|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 21, 2007 21:07:06 GMT -6
I am resubmitting this bill in the perhaps foolhardy hope that it will receive some consideration and discussion this time if anyone opposes it. I trust the many who voted against it will help provide their input on the matter. EDIT: as per the wishes of the Baron Hooligan, I am adding his name to the sponsorship.
The Replacing the House Law Act (Amendment)
WHEREAS the rules governing the succession of the Crown are currently found partly in the Organic Law itself, and partly in the House Law of 11 February 1989 (as subsequently amended), and
WHEREAS it would be more convenient and make better sense to have them all in one place, and
WHEREAS the current law envisages the possibility of the King's adopting an heir, who would then be in line to inherit the Throne, but
WHEREAS that does not seem to be a good idea, and
WHEREAS the current House Law empowers the King to designate an heir, who would then be in line to inherit the Throne, but
WHEREAS that is obviously a bad idea,
THEREFORE the Senäts and Cosâ hereby approve the following amendment to the Organic Law, and transmit it to the populace for ratification:
Article III, sections 4 and 5 of the Organic Law are replaced in their entirety with the following text:
Section 4. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of any King, the Crown shall pass to his next heir; but if the King has no heir, the Crown shall pass to the next heir of the previous King, or (if he in turn has no heir) to the next heir of the next previous King before him, and so on, back to King John.
For the purpose of determining who is the King's next heir, each person shall be followed in the line of succession by his natural legitimate sons in order of their birth (each followed by his own descendants) followed by his natural legitimate daughters in order of their birth (each followed by her own descendants).
If the Crown should pass to any person who does not wish at that juncture to become King, who cannot legally be King, who is suspended from the line of succession, who is not a citizen of Talossa, or who has previously been King and has abdicated the Throne, it shall instead pass to the next person after him in the line of succession.
Section 5. The Ziu may, by a resolution of two thirds of each House, not subject to veto, suspend any person from his place in the line of succession, and may, by a resolution of a majority of either House, not subject to veto, remove such a suspension and restore the suspended person to his place.
FURTHERMORE, the King, the Senäts, and the Cosâ in this present Ziu assembled, hereby enact that:
Upon the ratification and proclamation of the above amendment, the House Law of 11 February 1989 and The Royal Succession Act (25RZ37) are repealed.
Uréu q'estadra så: Alexander Davis (Senator, Maritiimi-Maxhestic) Baron Hooligan (MC, RUMP)
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on May 21, 2007 21:37:07 GMT -6
Yes, it's time again for a serious discussion about the hereditary monarchy.
This particular proposal might well end up being something we settle for. But it's not--in my opinion, which I will elaborate on soon enough--an especially workable or elegant solution.
What it has going for it is that it neither satifies those of us like me--who want to have a more straightforward mechanism for correcting any insufficiences in the royal line of succession--nor some of us in the RUMP party who seem to be appalled by the whispiest suggestion that the people of the Kingdom have any say whatsovever in who becomes the next King of Talossa.
The DOTT will likely Clark it's proposal for June, so we'll have options to debate.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on May 22, 2007 12:43:02 GMT -6
FIRSTLY a fairly minor consideration:
“For the purpose of determining who is the King's next heir, each person shall be followed in the line of succession by his natural legitimate sons in order of their birth (each followed by his own descendants) followed by his natural legitimate daughters in order of their birth (each followed by her own descendants).”
The consideration here is about the King’s children. If he adopts a child, should not that child be allowed to be in the line of succession? Especially since the Ziu has to accept that by a two-thirds vote anyway.
SECONDLY a matter of more importance:
Section 5 of the proposal: “The Ziu may, by a resolution of two thirds of each House, not subject to veto, suspend any person from his place in the line of succession, and may, by a resolution of a majority of either House, not subject to veto, remove such a suspension and restore the suspended person to his place.”
This sounds as if the Ziu at the slightest whim may remove an heir and restore the heir again whenever it wants and as often as it wants. I am not against the idea of giving the Ziu power in regard to the heir. If nothing else we need a compromise. However, I do not think this is the right manner to do it. Nor do I like the “provisional period” for the King as our count suggested. At this point I have no alternative to suggest, but I am considering it and I am quite open to listening to any options anyone else has and any arguments in favor of those already existing.
Debate? Isn't that what we do now? When it's in the Clark don't we just vote?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 22, 2007 13:26:48 GMT -6
No. The nature of the hereditary monarchy is such as to allow adoptions to insert themselves into the line would create chaos, I believe. I agree that this is a minor concession, and if others who voted against you agree with you, I would be willing to consider removing it for now. But I stand by it, and think it is important.
Slightest whim? It's a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority. I believe this is a just and fair concession to the many Talossans who want some control over the succession.
As for the DOTT, I believe they stand firm on their call for elections prior to confirmation of a new King, so I am not sure what debate on this particular bill will serve. The Count is right to foresee a debate for the next Clark, when they have an alternative proposal to offer and appropriate discussion has taken place.
I will oppose any more severe democratization of the succession than what is outlined above. The Ziu should not have the power to elect new Kings as each one passes, or else we might as well call them Presidents.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on May 22, 2007 16:52:57 GMT -6
No. The nature of the hereditary monarchy is such as to allow adoptions to insert themselves into the line would create chaos, I believe. I agree that this is a minor concession, and if others who voted against you agree with you, I would be willing to consider removing it for now. But I stand by it, and think it is important. I can think of a whole bunch of hypothetical situations. I don't know how helpful that would be, so I will restrain myself. However, children who have been adopted would likely feel slighted if they were passed over merely because they happened not to be natural children, especially those who were adopted when very young. I too am willing to consider conceding this point, but first I would wish to hear more viewpoints. I did not express myself clearly enough before (as usual). What I was saying is that--whether through intent or the imprecise language in section five--the bill seems to say that the Ziu at any time during the heir's life up until the time he becomes king may remove him or replace him. This does not make sense to me. I think--or I think I think--that it makes more sense to have a time period in which this takes place, but BEFORE the heir becomes king. Is this clearer? Perhaps the Count will clarify this for us then. I thought they just wanted the ability to correct "insufficiencies in the royal line of succession" by having the chance to get any bad heirs out. Perhaps I misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 22, 2007 20:58:37 GMT -6
I believe the Ziu should have this power, and the time when it is exercised is irrelevant. Still, I believe it would come in handy far more often to have at hand at more than a single point.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 23, 2007 8:18:25 GMT -6
I believe the Ziu should have this power, and the time when it is exercised is irrelevant. Still, I believe it would come in handy far more often to have at hand at more than a single point. How could we even define a time period within which to remove an heir, unless that time period is after the heir becomes king? One doesn't normally know in advance (unless one is The One) when a king will leave the throne, so it is possible to define the period as "within six months after the heir becomes king" but not as "within six months before the heir becomes king." How about saying that within the first year of a king's reign, the Ziu may disqualify the new king's heir? That wouldn't work, because often there is no heir at the time of a new king's ascension. If we said a new period opens up each time a new heir apparent or heir presumptive enters the order of succession, the Ziu would have to pass on the suitability of an infant prince within months of his birth. The only other possibility that occurs to me is abandoning the principle of "le roi est mort, vive le roi" ("the king is dead, long live the king") and create an automatic interregnum so that the heir does not actually ascend to the throne for some months, during which period the Ziu could act to interrupt the normal order of succession.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on May 23, 2007 8:53:37 GMT -6
The only other possibility that occurs to me is abandoning the principle of "le roi est mort, vive le roi" ("the king is dead, long live the king") and create an automatic interregnum so that the heir does not actually ascend to the throne for some months, during which period the Ziu could act to interrupt the normal order of succession. That sounds more sensible to me
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
Videbimus Omnes
Posts: 400
|
Post by Danihel Laurieir on May 23, 2007 9:16:44 GMT -6
Justice Siervicül writes:
"The only other possibility that occurs to me is abandoning the principle of "le roi est mort, vive le roi" ("the king is dead, long live the king") and create an automatic interregnum so that the heir does not actually ascend to the throne for some months, during which period the Ziu could act to interrupt the normal order of succession."
I take this to be a pretty good description--perhaps with a few rhetorical adjustments (I speak , for example, of a provisional period during which the new King is not fully invested with the royal powers, not an interregnum)--of the proposal I've offered.
Is this is a "possibility" you raise in order to dismiss because it is so obviously not acceptable to hardline hereditarists?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 23, 2007 10:05:53 GMT -6
I take this to be a pretty good description--perhaps with a few rhetorical adjustments (I speak , for example, of a provisional period during which the new King is not fully invested with the royal powers, not an interregnum)--of the proposal I've offered. Is this is a "possibility" you raise in order to dismiss because it is so obviously not acceptable to hardline hereditarists? No, I'm just trying to cover all the bases, with respect to practicality. If we are trying to find a way for the Ziu to have some power to prevent the throne from passing into unfit hands, there are three "windows" within which such a power could be exercised: 1. Before the old king leaves the throne and the unfit heir ascends. 2. After the old king leaves the throne and the unfit heir ascends. 3. In between those two events, which would require creating some kind of gap. Discussion had been about 1 versus 2, so it occurred to me that 3 was also a possibility. Your proposal sounds to me like it's halfway between 2 and 3 - the new heir ascends, but not "all the way"?
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on May 23, 2007 14:34:39 GMT -6
Actually this is an idea I have been toying with.
It is similar. However, I think the importance is more than rhetorical. The heir becoming king so the people can try him out basically seems to me fairly different from having a chance to remove an unfit heir before he becomes king.
What about this (I am not sure of the merits of this idea; I am just throwing it out for the sake of discussion): When the heir reaches the legal age he is called before the Ziu to be examined on his suitability. At this point the Ziu would be able to remove him from the line of succession.
It does have its disadvantages though: for instance, the heir could not become king for another forty years and a lot can change in that time.
As I am almost certainly without doubt one of those described as "hardline hereditarists" I will answer this: I do not see how this third possibility is any less acceptable than any of the other possibilities. Whichever way it happens the Ziu has some say in the hereditariness. I am concerned with figuring out the best, most practical and least intrusive way for this to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on May 23, 2007 15:00:15 GMT -6
I have been thinking about the adoption issue. My current thinking is that we should leave it out of the discussion for now. Even if we wish to completely remove adopted children from the line of succession it does not seem this has too much effect upon the current bill. (Oh...except for the part where it says "natural legitimate children", but that could be modified in a second bill without too much difficulty it seems to me.)
As it is now--with the Ziu having to accept an adopted heir by a two-thirds majority--it seems rather silly. I mean if the Ziu is going to be able to remove an unfit heir before he becomes king anyway, this seems pointless.
Whether or not we want to have adopted children in the line of succession though is really a matter of risks versus benefits. There is a risk that the king could adopt someone we would really rather not have in the line of succession, but then we have the Ziu able to remove said child as an heir, so really it doesn't matter too much anyway. So really the risks seem fairly minimal. On the other hand what if the king doesn't have an heir? Or what if he wants to adopt someone into the line of succession who would make a great king? Do we really want to cut ourselves off from this?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2007 20:58:38 GMT -6
On the approval question, it seems to me that there is a distinct and important difference between the power to remove someone from the line of succession and an interregnum approval period: one is confirming an heir, the other is confirming the king himself at the point at which he should already be king. The latter, it seems to me, is not a power that should be possessed by the people, for the King is the King. That may be a little Gertrude Stein, but it states my position, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on May 27, 2007 21:37:32 GMT -6
This is true with the tradition of the throne never being empty (except in very uncommon and unfortunate interregnums), the tradition of which Justice Siervicül spoke. Because this is the tradition I and everyone else are familiar with, I have been reluctant to really consider this as a possibility and so I have merely been toying with it.
However, the reason I am considering it is because it does seem to take less power from the king. These two circumstances are rather different in terms of the power given to the Ziu:
1. The Ziu can at any time remove not only the heir apparent, but any person from the line of succession by a two-thirds majority. It gives them (or rather us) quite a bit of power.
2. For a brief interregnum after the death of a king, the Ziu may remove an unfit heir before he becomes king.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I am still not sure what I think is the best way, although I am leaning toward the latter, except that I do not quite like getting rid of the tradition of the heir ascending immediately upon the king's death or abdication.
I think I would be happier with the former though if the power of removal were restricted to the heir apparent.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 27, 2007 22:02:23 GMT -6
I would be happy to agree to such a compromise on the matter. If I amend the bill accordingly, will you give it your support?
|
|