to the old one.  The Republic boasted ownership of talossa.com, a citizenry with a ton of longtime Talossans, the form of government you're proposing, and experienced leadership in the person of your very own self.  But the Kingdom ended up, in the reckoning of our current Seneschal, "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens."  So let's figure out why... before we jettison even more of that cultural richness.

[Açafat del Val]

This seems to be identical to Eðo's proposal. Leaving the Thone permanently empty is a cop-out (see page one of this thread).

Cop-out, compromise. Tomato, tomato.

Yeah, the Monarchy should be abolished. Shame on me (us?) for trying to reach a middle ground.

If an elective monarchy, or indeed a republic, be the will of the people, it must be valid. But a permanently empty throne seems to me—though inspired and interesting in a Game of Thrones kind of way—slightly absurd. The throne itself is just a piece of (digital) furniture. Without a person sitting it, it doesn't retain much symbolic meaning. It's comparable to having a permanently empty parliament. It sounds ghostly, like a memorial for an institution with no life left in it. If that's the case—as the more iconoclastic republicans among us would have us believe—then they should go the full distance and advocate for its full abolition. All these semantic compromises strike me as the staging grounds for a later move against the entire monarchy and its vestiges, such as the peerage. We're in the process of cobbling together some kind of new monarchical system in the wake of our Bastille. If and when the supporters of our monarchy attempt to flee to Varennes, as it were, there won't be any further need for compromise.

(Apologies in advance if this is a slippery slope fallacy. Indeed, sometimes history abides by very illogical and fallacious rules. Cf. Tolstoy, War and Peace, Epilogue. Also, for a biblical perspective on our current troubles, see 1 Samuel 8, especially verse 18: 'And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day.' I would prefer a true monarchy, or no monarchy at all.)

The throne is not just a literal piece of furniture; it is a legal entity through which all power is exercised. See the British Crown or the Catholic Holy See.

Are these things legal fictions? Yes, they are.

Just like the Queen of the Commonwealth, right? Does anyone think anymore for a serious second that either she or the rest of the Royal Family have any actual power? Is it not a well-understood open secret at this point that, even if the Crown is the source of all unilateral sovereignty under an unwritten constitution, she would be deposed immediately upon any attempt to exercise that power?

This is to point out to you that the "absurdity" of the suggestion is perfectly grounded "in the real world". Legal fictions exist everywhere if you look under the rugs.

I hear over and over how the Monarchy of Talossa as a concept is so vital to the very spirit of Talossa, as if to suggest that without a king we would be all doomed, while then the same people make this false choice that we have to be 100% Republican or 100% Monarchist.

Look all around the world. The Emperor of Japan is constitutionally the embodiment of all that is right with Japan... yet even constitutionally lacks any right to exercise any powers. Does that make the Emperor any less important to Japan?

You all want a Monarchy. Cool. Let's have an empty throne and have it be "guarded" by a steward.

If the answer is no, then all these "compromises" are a waste of time (in fact, cxhn. Andrinescù for one has already dismissed them in advance) and we might as well just go for what we want.

Truly.

Edo and I offer a compromise but are bitten for daring to meet in the middle, yet then we get criticized elsewhere for not including more feedback or for carrying the banners without asking permission.

Childish rubbish. You lot want compromise or you don't. Stick to a consistent talking point, please.

...

I agree in a very real and practical sense.

A monarchy has real value in terms of stability in a small country which lacks very many physical anchors and symbols of continuity.  If the constitution changes every few years, major institutions change their workings dramatically or simply fall into disuse, and new political parties rise and fall, then what remains to tie Talossa together with any sort of continuity?  Only a handful of people are interested in our language or other aspects of our culture, after all.  Having some important elements of our country that remain continuous means that there's a weight of history behind Talossa -- doing big things has deeper meaning because they help build up something that's going to last into the future, just as it's lasted from the past.

You can build a sandcastle down in the waves, but the constant tide will pull it right down and leave you disinterested.  If you want it to last, you build it on a rock.

Honestly, this argument is very persuasive and I am nearly onboard with you. The one point of disagreement is that you insinuate that a King is the only way to achieve the stability. Poppycock.

Why does a Monarchy have to be the bedrock? Just because it's been around for 40 years? There is no reason that our other institutions cannot withstand the tides.

I for one do not support the abolishment of the civil service, the peerage, or the other hallmarks of "monarchical life". These things can exist, however, without a king.

I also do not see anyone saying that the very foundations of the United States are crumbling because they do not have a king. No, they are crumbling because the institutions around the presidency have been and are abdicating their own responsibilities to resist the executive branch (cough cough, Congress).

Talossa does not suddenly lose its personality because we lack a King. The current King has grown increasingly absent in recent years, and yet there is still a Talossa.

Talossa carries onward on the work of everyone else than the King. Stability? Yeah, important. But the source of stability is everyone else: the Seneschalsqab, the Chancery, the College of Arms, the Uppermost Cort, and more.

...

Why do you get to decide what's fun for people?  Why do you get to decide which Talossan traditions are valid, and which aren't?
Heraldry stuff is fun for people!  Peerages are fascinating!  Do we really have to grind it out of existence because it doesn't meet with your personal approval or because King Ben did it a different way?

I mean, honestly, 2005 was sixteen years ago!  "Oh, well, you've been doing this thing in Talossa for sixteen years, but it doesn't count as a traditional, real Talossan thing.  Only valid King Ben cosplay is really doing Talossa."

We can keep these things at the same time as abolishing the Monarchy. They are not mutually exclusive. See France, Portugal, South Africa, and Australia.

...

In Talossan history, there have only been a handful of peerages.  The Earl of Kenwood in 1987, the Viscount of Vuode in 1999, five grants in 2005-2006, and only two since.  Of the recent grants, one was done for purely governmental reasons (to ensure continuity of government) and one was done by right of blood (elevating the Prince of Prospect).  Peerages are uncommonly rare.

There's a reason why, after Reunision, Talossan culture has more or less reverted to the older traditions (preserved by the Republic during the national schism), while RUMPish innovations have died out. This, the cultural tradition, is the continuity, which is far older than the current Absentee monarchy. The exception to this is heraldry, which meh. I have a coat of arms and I don't regret it. Why would I wipe it out? Açafat dal Vàl, a firebreathing Republican, is in the College of Arms.

I'm glad that you tolerate heraldry and one of your allies enjoys it, but maybe those aren't the best yardsticks for whether or not you should "wipe it out."

Precisely because it relies on edicts from central government and cannot survive without it, he bogus peerage belongs on the same scrapheap of dead-ends in Talossan cultural evolution as consonant mutations.

Didn't an edict from central government eliminate consonant mutations?  Not sure you've thought out this metaphor.

Listen, if we are going to start wiping out things, then we should think it through.  If you want to create a new republic of Talossa, we should look at what happened to the old one.  The Republic boasted ownership of talossa.com, a citizenry with a ton of longtime Talossans, the form of government you're proposing, and experienced leadership in the person of your very own self.  But the Kingdom ended up, in the reckoning of our current Seneschal, "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens."  So let's figure out why... before we jettison even more of that cultural richness.

The issue here is that a single unelected person should not have - does not deserve - control or influence on the political directions of our nation. King John has no more right to veto my clarked bills than a dandelion.

We're not "wiping out" the Monarchy. We're asking that it be an elected office, and be elected more often than an unpredictable abdication every 15 or 20 years. Total strawman / red herring poppycock.

Elected heads of state may exercise the exact same powers as the King does now (including a veto!); the difference is that the former is held accountable every 2-5 years.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'm sick of having this argument again and again, but the Regent cannot simply be allowed to rewrite history with his continued assertions that the Talossan Republic was a failure and the Kingdom "WON" the National Schism. The Kingdom being so gloriously successful in 2011 that they had to open the door to a despised group of "splitters" whom they had been insulting for years, because the RUMP's unchallengeable rule had become a boring dead end, just like the KR1's PC Party. Turns out it took both wings to make the Talossan bird fly.

Further, the Regent's citation of the titles of Earl of Kenwood or Viscount of Vuode is dishonest, in that neither of them are "peerages" in the way the modern law describes it (titles of nobility granted by the the King), as they were both created by the Ziu. The first was bestowed upon the republican Bob Murphy for trolling purposes; the second was a title which had always applied to the monarchy, which was legislatively "separated" from the Monarchy but re-bestowed on KR1. The peerage as we know it was created by the National Schism Kingdom.

But just to stamp on any misinterpretations: I have no interest in abolishing the peerage. What would that mean, declaring that Mà la Mhà isn't allowed to call himself Lord Hooligan any more? Waste of time. And I couldn't anyway. The law gives the Monarchy power to hand out titles of nobility, and specifies that nobles get to sit up front in the Order of Precedence with the orders of chivalry. That's it. I just think it's embarrassing - what GV calls "SCA Talossa".

The Republic boasted ownership of talossa.com, a citizenry with a ton of longtime Talossans, the form of government you're proposing, and experienced leadership in the person of your very own self.  But the Kingdom ended up, in the reckoning of our current Seneschal, "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens."  So let's figure out why... before we jettison even more of that cultural richness.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Back on topic!

Anyway, I'd like to put this up to the leader of the Opposition. The fact remains that - even if Option One wins the election - nothing will happen without an OrgLaw amendment, which will need 2/3 of the Coså (3/4 with a veto override) to happen.

So, @Senator Plätschisch or other members of the LCC or other Monarchists, please answer. Would you be any less likely to oppose an Elected Head of State if we continued to call them "King"? Or "Regent" for a permanently empty throne? If the answer is no, then all these "compromises" are a waste of time (in fact, cxhn. Andrinescù for one has already dismissed them in advance) and we might as well just go for what we want.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I also do not see anyone saying that the very foundations of the United States are crumbling because they do not have a king. No, they are crumbling because the institutions around the presidency have been and are abdicating their own responsibilities to resist the executive branch (cough cough, Congress).

This seems like a really inapt metaphor.  If the United States government ceased to exist tomorrow, all of its citizens would still reside in a physical country with fifty state governments, physical proximity, centuries of history, etc.  Indeed, your metaphor actually serves to illustrate my point.  There's a new Seneschal with some regularity (I mean, obviously not for a couple of years, of course, but usually there's pretty regular changeover), for example. And at this moment the government that you represent has put forth a bill to dramatically change the Cosa, too, for that matter.

The issue here is that a single unelected person should not have - does not deserve - control or influence on the political directions of our nation. King John has no more right to veto my clarked bills than a dandelion.

He was elected, and his role was confirmed specifically by referendum just a couple of years ago, and then again when the OrgLaw was revised, and then again when Article I was revised again. The citizens of Talossa have affirmed over and over again that they like it this way, and they're the ones who confer that power.

I'm sick of having this argument again and again, but the Regent cannot simply be allowed to rewrite history with his continued assertions that the Talossan Republic was a failure and the Kingdom "WON" the National Schism.

I didn't say that, of course.  Indeed, I said much the opposite -- everyone was a winner with Reunision.  But you yourself admitted that the Kingdom was "much more culturally rich and attractive to citizens" when you were explaining why the Republic shrank in numbers year over year.  I think a big part of that was perceived continuity: immigrating to the Kingdom of Talossa felt like you were joining something that was more real and connected to history.  It made it feel like things you could do in Talossa would matter and might last.  I think that was important and it merits address.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Back on topic!

Anyway, I'd like to put this up to the leader of the Opposition. The fact remains that - even if Option One wins the election - nothing will happen without an OrgLaw amendment, which will need 2/3 of the Coså (3/4 with a veto override) to happen.

So, @Senator Plätschisch or other members of the LCC or other Monarchists, please answer. Would you be any less likely to oppose an Elected Head of State if we continued to call them "King"? Or "Regent" for a permanently empty throne? If the answer is no, then all these "compromises" are a waste of time (in fact, cxhn. Andrinescù for one has already dismissed them in advance) and we might as well just go for what we want.

My order of preference, after keeping the Monarchy the way it is, looks about like this:
1. Some version of the NPW's "co-prince" proposal
2. A periodically elected King (with quite long terms)
3. Anything having to do with a "permanently empty throne"; this strikes me much more as a lose-lose than a win-win.
4. Full-out Republicanism

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

2. A periodically elected King (with quite long terms)

That would be perfectly acceptable to me as a "historic compromise" - something like 7 years.

[Açafat del Val]

2. A periodically elected King (with quite long terms)

That would be perfectly acceptable to me as a "historic compromise" - something like 7 years.

Even as a staunch republican I could support this also. Perhaps if the referendum results are pretty unclear we could meet in this middleground?