A Discussion on the Revision of the Peerage and Knighthoods of Talossa

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

Azul & Good Afternoon Friends,
I wanted to take a moment, considering the sudden of the Crown, to open a discussion that I feel His Majesty should be involved in... not just a Regent. I believe the recent actions of the King in the awarding a title of Peerage for the first time in nearly a decade for essentially babysitting the Kingdom for six months and additionally sidestepping the Government's recommendation for an Order of Knighthood, that the time has come for a complete overhaul of the system of Peerages and Knighthoods of the Kingdom.

Does that mean that I think they should go away... no, not even close. But I do believe that as we move forward with the Historic Compromise, we must pause and re-evaluate how our nation's highest Honours are divvied up. Peerages aren't something to be handed out for simple tasks... like warming a seat while the King is away.... again. Peerages are, by definition, not just the award of title but of land. While I applaud the efforts of the former Regent, awarding him a land grant is incredibly inappropriate for the service rendered. At best, adding the Grade of Knight Commander to the Order of the Nation (L'Urderi per la Naziun) for Sir Alexandreu... not a Peerage title.

I propose that, moving forward, Peerages and Knighthoods may originate from either the Crown or the Government... but, specifically in the case of Peerages, must be approved by both. Knighthoods, depending on Grade, may too originate from either... with the Government generally taking lead on approvals of Member, Officer, Commander/Knight and the Crown on Knight Commander & Knight Grand Cross.

Generally, I feel if we are going to have Peerages & Knightly Orders... we should do so in the manner that literally all other recognized nations do theirs.

Respectfully,
Gen. Txoteu Davinescu, O.SPM     

[Ian Plätschisch]

If you think this is part of the Historic Compromise, you are mistaken.

"The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

If you think this is part of the Historic Compromise, you are mistaken.

"The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"

No... I don't. Never did. Simply stated we should investigate behaving like a real nation that uses such systems.

Davinescu

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Azul & Good Afternoon Friends,
I wanted to take a moment, considering the sudden of the Crown, to open a discussion that I feel His Majesty should be involved in... not just a Regent. I believe the recent actions of the King in the awarding a title of Peerage for the first time in nearly a decade for essentially babysitting the Kingdom for six months and additionally sidestepping the Government's recommendation for an Order of Knighthood, that the time has come for a complete overhaul of the system of Peerages and Knighthoods of the Kingdom.

Does that mean that I think they should go away... no, not even close. But I do believe that as we move forward with the Historic Compromise, we must pause and re-evaluate how our nation's highest Honours are divvied up. Peerages aren't something to be handed out for simple tasks... like warming a seat while the King is away.... again. Peerages are, by definition, not just the award of title but of land. While I applaud the efforts of the former Regent, awarding him a land grant is incredibly inappropriate for the service rendered. At best, adding the Grade of Knight Commander to the Order of the Nation (L'Urderi per la Naziun) for Sir Alexandreu... not a Peerage title.

I propose that, moving forward, Peerages and Knighthoods may originate from either the Crown or the Government... but, specifically in the case of Peerages, must be approved by both. Knighthoods, depending on Grade, may too originate from either... with the Government generally taking lead on approvals of Member, Officer, Commander/Knight and the Crown on Knight Commander & Knight Grand Cross.

Generally, I feel if we are going to have Peerages & Knightly Orders... we should do so in the manner that literally all other recognized nations do theirs.

Respectfully,
Gen. Txoteu Davinescu, O.SPM     

I am deeply grateful for the General's thoughts here.

The proposed "Historic Compromise" didn't even last until the end of the Clark before the incoming leader of the Free Democrats declared that one of the few remaining royal powers must be drastically curtailed as their next step.

In a few months, I assume that the veto power, already reduced, should be further revisited or eliminated?  Or perhaps the term of the sovereign should really be five years, not seven?

I think General Davinescu should be commended for his honesty.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Wait, wait a minute here guys. Firstly, there is no Historic Compromise until His Maj promulgates, or neglects to veto, 55RZ21. No-one can accuse the other side of breaking the deal until the deal is actually ratified by the Big Cheese himself.

Secondly, the question of peerages/royal honours was never part of any discussions I've had with Senator Plätschisch or anyone else on his side of the aisle, though I can see why Baron von Munchhausen is pretty defensive of it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Thirdly, what I do remember discussing with Senator Plätschisch is that, just as there will always exist the most reactionary conservatives, there will always exist not only Republicans but reform-monarchists, inc. those who want a completely depowered, ceremonial monarchy. The Historic Compromise does not mean "no more debate can happen ever again on the Monarchy and its role". It is not a gagging order. It is meant to set a broad consensus on the biggest issue, i.e. Monarchy vs. elected head of state.

The question of whether the Monarch's role will continue to be a hot-topic button, outside that basic fundamental question, is based on how the King himself behaves. Queen Elizabeth II has quite swooping powers in theory, but those aren't seriously challenged because she is circumspect about using them and knows she rules with the consent of Parliament and the Nation. Also, she doesn't use her royal prerogative purposely for the purposes of trolling, annoying, and giving a middle-finger to the elected politicians.

Fourthly, cxhn. T. Davinescu has signalled, as FreeDems leader, that he takes a special interest in the system of national/royal honours and how it works, considering he wrote most of the current Lexhatx on the issue. This is his wheelhouse. Don't get upset when he spitballs.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm not upset... Far from it! I think it's important to set out exactly what you guys see as the terms of this "compromise." There had been a lot of high talk about ending the arguments over the role of the monarchy, finding a compromise for "generations of Talossans," and so on. But it turns out that it really just means that you get what you want now, and you'll come back for more very soon. That's fine, I'm just glad that the cards are on the table.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'm not upset... Far from it!

[Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM]

I'm not upset... Far from it! I think it's important to set out exactly what you guys see as the terms of this "compromise." There had been a lot of high talk about ending the arguments over the role of the monarchy, finding a compromise for "generations of Talossans," and so on. But it turns out that it really just means that you get what you want now, and you'll come back for more very soon. That's fine, I'm just glad that the cards are on the table.

You know what affects "generations of Talossans"? Landed Peerages, which... like the current Monarchical system... are lifetime, hereditary appointments. I do believe that the trappings of the Monarchy are important to the cultural of Talossa. That said, it is also important that those lifetime, hereditary titles be given with the consent of the Government... since the current Monarch proved upon the moment of His return that he clearly doesn't understand the importance of said titles within this country. The only thing about this discussion tied directly to the HC is the fact that a nation in which the Crown truly serves at the consent of the people... even in a seven year renewable term... lacks the power to screw up and grant lifetime titles to a non-deserving subject. Hereditary titles should go to lifelong, impactful servants of the country... of the people! Not just for successfully not dying while the boss was on vacation! So stop putting words in my mouth. You want clarification on something I said, you ask. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself

[GV]

I'm not upset... Far from it! I think it's important to set out exactly what you guys see as the terms of this "compromise." There had been a lot of high talk about ending the arguments over the role of the monarchy, finding a compromise for "generations of Talossans," and so on. But it turns out that it really just means that you get what you want now, and you'll come back for more very soon. That's fine, I'm just glad that the cards are on the table.

Don't worry - we're not 'altering the deal'.  As much as I do believe our award system has evolved to be one of great confusion regarding precedence, you are correct in making the point (however inadverntently) the Historic Compromise will in my book only ever deal with one question: the periodic accountability of the monarch to the people.

Certainly, our award system needs an overhaul which can adapt to the future, but now is not the time or the place to bring up that discussion.

As for you, Baron Davinescu, both your regency (a very competent regency, I might add) and especially your new peerage are by many regarded as a troll-job and middle finger by John Woolley against the present government and the Reunision-pack in toto.

Imagine a different monarch making Miestrâ Schivâ Regent for six months in the face of a government led by...Alexander Davinescu...

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

I believe you are trying to politicise this as a issue. Peerages have always been given for crazy reasons in talossa and they are given away in micronations all the time. We have the ordered of of the cone for goodness sake, and that was pretty much for thowing eggs at someone's house.
On a micronation level I can go online and pay for a Barronett position for sealand or a lordship in Scotland by buying a meter squardy of a feild.
I think our system of rewards when someone does good works just fine and acts as a filter and if anything stops any random citzan demanding one. I don't think we need more rules.
Also a side note, I think baron Davinescus appointment for being a Regent during the most tumultuous time for the monarchy is perfectly fitting.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Thirdly, what I do remember discussing with Senator Plätschisch is that, just as there will always exist the most reactionary conservatives, there will always exist not only Republicans but reform-monarchists, inc. those who want a completely depowered, ceremonial monarchy. The Historic Compromise does not mean "no more debate can happen ever again on the Monarchy and its role". It is not a gagging order. It is meant to set a broad consensus on the biggest issue, i.e. Monarchy vs. elected head of state.

Right, but it's not like General Davinescu is on the fringe of the Free Democrats; he is the incoming leader. It is concerning that he believes dramatically overhauling one of the King's remaining powers follows as a natural consequence of what was supposed to be a change that, once accomplished, most people could live with. It certainly gives the impresssions that people like me who are supporting the compromise in the hopes that most reformists will be satisfied are just getting played.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'm not sure that "ask the Govt before handing out a peerage" is a drastic change. As Txoteu says, that's standard issue in other countries.

90% of the objections that the Government has had to the King's exercise of his power is when he operates without warning or consultation, and without due care to the sensibilities of the democratic majority. Speaking of "without warning", of course, opens the door to the far more serious question - disappearing for 6 months, then returning without explanation or apology.

I repeat that a wider array of Royal prerogatives will be acceptable to a wider array of opinions if we establish a "no surprises" convention, which is additional to Organic limitations on such powers, and frankly depends on the personality of the Monarch himself.

[owenedwards]

I can think of at least three types of honour that the Queen of England has total or functionally total control over (in one case I am thinking of a now dormant convention, but one that would not depend upon any formal Government approval to resurrect). Given peers have no legislative power in Talossa - or indeed any power - this is much more like the OM in the UK. No need for Governmental mucking about.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

What do you think would happen if Her Maj were to give one of those awards to Jeremy Corbyn, without telling Boris in advance? How would Boris and the lads react?

You see my point here. A lot of people only like the King acting "independently" when it cocks a snook at politicians they don't like. Which makes a mockery of the calls for a "non-political" Monarchy. Talossa cannot become the United States or northern Ireland, where the two major political factions spend their time on symbolic actions which are guaranteed to infuriate Those Guys Over There, esp. if it turns into Monarchy vs Parliament. That's how you get Greece 1916 or England 1689. (And if you don't understand why the investiture of the Baron von Tollbooth might be a problem for many people, I'm perfectly happy to explain by PM.)

There are two questions: what the King should be allowed to do, and what the King should do. A King who "does, just because he can" is not helping defend the Monarchy. Quite the opposite.