The Tim Act (The Home Improvement Acts I)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I have placed the least objectionable portions of the former Replacing the House Law bill into this separate portion. This will hopefully be simpler.

---

The Tim Act
Home Improvement Acts Part One

WHEREAS, the House Law and the Royal Succession Act and the Organic Law all govern in some respects the succession of the throne, and,

WHEREAS that's confusing and redundant, and,

WHEREAS redundancy is undesirable, and,

WHEREAS redundancy is undesirable, and,

WHEREAS there are several needed changes to minor respects of these laws as well, such as the new name of the dynasty, and,

WHEREAS making the necessary minor changes and disestablishing the redundant laws are neither particularly contentious in nature and seem favored by the public, and,

WHEREAS the more difficult and controversial change to the previous iteration of this bill has been segregated to a separate bill, in the interest of clarity and ease of legislation,

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. The Throne shall be inherited by the descendants of His Majesty, John I, King of Talossa. The present Royal Family is styled El Ca Lupul (The House and Dynasty of Lupul). 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 children (whether born or unborn at the time of
the King's death) in order of their birth (each followed by their own descendants).

Section 5. 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.

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)

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I have two suggestions regarding the second sentence of the first paragraph of section 4:

1. I would remove the words "as is appropriate on historic grounds." The House of Rouergue was a medieval French noble dynasty, and King Robert I adopted their name for his own royal dynasty "on historic grounds": due to a claimed genealogical link between him and a Rouergue Count of Toulouse. The language in question doesn't make sense anymore, because the name Lupul isn't an attempt to assert a connection to some other historical dynasty.

2. Instead of La Casâ és la Dünastà Lupul, I would use El Ca Lupul." The Talossan word ca means "house" in the specific sense of a dynastic house. So El Ca Lupul captures everything the English version.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Excellent suggestions, and I thank the learned justice for them.

[Enríc Válbuerg]

In the interests of gender equality, I think that
"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)."

Should become
"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 children in order of their birth (each followed by their own descendants)."

[Xhorxh Asmour]

I favor the changes proposed by Justice Siervicül and Enric.
I don't support gender discrimination.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Male-preference primogeniture (sons succeeding before daughters) is part of the current law. Which isn't to say we can't change it now if we really want to, I just don't want anyone to think that S:reu Davis's proposal is attempting to impose that rule on Talossa. We already have it.

Here are the main things (as I see them) that would be changed by this proposal:

1. Right now there is a paragraph about succession in the Organic Law that refers to a separate House Law with detailed rules about succession. This amendment would eliminate the separate House Law by bringing everything related to the royal succession into the Organic Law (and dramatically simplifying it at the same time).

2. Right now adopted children are capable of entering the order of succession. This amendment would eliminate that possibility. I'm ambivalent about that. His Majesty has made some good points about the dangers of royal adoptions, but I generally support the legal equality of biological and adopted children.

3. The current House Law says "A child with which a woman is pregnant at the time of the King's death shall be considered as being born as far as the right to the crown is concerned. If it is born dead it shall be considered as having never existed." This subject, which contributed to the confusion surrounding the succession to the Macedonian throne upon the death of Alexander the Great, is not addressed in the amendment, so the position of an unborn heir would be less secure than under current law. At common law, an unborn child has inheritance rights. I believe most modern constitutional monarchies include unborn children in the order of succession as well.

4. Under the current House Law, if no heir to the throne exists, one can be named by law (approved by 2/3 of the Cosâ), even prior to the death of the reigning monarch. The amendment eliminates that mechanism.

5. The current House Law grants the Cosâ the right to consent to any marriage of the monarch or of a prince or princess of the royal house. The amendment contains no restrictions on royal marriages.

Also, the provisions of Article III, Section 5 of the Organic Law are mostly incorporated in this amendment. Which means that if this amendment is adopted but the Al Act (with a new Art III Sec 5) is not, sections 4 and 5 of Article III will be horribly redundant.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

minh said:

In the interests of gender equality, I think that
"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)."

Should become
"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 children in order of their birth (each followed by their own descendants)."

Certainly a valid point, and worth removing from the language. Queen Elizabeth (both of them) aptly proved that woman can be just as effective as men.

siervicul said:

2. Right now adopted children are capable of entering the order of succession. This amendment would eliminate that possibility. I'm ambivalent about that. His Majesty has made some good points about the dangers of royal adoptions, but I generally support the legal equality of biological and adopted children.

This is a hard one. I deferred to the King's wishes on the matter, and for the time being I am content with it.

siervicul said:

3. The current House Law says "A child with which a woman is pregnant at the time of the King's death shall be considered as being born as far as the right to the crown is concerned. If it is born dead it shall be considered as having never existed." This subject, which contributed to the confusion surrounding the succession to the Macedonian throne upon the death of Alexander the Great, is not addressed in the amendment, so the position of an unborn heir would be less secure than under current law. At common law, an unborn child has inheritance rights. I believe most modern constitutional monarchies include unborn children in the order of succession as well.

4. Under the current House Law, if no heir to the throne exists, one can be named by law (approved by 2/3 of the Cosâ), even prior to the death of the reigning monarch. The amendment eliminates that mechanism.

Good thinking, and good eye! Both changes will be made.

siervicul said:

5. The current House Law grants the Cosâ the right to consent to any marriage of the monarch or of a prince or princess of the royal house. The amendment contains no restrictions on royal marriages.

This was intentional.

siervicul said:

Also, the provisions of Article III, Section 5 of the Organic Law are mostly incorporated in this amendment. Which means that if this amendment is adopted but the Al Act (with a new Art III Sec 5) is not, sections 4 and 5 of Article III will be horribly redundant.

I agree, and that will be something that will have to be remedied if that were to happen. It was an unfortunate effect of dividing my original bill into two parts. I believe I will do a bit of editing, and change the language here to fix this, and do some renumbering on the Al act.

Your Honour, let me thank you profusely yet again, for your close reading and careful jurisprudence are invaluable.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I have made the changes indicated:
Male and female heirs are now equal in the order of succession.
The two parts of the House Law which pertain to unborn children and the lack of a viable heir have been restored.
The subsections have been altered in order to make the passage of either or both of the Home Improvement acts equally workable. I think, anyway.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I'm not sure the old provision about appointing an heir when none exists is a good one. Isn't that just a form of a royal adoption for the sole purpose of producing an heir (e.g. the adoption of Louis)? If we allow that, I can't understand why children brought into the royal family by true adoption should be excluded.

I like your solution to the redundancy issue. It looks to me like each amendment can stand on its own feet now.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

I totally agree with you, Sir Cresti!

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Just a small suggestion, I think that if the king leaves no heirs, then the people should elect a new king...

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

alexandreu said:

Just a small suggestion, I think that if the king leaves no heirs, then the people should elect a new king...

That's pretty much how it works. Article III Section 10 of the Organic Law (which would be unchanged) says:

"If on the death or abdication of the King there be no person entitled to succeed to the Throne, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency pending the election of a new King, and the Ziu may, by a vote of two-thirds in each House, elect a King, who shall succeed to the Throne immediately upon ratification of his election by a majority of the people in a referendum to be held for that sole purpose."

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

agbdavis said:

I have placed the least objectionable portions of the former Replacing the House Law bill into this separate portion. This will hopefully be simpler.

---

The Tim Act
Home Improvement Acts Part One

WHEREAS, the House Law and the Royal Succession Act and the Organic Law all govern in some respects the succession of the throne, and,

WHEREAS that's confusing and redundant, and,

WHEREAS redundancy is undesirable, and,

WHEREAS redundancy is undesirable, and,

WHEREAS there are several needed changes to minor respects of these laws as well, such as the new name of the dynasty, and,

WHEREAS making the necessary minor changes and disestablishing the redundant laws are neither particularly contentious in nature and seem favored by the public, and,

WHEREAS the more difficult and controversial change to the previous iteration of this bill has been segregated to a separate bill, in the interest of clarity and ease of legislation,

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. The Throne shall be inherited by the descendants of His Majesty, John I, King of Talossa. The present Royal Family is styled El Ca Lupul (The House and Dynasty of Lupul). 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 children (whether born or unborn at the time of
the King's death) in order of their birth (each followed by their own descendants).

Section 5. 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.

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)

New current draft.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

After consultation with other legislators and indirect communication from a certain royal personage, I have made more changes (a list of which follows). I am piqued to find that this bill, which I had anticipated being easier, is by a wide margin far more difficult. Or perhaps it is simply that everyone has not even tackled the other, which shall be subject to a vote based on the already-exhaustive debates.

Changes:
Made the language "more elegant" in places, without (I believe) changing legislative effect.
Removed the elected-heir clause.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Do my fellow lawmakers have any other comments upon this legislation? So far my colleagues have been extraordinarily helpful in aiding this poor Senator's clumsy attempts at legislation, and I thank you for it.