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

[Eðo Grischun]

4 grants since July (6 months). They all have a [G] in the titles.

8 for the year to date, so 4 grants for each six month period.

I know immigration has been one of your political hobby horses for a couple of years, but you can start to let it go.  Immigration has been working fine since late 2019.  Of course, you could argue that 8 new grants within a year isn't enough.  If that's your argument then fair enough, but as we have said many times, I would rather we got just 1 fairly active new citizen rather than 20 inactive citizenship roster padders.  Quality over quantity.


Edit.. Are you only checking Wittenberg main board? I don't think the Chancery always posts them here.  Immigration sub-board is more accurate.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

4 grants since July (6 months). They all have a [G] in the titles.

8 for the year to date, so 4 grants for each six month period.

I know immigration has been one of your political hobby horses for a couple of years, but you can start to let it go.  Immigration has been working fine since late 2019.  Of course, you could argue that 8 new grants within a year isn't enough.  If that's your argument then fair enough, but as we have said many times, I would rather we got just 1 fairly active new citizen rather than 20 inactive citizenship roster padders.  Quality over quantity.


Edit.. Are you only checking Wittenberg main board? I don't think the Chancery always posts them here.  Immigration sub-board is more accurate.

Sigh... Yes, I was checking the main board because that's where petitions had always been lodged. I honestly had no idea that they were now routinely done in the immigration threats themselves. Embarrassing! Thank you for explaining. I'm also glad to hear that things have leveled out and stayed that way.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Kudos to the Regent for admitting when he got it wrong. May we all have that level of integrity. I'm not satisfied myself with how much new citizens are stepping up and getting involved; but that's the next issue on the pipeline.

Anyway, back on topic. A line which the Regent and others bring up is always that raising the constitutional question "ruins Talossa" for conservatives and drives down activity. That has never been the case. I can't remember whether it was KR1 or another old Growther who said it, but "Talossa is never more active than when we're debating what Talossa is" is stil true, for me. (In the old days it was more Derivative vs. Peculiar than Monarchy v. Republic, but I think it's an existential question either way.)

What really strikes me is that last week, the Ministry of STUFF brought about the talossa.net social media network, the biggest and most exciting endeavour IMHO in Talossan history since Wittenberg itself - and it's criminally underused. And yet this thread, on the age old constitutional question, gets a whole bunch of input. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

[Eðo Grischun]

4 grants since July (6 months). They all have a [G] in the titles.

8 for the year to date, so 4 grants for each six month period.

I know immigration has been one of your political hobby horses for a couple of years, but you can start to let it go.  Immigration has been working fine since late 2019.  Of course, you could argue that 8 new grants within a year isn't enough.  If that's your argument then fair enough, but as we have said many times, I would rather we got just 1 fairly active new citizen rather than 20 inactive citizenship roster padders.  Quality over quantity.


Edit.. Are you only checking Wittenberg main board? I don't think the Chancery always posts them here.  Immigration sub-board is more accurate.

Sigh... Yes, I was checking the main board because that's where petitions had always been lodged. I honestly had no idea that they were now routinely done in the immigration threats themselves. Embarrassing! Thank you for explaining. I'm also glad to hear that things have leveled out and stayed that way.

No worries.  Glad we could clear that up. Apologies for initially snapping at you.  I get overly defensive over the immigration portfolio because I put in a lot of hard work to repair the system.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

4 grants since July (6 months). They all have a [G] in the titles.

8 for the year to date, so 4 grants for each six month period.

I know immigration has been one of your political hobby horses for a couple of years, but you can start to let it go.  Immigration has been working fine since late 2019.  Of course, you could argue that 8 new grants within a year isn't enough.  If that's your argument then fair enough, but as we have said many times, I would rather we got just 1 fairly active new citizen rather than 20 inactive citizenship roster padders.  Quality over quantity.


Edit.. Are you only checking Wittenberg main board? I don't think the Chancery always posts them here.  Immigration sub-board is more accurate.

Sigh... Yes, I was checking the main board because that's where petitions had always been lodged. I honestly had no idea that they were now routinely done in the immigration threats themselves. Embarrassing! Thank you for explaining. I'm also glad to hear that things have leveled out and stayed that way.

No worries.  Glad we could clear that up. Apologies for initially snapping at you.  I get overly defensive over the immigration portfolio because I put in a lot of hard work to repair the system.

Not at all.  I appreciate the work you've done.  Question: is there a chart or way to monitor things like this?  Over the years, I've kept spreadsheets of total citizens and active citizens at any one time, but it seems like the sort of thing we should be keeping track of more formally.  It also seems like it would actually not be hard with existing data.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Being conservative in Talossa essentially means being a Monarchist. Therefore it is unavoidable that any King who believes himself to be legitimate would be a conservative by Talossan standards.

If the purpose of the Monarchy is only to preserve the Monarchy, then... that's a logical ourobouros.

Not exactly; preserving the Monarchy comes with the many benefits I described in my article.

Seriously, what distinctly "conservative" policies would there be for a radical King to shoot down?

Okay, I'm imagining myself as King of Talossa, and a neo-RUMP party with a Cosa majority. The first thing I'd do would be to formally abolish the recognition of the aristocracy (no more Dukes or Counts). The second thing I would do would be to issue proclamation after proclamation full of fire-breathing statements on foreign politics - supporting the self-determination of Palestine, cheering on legal and political victories for Trans Rights, giving royal medals of honour to Joe Biden or Reality Winner or whoever else is a hate figure for the US right at the moment. And they couldn't do anything about it, except try to overthrow me.

Past that, I would just "rain on the parade" of every Government initiative or bill passed by the Ziu which annoyed me for whatever reason. The purpose of such dog-in-the-manger tactics would not necessary be to "win" in the sense of stopping anything. The purpose would be to annoy, harass, make Talossa less fun for people I didn't like; to suck up all the attention in the room from the elected Government. In such situations, I doubt that anyone would be saying "God Save the King" except sarcastically. The only way out of this is if you argue that a conservative-traditionalist Ziu majority wouldn't actually want to do anything or pass any laws - because that's the ultimate in conservatism - but then that would make the Monarchy the only political actor in Talossa. They wouldn't want that.

1) Foreign political spectra have little correspondence to the Talossan political spectrum; I know that many Talossan conservatives would probably be OK with progressive statements about foreign politics, and that those same statements may not sit well with some members of the FreeDems.
2) Even if your only purpose was to rain on the Government's parade, you could not do so very effectively given that you would only have a fairly weak veto and that you would be subject to removal. Also, with the exception of getting rid of the nobility, it would be pretty clear to everyone that your sole objective was to be a stick in the mud rather than voice any kind of principled objection.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

1) Foreign political spectra have little correspondence to the Talossan political spectrum;

You are very wrong about this both in contemporary and historical terms. When an anonymous citizen in the National Survey bemoaned "intolerance of opinions that are not far left", what do you think that was referring to?

2) Even if your only purpose was to rain on the Government's parade, you could not do so very effectively given that you would only have a fairly weak veto and that you would be subject to removal. Also, with the exception of getting rid of the nobility, it would be pretty clear to everyone that your sole objective was to be a stick in the mud rather than voice any kind of principled objection.

No different than Absentee John, in other words, and we couldn't get rid of him, and we still might not be able to do so. I specified in my hypothetical that I would be facing a conservative majority, not a supermajority.

[GV]

The new talossa.net social-networking site is one of the best digital things I've ever seen in Talossa.

Hearty agreement with Miestrâ - criminally-underused, indeed.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

1) Foreign political spectra have little correspondence to the Talossan political spectrum;

You are very wrong about this both in contemporary and historical terms. When an anonymous citizen in the National Survey bemoaned "intolerance of opinions that are not far left", what do you think that was referring to?

I honestly think he is referring to Talossan far-left opinions, ie Republicanism, given that extra-Talossan politics aren't discussed very much here, and this opinion fits with the overall negative feelings these respondents voiced toward the Talossan left.

2) Even if your only purpose was to rain on the Government's parade, you could not do so very effectively given that you would only have a fairly weak veto and that you would be subject to removal. Also, with the exception of getting rid of the nobility, it would be pretty clear to everyone that your sole objective was to be a stick in the mud rather than voice any kind of principled objection.

No different than Absentee John, in other words, and we couldn't get rid of him, and we still might not be able to do so.

Every time the King has vetoed a bill, no matter how frustrating his timing, he has always provided some sensible (if unconvincing) argument on the merits. On the topic of the King's absence, it is not really excusable, but I highly doubt the cause of it is to intentionally needle the government. There are plenty of other explanations.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I honestly think he is referring to Talossan far-left opinions, ie Republicanism, given that extra-Talossan politics aren't discussed very much here, and this opinion fits with the overall negative feelings these respondents voiced toward the Talossan left.

Do you remember when I. Canún was revealed as doing time for child rape, and the King himself went off on a rant about how sexual abuse convictions were not to be trusted because (to paraphrase) bitches and libruls be lyin' to throw sturdy, noble men in jail? The same guy who switched churches because the Catholics were too liberal these days?

With the prominent exception of the current Regent, the old RUMP membership was and is overwhelmingly American-style conservative (i.e., by global standards, frothing reactionaries). It is possible that you just didn't notice this, or, for example, what the Senator for Maricopa has to say on the legal status of homosexuality under Indian law, etc. There are a LOT of US-style culture warriors in Talossa. You might not remember that it wasn't just King Robert I who used transphobic abuse as a prime weapon of attack against the Republic, but many of the RUMP leadership as well. I remember, for obvious reasons.

[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.

[Sir 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-GC]

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-GC]

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

Thanks to Senator Plätschisch for his quick response.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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

[Baron 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!

[Baron 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?

[Baron 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?