6th Clark - April 2021

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

I must respectfully disagree with your statement of your lack of desire to abdicate the throne. You practically already have. Your appointed Regents have posted more in Witt since I became a citizen than you have. I have posted more than you have. Almost every active citizen of this nation has posted/interacted with Witt in the past four years than you have. So, Your Highness, I think we all understand quite well your total lack of desire to be involved as Monarch. I look forward to the day when we have an active Monarch that does more than hand off power and randomly show up to annoy the Government.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Roi fainéant (French pronunciation: ​[ʁwa fɛneɑ̃]), literally "do-nothing king", is a French term primarily used to refer to the later kings of the Merovingian dynasty after they seemed to have lost their initial powers of dominion...

    There was nothing left the King to do but to be content with his name of King, his flowing hair, and long beard, to sit on his throne and play the ruler, to give ear to the ambassadors that came from all quarters, and to dismiss them, as if on his own responsibility, in words that were, in fact, suggested to him, or even imposed upon him. He had nothing that he could call his own beyond this vain title of King and the precarious support allowed by the Mayor of the Palace in his discretion, except a single country seat, that brought him but a very small income.

During the century of the rois fainéants, the Merovingian kings were increasingly dominated by their mayors of the palace, in the 6th century the office of the manager of the royal household, but in the 7th increasingly the real "power behind the throne" who limited the role of the king to an essentially ceremonial office.

Mayor, Baron, whatever.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

or to see the Kingdom of Talossa transformed into a Republic with an elected Presidential figurehead, even if he is called a "King".  (At a minimum, we should call things by their right names

With all due Respect @King John this statement doesn't make any historical sense, as elected monarchies have long existed throughout various countries, and groups of countries, the following quote is something i found from a quick internet search, and is essentially what the act you refused assent to, proposed to do (not in the same words but intent)

An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance. The manner of election, the nature of candidate qualifications, and the electors vary from case to case.

Also famous examples of elected monarchies are the Holy Roman Empire, Old Scandinavian monarchs, Venice, amongst others, Also some countries even use them to this day in various forms, like Cambodia, the Vatican, and Malaysia amongst others, thus is utterly disingenuous to state that the Kingdom of Talossa will be transformed into a republic by the proposal, as it will not.

The other reason you gave, is that you've no desire to give up the throne, by abdication or by other means, then, again with all due  respect, you should not have gone on hiatus, and appointed the most political, and most divisive, polarising, monarchist there in Talossa to act as regent in your absence, especially when you were barely around before this. And its too late to start trying that now. Also their are other reasons some seek this compromise too. And you being off the throne due to absence, and controversial decisions, are a big part of why such a measure was passed by the Ziu to begin with.

Also on this :-

On another note, it seems sort of ridiculous to me, when the law says someone has to act by a particular time, to get all huffy and offended (or even to pretend to be offended) about his not acting before that time.  If you don't like the deadlines established in law, change them.

First of all, any such move you are likely to veto anyway, and this is just evidence to the contrary to you saying to have no desire to abdicate, as it oozes laziness, and distain for the job you say you hold so dearly, if you truly loved it, you would be more engages, more excited, and more present in Talossa, all the things this statement is not. So yeah, disagree with me on my more personal views and other bits of insight im offering, but in terms of the objective facts ive laid out disproving your first quote, that i cant accept if you disagree, as then your burying your head in the sand even further, in the face of objective and easily provable facts. Anyways thats my thoughts on those particular quotes, the other refusal, im not sure if you had even read the bill, as the language in their, in my view, still ties those views to the scope of Talossan law, and is just an easy way to recognise convictions of non Talossan crimes in Talossa, if those crimes are illegal here, and those "crimes" do not contravene organic rights, and allowed practices here. I believe their is something in the bill that addresses those concerns.

1. The basis of all Talossan law and jurisprudence is the principles contained in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms.

2. Where Talossan statute law is silent, Talossan courts shall make decisions in accordance with Talossan juridical precedent. Judges may also use precedent from other legal systems with which they are familiar to guide their decisions, though such precedent shall not be binding.

3. A Talossan citizen who is convicted in another jurisdiction, by a credible judicial authority, of an offence incurring penal servitude which is repugnant to the values expressed in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, shall be guilty of the crime of "repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute", and be liable to a punishment of severity in strict proportion to the severity of the said offence.

This is a direct quote from the bill, and from my interpretation, still protects the rights of Citizens in accordance with our own laws.
So i believe your reading of that was wrong, and massively disagree with your veto of the bills you have.

Anyway this is just my opinions of the matter, you likely wont agree, but at least i have put them to you, what you do with this is upto you.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I suppose that I should comment that I'm open to amending 55RZ24 in the next Cosa rather than trying to shove it in over the veto - if those who like the idea, but disapprove of the execution, are keen to collaborate on an improved version.

[GV]

On another note, it seems sort of ridiculous to me, when the law says someone has to act by a particular time, to get all huffy and offended (or even to pretend to be offended) about his not acting before that time.  If you don't like the deadlines established in law, change them.

-- John R

Be an active monarch who at least respects the Talossan Left as much as you do the monarchist right, and we'll relax.  :-)