Reforming the Talossan Monarchy

[Hooligan]

Fellow legislators --

As your Prime Minister, I have been asked by the principal sponsors of two measures proposing changes to the House Law and the Law of Royal Succession to chair and convene, as I now do, a bicameral session of the Ziu for the purposes of debating the topics covered by these measures.

This thread will serve as the forum for the debate, which is to be conducted by any and all interested members of this joint Committee of the Whole consisting of all members of the Ziu (the King, the Senäts, and the Cosâ).

Both Senator Davis and Speaker Lauriéir have prepared some opening remarks, and I would ask that all other members of the Ziu please not rise to speak until both opening statements have been delivered.

After the opening remarks, the chair will recognize (no need to ask) whomever wishes to speak. Please conduct yourselves with the decorum that is expected of a Talossan legislator (actually, hmmm; perhaps we should aspire to better than that). Please remember to address your remarks to the chair and not to your fellow members, and to yield the floor at the conclusion of each speech. Just because it's cool.

The chair recognizes S:reu Speaker or Senator Davis. Gentlemen, you have the floor.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The freshman Senator spends some time trying to get out of the high chair that he was lovingly strapped into before finally freeing himself and rising awkwardly to address his assembled fellow legislators.

Honored companions,

We are here to discuss the future of the law regarding the throne. I have strong opinions on the matter, so I would be thankful if you would bear with me. I am inexperienced, and can rely in this only on my passion and my convictions.

It is my position that we, as Talossans, are obligated to respect the sacred authority of the throne. Only in time of gravest crisis has it been empty, and restoring it seems to have always been of the greatest importance. And it is because of this importance and the vitality of Talossa, embodied in the King, that I am opposed to the sweeping changes advocated by the DOTT to the OrgLaw's provisions governing the procession of power in the royal line.

I have twice proposed legislation which would reform the laws guiding the inheritance of the throne. The first time, I was undermined by my own haste in trying to see it come to a vote. This second time, I have halted the process myself in order to have this sort of dialogue. Both times, however, I have held myself to two rules. These rules are contrasting, but the tension between the two results in a quiet place of calm reform and respect: (a) the law about the throne needs fixing, (b) but it does not need replacing.

I believe the first point is self-evident; the laws are scattered and sometimes contrary, and consolidating them makes everything simpler and easier for us to follow our hallowed traditions.

The second point is less evident, but perhaps even more important. The law is broken, but not beyond repair. When we take the pieces from disparate places (House Law, amended by the statutory law, and also in the OrgLaw), and craft them back together, we are not abandoning them. The sword is broken, but we are reforging it into a brighter, stronger version of itself. We do not throw it away.

My esteemed colleague in the other house, Count Lauriéir, stated in his recent relevant act that "we've been unwilling to let anyone except those who have truly earned our respect and trust to rule as Kings. "

But less us be frank: that is not the case. I am an average student of Talossan history, but even I can see that the tyrannies of Ruourge were tolerated long past when they should have been halted. We valued tradition and the sanctity of royal blood, and so cleft to him. It was a mistake, but a good-hearted mistake. We must not abandon such ideals. Should Talossa, God bless her, pass from this earth because we have held the sanctity of the throne over the practical and cynical notion of an "elected king", I will thank every Talossan and revere her ideals, but will count it a just trade. I quote Commander William Adama when I say, "It is not enough just to survive... we must be worthy of surviving."

The foolish young Senator waits to see if anyone catches the Battlestar Galactica reference, then sighs and continues.

Accordingly, the number of changes I and those who support the RUMP's position in this are relatively few. We wish the law clarified and consolidated, and a single potent power given to the Ziu to guide the royal line: the power to remove heirs from the line of succession. We oppose an interregnum, as it makes the King beholden to approval. We oppose probation as downright insulting. Other sections of my proposed bill are less important, and we can perhaps reach agreement upon them.

We wish to mend, not replace. We wish to keep the King, not gain a President-for-Life. No elections for the throne. Only honor and tradition.

[Danihel Laurieir]

Mr. Chairman (whoever you are and if you are a man in the chair), fellow legislators and members of the Great Talossan Public:

I have been a citizen of Talossa longer than most, and I rise tonight to defend the integrity and meaning of the Talossan throne.

According to the Organic Law, Talossa is a constitutional hereditary monarchy.

Tonight I will make this claim, which will strike some ears as paradoxical: the meaning and authority of the throne of Talossa will be debased and perverted if we ignore Talossan experience and tradition and stick to a simplistic hereditary method of passing on the throne.

At this juncture in our history—after the founding King has abdicated, after his heir was "abdicated" by his Regency, after the popular election of a relative newcomer to Talossa as King—we must and we are considering reforms to our Monarchy.

In my view, the single most important thing to accomplish in our reforms of the Monarchy is to give ourselves the power to choose the best person—regardless of whether they are genetically related to a person who has been a Talossan for under 3 years—for the throne.

But, you may ask, doesn't this fly in the face of Talossan tradition?

Yes and no. In some ways of looking at the matter it does, and it other ways—more significant and true ways—it doesn't.

Let me explain.

It's true that under the Organic Law King Robert I's throne was to be inherited by his line. As one of the people who participated in writing the Organic Law in the early days, I can tell you that none of us—save perhaps Ben himself—really ever thought that anyone but Ben would be King. He was, after all, the creator of the Kingdom, the inventor of its language and its myths and many of its institutions. In addition, his personal activities and friendships were the glue that kept the Kingdom together through many years (quite a few more than three).

In their Organic Law, the citizens of Talossa—at that time—in deference to Ben's unique (and this word is used with it's exclusive meaning) role in the Kingdom's life recognized authority and democratically granted him royal powers. I certainly never took seriously the thought of pledging loyalty to another King simply because he was Ben's heir. And I think it's fair to say that many of us took the hereditary nature of the Talossan monarchy with a grain of salt.

Until King John, Kings who were not Ben were—at best—tolerated.

And that's because the authority of the Talossan monarchy was rooted in one man's indisputable contributions to Talossan, not in some blood mystery. This is a fact of our history.

Today—under King John—Talossa is in many ways a better place. It's a testament to Ben that Talossa can survive, and thrive, without him. Like King Robert I, King John's authority derives in fact from his support among the people and their recognition of his contributions (which, while impressive, do not yet come close to King Robert I's). If Talossa can flourish without its seminal King's blood flowing in the current King's veins, what's the Talossan argument for a strictly hereditary monarchy? What grievous damage have we suffered because a spawn of Ben is not in the throne?

I think Talossa should continue to call itself a constitutional hereditary monarchy, but I think we should feel entitled (as a free and self-respecting and creative people) to put forward our own interpretation of what that means. (After all, Talossa itself is our joint expression of a country.) Let's say—as I've argued before—that when the current King leaves the throne for whatever reason, the King's heir prepares to sit on the throne. But before he (or she) does, the people are allowed to consider people outside the royal bloodline. If the people are satisfied that the heir is no thin-blooded nitwit and would be proud to have him (or her) on the throne, then so be it. But if another Sir John is out there at the time, then let's give ourselves the power to recognize our leaders when we see them!

I apologize for the rambling nature of this speech, and I stop now…but not quite…I'd like to thank Senator Davis for agreeing to renew the debate on this subject, though I had hoped—perhaps uselessly—that the RUMP and the DOTT could have jointly proposed a mutually acceptable compromise on this matter as a way of inaugurating this discussion about reforming the Talossan Monarchy…but perhaps we'll get there at it's conclusion instead.

I yield the floor.

[Hooligan]

The chair thanks both members for their addresses, and now opens the floor for general discussion and debate, the aim of this joint session being just as the His Lordship the Speaker hopes -- to reach, if possible, consensus on a new draft bill to be put before the Ziu for its consideration and approbation.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The Senator from Maritiimi-Maxhestic staggers to his feet, stein in hand.

Let me thank the Count for his remarks. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I am honored.

I feel that there is a particular point of his, however, that merits addressing. Your Grace, you say that we must put forward our own interpretation of a constitutional hereditary monarchy, but the version you seem to propose, with an opportunity for citizens to elect new people, has only the flimsiest resemblance to a hereditary monarchy. It appears instead to be a plan for regular election of a president-for-life.

The key factors here are the interregnum/probation period and their automatic nature.

Whether we call it an interregnum or probation period, this time during which the potential monarch is under scrutiny to see if they are unacceptable or not is ludicrous. What would be the outcome? A monarch who is well-behaved for a month, and a profound insult to the throne. Far better would be the power of the Ziu to remove a malfactor from his place as heir: it would be almost certainly unused power of last resort, could be undone in accordance with the Talossan ideal of forgiveness and reform, and would be a respectful check against the inheritor.

The automatic nature of this election/probation/interregnum period means that we are left with no choice: the right of the heir to ascend WILL be challenged, implicitly by this opportunity to deny it. That undermines the entire idea of the inheritance of the throne profoundly, and accordingly the potency of the crown itself.

The King should not rule and come to power at the whim of the people. This is harsh but it is the nature of the monarchy. The people should have the power to challenge a future king, but must not be mandated to do so.

I thank you for your continued patience, and yield.

[Danihel Laurieir]

Mr. Chairman of the joint committee of the Ziu (who is that? is that you Mr. Prime Minister? Me? Lord Q? Who?):

The good Senator Davis believes that if we respect the authority of the Talossan throne we simply cannot support electing Monarchs. He says that if we were to adopt the proposal I'm advocating, we'd be adopting a "plan for the regular election of a president-for-life." And such a plan, according to Senator Davis at least, is incompatible with what he calls the honor and tradition of Talossa's monarchy.

In response, I want to do three things.

First, I'll summarize my proposal again to give us all a clear idea about what it is. Second, I'll suggest that "electing a Monarch" is not an oxymoronic phrase. And third, I'll argue that if we don't "fix" the monarchy along lines similar to those I'm suggesting, we will risk serious damage to the throne's integrity.

Here's the key stuff about my proposal about how we handle the transition between Kings in the future. When the current King leaves the throne for whatever reason, the heir assumes the throne provisionally and without full royal powers. During the provisional period, the Ziu may—but is not required or expected to—pass legislation to seek the Kingdom's ratification to put someone other than the provisional King on the throne. If that happens, then this new person becomes King and his or her line is the new royal line. If it doesn't happen, then after the provisional period has expired, the heir is invested with full royal powers.

This proposal gives the Kingdom the chance to pick a true leader as King and at the same time allows the Kingdom the choice to anoint the heir of the current King. It attempts to strike a balance between two very strong Talossan traditions: wanting true leaders (like King John) to serve as Kings; and a having a hereditary monarchy (like we had with King Louis or whatever his name was).

The details of my proposal—as I've said repeatedly and hopefully—are open to change. But Senator Davis is wrong to say that my proposal "mandates" that the people "challenge a future King." Rather, it gives the people an option—something they can exercise or not—to choose their King should the royal line fail to produce somebody worthy to sit on the throne.

To many ears, "electing a Monarch" sounds like a self-contradictory phrase. It's not. I'm no historian but Kings have been elected in ancient Rome and in Ireland among other places. The Pope—while not technically a King—is elected, and is hardly scorned as a mere" president-for-life."

More to the point (since I really don't care too much about what other peoples have done), Talossa's monarchy has—for most of its history—been intimately connected with popular support expressed through ratifications and elections. Let me cite just two examples:

(1) The Kingdom's Organic Law gives the King his power, and this law was adopted in a popular referendum; and

(2) King John, in case people forgot, was elected! (Maybe Senator Davis should call him President John?)

The point of this mini-history lesson is that Talossa's monarchy has its own very real tradition and that tradition includes a much closer relationship with "democracy" than Senator Davis seems to be aware of. He thinks Talossa should fit into some storybook notion of what a hereditary monarchy is. The fact is, it doesn't.

Like Senator Davis, I consider myself to be defending the honor and tradition of Talossa's throne. I suppose my position is slightly trickier to express because my defense of Talossa's tradition involves changing words that have been in our law books for some time. But, unlike Senator Davis, I have been around Talossa for a while now, and one thing that I've learned is that that Talossans care—and care a lot—about who is on the throne regardless of what the law says. I want to be clear about this. When I say Talossans care about who is on the throne, I'm saying that they care about the leadership qualities of that person—not about their bloodline and not about whether the previous King named them the heir. Who—not just what—is King matters to Talossa, and Talossans know that.

If we continue under current law or under Senator Davis' re-statement of current law, then we're likely to get another King Louis eventually—a King that got almost no respect, except for some verbal genuflections. That will be a disaster. That will debase the throne. That will dishonor our tradition.

I will not bow before such a "King," nor will I be able to respect those who do.

Therefore we must modify our laws to match our values.

I yield the floor.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I will wait for at least one other person's input into the matter before I continue. Since any MC OR any Senator can participate in this bicameral discussion, I like to think that someone will take enough of an interest in the future of the monarchy to do so.

[Brad Holmes]

I feel slightly uncomfortable entering this fray, as I don't have even 15 months around Talossa. I try to keep my head down and learn from those more experienced than myself. But there has been a request for two cents. Here are mine.

Party lines aside, I agree with Senator Davis.

I think heirs should be evaluated before ascension to the throne is even an issue. If somebody is unfit, slam them in the breech and send them down range. Make sure there is an adequate heir before we need a new monarch.

But to let somebody ascend the throne, have them rule (even provisionally), THEN to find them unfit and remove them just doesn't make a lot of sense. While the King's powers come from the people, as the leader of the Kingdom he shouldn't be an impotent ruler, under threat of being rejected, the way he would be under a provisional period.

The Senator's plan also serves a second important purpose. It forces the Kingdom to be proactive in protecting the throne and country. In the event of a sudden loss of Monarch (such as being taken hostage, death, other unforeseen and incapacitating circumstances), the heir has already been evaluated and can ascend with minimal hassle during a traumatic time. The transition would be smoother.

I humbly and ineloquently yield the floor.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

Sitting on the beams of the room, the Senator for Mussolini speaks up:

At the moment I only have a few things to point out:

Firstly, these two measures are inherently incompatible.

Secondly, a quote: "A good compromise leaves both sides unhappy." (I forget the exact wording...)

Thirdly, that doesn't mean we should give up. There is actually a median here, but I don't know as it will please anyone.

I yield the--shrugs, looking down from the beam--floor.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Let me take a moment to again express my respect and delight to be debating with the Count, whose opinions I value and whose history I respect enormously. I wish for nothing I say to reflect on my personal opinion of him, regardless of politics, and thank him for his endless contributions to the state.

The details of my proposal—as I've said repeatedly and hopefully—are open to change. But Senator Davis is wrong to say that my proposal "mandates" that the people "challenge a future King." Rather, it gives the people an option—something they can exercise or not—to choose their King should the royal line fail to produce somebody worthy to sit on the throne.

I would beg to differ, Conta. According to your plan, there would be an automatic provisional period. The King's authority to rule would automatically be under question, whether or not the Ziu chose to question it.

To many ears, "electing a Monarch" sounds like a self-contradictory phrase. It's not. I'm no historian but Kings have been elected in ancient Rome and in Ireland among other places. The Pope—while not technically a King—is elected, and is hardly scorned as a mere" president-for-life."

The Kings of Rome were never elected. Rome passed from a hereditary monarchy (although conflict meant that it was not always father-to-son), to a Republic, with elected officials and no king, and then to an Empire with chosen/hereditary emperors.
To my knowledge, the Kings of Ireland have never been elected, either. That title went from various English monarchs to a Spanish one and back around, but it was never elected. Perhaps some tribal leaders were elected before the country was united under conquest, but that is not the same thing.
The Pope is indeed not a King.
All of the provided examples merely enforce my point: monarchs are not elected, and the vast majority (in fact, all, inasmuch as I can tell) are not so. Consuls were elected in Rome, Ecclesiastical officials are elected in the Vatican, and Presidents are elected everywhere else. Kings are not.

More to the point (since I really don't care too much about what other peoples have done), Talossa's monarchy has—for most of its history—been intimately connected with popular support expressed through ratifications and elections. Let me cite just two examples:
(1) The Kingdom's Organic Law gives the King his power, and this law was adopted in a popular referendum; and
(2) King John, in case people forgot, was elected! (Maybe Senator Davis should call him President John?)

From the best I can tell, the Talossan monarchy, through almost its entire history, has been dominated by Ben I. The brief interludes without his presence on the throne were enacted with his permission, and when he desired to come back, he did so. It was not until his final abdication and severing with the throne that it passed to his heir, and not until that abdication that it was left open. Regardless of the appearance or semantics of things, and what laws were ratified and whether or not Ben was a fascist or a communist or whatever at that moment, the royal line was invested in him and everyone knew it. I beg your suffrance, but that is what it appears to me from the history. You were the Great Opposition back in the day, do you feel that this was not the case?

King John was elected in the most dire and darkest circumstances, in a situation which no other monarchy has faced. Almost always, there is a distant relative willing to take over the throne, or someone strong enough and amoral enough to try to occupy it. But Talossa had neither extended family of the monarch nor evil Talossans. His election should be a single event, not repeated. He is now the King, and the crown should be invested within him and in his blood.

If we continue under current law or under Senator Davis' re-statement of current law, then we're likely to get another King Louis eventually—a King that got almost no respect, except for some verbal genuflections. That will be a disaster. That will debase the throne. That will dishonor our tradition.

I believe that our King will raise his heirs in such a manner as to invest them with the qualities necessary for kingship. There will always be a risk of a foul heir, which is why my proposal is necessary, to allow for some degree of censuring without affronting the throne.

[Danihel Laurieir]

Dear Fellow Talossans:

As many of you know already, I'm not above playing the role of advocatus diaboli: doing so is fun (a red-faced, horned, forked-tongue sort of amusement) for me, and on occasion has—I hope this is not too immodest of a claim—added some spice to the Kingdom's political life. But on the issue of the nature and form of Talossa's monarchy, I am in angelic earnest.

I really do think that the strength of our Kings derives not from their bloodlines but rather from their character and accomplishments. And I really do think that clinging to a hereditary method of succession violates our tradition and our deepest values, but not—I know—our now long-standing laws.

If you want to understand how I can have such a perspective on Talossa's monarchy, please, please, please, please, please, visit the Kingdom's web page dedicated to the history of Talossa's Kings. This history, written well and with wit by pro-Monarchists, shows not only that Talossa's throne has passed via non-blood-related means, but also—and much more importantly—how it has most warmly welcomed only those people who Talossans have overwhelmingly recognized as true and exceptional leaders of Talossa. I'd argue that Talossa has not merely survived having a Monarchy defined by merit over blood, but has endured because of it. (Given our history, can anyone seriously argue that a hereditary monarchy is key to understanding Talossa's history, to insuring that it will endure for 28 years or 28 years more?)

I can see the appeal of the conceit of a hereditary monarchy. It is, after all, more like what other countries do. It's got a lot of retro cache. And it reflects the laws we have on our books. But our actual history—our real experience as active Talossans—should lead us to view the value of a strictly hereditary monarchy with caution.

Imagine if Sir John Woolley's arguments—when he still occupied the lowly station of a mere "Sir"—had won the day when the Boy King What's-His-Name (BKWHN) would be our King. Sir John argued in favor of maintaining BKWHN as Talossa's King because he was the legitimate heir to the throne according to hereditary line specified by the Organic Law.

Had then-Sir John's arguments prevailed, we would have had a long regency during which—due the BKWHN's likely utter lack of interest—the throne would have faded into a mere bauble of state. It would have become insignificant, ignorable. And the Talossan throne—which, in its highest glory and luster hosts an incomparably engegetic Talossan patriot—would have become instead a dusty curiosity cabinet.

Fortunately, few Talossan's were persuaded by Sir John's arguments and instead clamored for him to ascend to the throne. This turn of events was predictable because Talossans want—have always wanted and, I'd wager, will always want—somebody who deserves the throne rather than somebody who merely inherits it.

Senator Davis's proposed legislation--for which he has argued in this thread with coherency and passion--would largely maintain our current hereditary system, but with one key amendment: he would allow the Ziu to veto the ascension of un-worthies in the hereditary line. This change might well help us avoid future BKWHN problems, but not—it's worth noting—without lots of unavoidable political wrangling. What the Senator's proposal doesn't do—and this is its fatal flaw—is allow Talossa to cut to the chase and choose a genuine leader regardless of parentage as its King. And, as even recent history has proven, this is something Talossans will probably do anyway. So, why not modify our laws to reflect our hearts? In the end, doing so will be less messy and truer to our values.

My dear Talossans, the time has come to do something proper and satisying to our better angels--and that is to spank the RUMP hard for being naughty and proposing legislation that would debase the throne of Talossa!

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

These will be my closing remarks on this debate, as I believe it has sufficiently run its course. Despite our best efforts at a middle path, there does indeed appear to be an insoluble difference in intended policies between myself and the Conta. I respect him beyond all reckoning, but nonetheless disagree.

As I have indicated, I believe an elected King is simply a President, and that the current form of the monarchy should be maintained with the minor amendments which I have indicated to help safeguard it from malfeasance. My plan may necessitate effort and some manner of political processes, as well as vigilance on behalf of the populace, but I believe that the path of solemn respect and keen observation is preferable to essentially abandoning the institution because it is too tough. Trashing the throne and calling a President-for-life a King is a solution to our problems, but it is not the right solution. To draw on the treasured political tactic of "absurd analogies which only obfuscate the issue", which has always served me well, this would be like taking a child with a bad haircut and putting him in the orphanage, rather than simply fixing his hair. "Daddy?", he would say, looking around the cold stone walls of the orphanage. "Why did you leave me?"

Don't abandon that child to chilly loneliness. Maintain the dignity and sovereignty of the throne.

The freshman Senator waits for the inevitable showers of flowers and tearful applause, then finally sits down to sulk.