The Future Kings Debate

[Danihel Laurieir]

On the eve before the 38th Clark—a Clark that will likely contain two competing proposals relating to how the Crown of the King of Talossa is passed on—I offer my thoughts about why I think the current proposal from the RUMP is inadequate and why I still prefer the solution offered by The Defenders of the Throne.

I had hoped there would be an effort to reach a compromise, but—for whatever reason (some portion of the blame is assuredly mine)—that didn't happen. Now—alas!—open warfare is the only alternative.*

The Four Flaws of the RUMP Proposal

From my perspective, there are four flaws in the current RUMP proposal (I'm referring to the version I've seen in the Hopper):

1. It's sexist. Why privilege the royal line's male heirs? Why must Talossa adhere to this crusty and implausible and wholly unjustifiable tradition copied from what other countries' Kingdom's have done?

2. It's insulting—for no apparently good reason—to adopted children of the King.

3. It forces the Ziu to undertake an unwieldy, labor-intensive and potentially nasty political process to remove any unfit members of the Royal line from the line of succession. Such a process is more likely to result in the Ziu "settling" for an unfit heir than in encouraging it to defend the honor and integrity of the Throne.

4. It makes it very difficult for the Kingdom to select another person (who happens to be far down some dizzyingly long line of succession) of King John's caliber as King should such a person be ready to assume the throne when the current King is "taken from the circles of this world." (King John, I note, was not in the royal line of succession—nor anywhere near it—when he was elected as King.)

Why the DOTT Proposal is Better (if not yet perfect)

The proposal that I shall be Clarking from the DOTT will be substantially similar to the one that's been Hoppered for some time now. It will contain a Section 4 modified to update the line of succession within the royal line while avoiding the flaws of the RUMP proposal, but otherwise will be the same.

As introduced, the DOTT proposal may still require some further tweaking to get the line of succession just so, but it will have one shining virtue that the RUMP proposal lacks: it will specify a simple process by which the Ziu may defend the Throne for occupancy by people who have earned the allegiance and respect of Talossans.

Under the DOTT proposal, when the current King abdicates (by whatever means), the Heir will assume the throne provisionally. During this provisional period the Ziu may—or may not—pass legislation to seek an election to elevate someone other than the Heir presumptive to the throne.

This feature of the DOTT proposal makes it easier for the Kingdom to avoid "settling" for a nitwit on the Throne.

Some think this proposal takes a step closer to becoming a Republic because we will essentially be "electing" a new President every so often—something that's very un-monarchical. That characterization is wrong, I think, and here's why.

First, I don't think many of us think of King John as a mere President even though he was elected by us grubby plebeians. Under the DOTT proposal—just as it is under the RUMP proposal and as under current law—the King is King for life and his line is the royal line, which is given its due deference.

Second, according to Talossan tradition and according to the Organic Law, the King is King because the people have recognized him as such—and have seceded important parts of their natural sovereignty to him (or her). In Talossa, bloodlines are less sacred than a person's true worth and true leadership. When Talossans put someone on the throne—the highest place of honor and responsibility in the Kingdom—that is not at all equivalent to electing a President. It is a higher station and we have always recognized it as such. We don't need the borrowed mysteries of other peoples to tell us who our King is!

All this said, I remain open to further modifications of the DOTT proposal though it seems this present window for compromise has closed. For example, the suggestion that instead of a provisional period for the presumptive new King, there instead be a "forced interregnum" when the Kingdom goes without a King for a brief period while the new King is selected seems viable to me.

I do hope the majority party also remains open to compromise in the future.

*Please indulge this rhetorical flourish. It quickened my phlegmatic humours.

[Hooligan]

Just to quickly answer objections 1 and 2 to the RUMP proposal -- neither of these is a change at all from the current law of succession. It was a conscious decision when drafting the bill to change as little as possible, in hopes to secure votes from across the aisle. Changing these other parts of the law, we felt, could come later, separately.

As for points 3 and 4, we in the RUMP still hope for the debate, where the opinions on these points can be made clear, and (although it is Senator Davis's call) the last word I heard was that he intended to honour your request, milord, not to Clark the RUMP bill until this debate had taken place. If you are saying that the DOTT bill will be Clarked despite your own request, this is news to me.

Hooligan

[Danihel Laurieir]

Lord Prime Minister:

I do beg your pardon if there's been a misunderstanding.

I had publicly offered to work on compromise legislation but received no word—formally on Witt or informally—from you or Mr. Davis about your or his willingness to do such work.

Therefore, I assumed that—as per Mr. Davis's stated intention—he would Clark his proposal. That in turn convinced me to Clark mine, which I have done and which I am willing to undo if I can be assured that Mr. Davis will not Clark his.

As to your other points, we can address those more fully later—though I see no reason why if we're going to change the House Law and the other laws regulating the inheritance of the throne we don't go ahead and remove the offensive parts of current law instead of re-stating them.

At your assurance or Mr. Davis' that your party's proposal will not be Clarked for June, I will instruct the Secretary of State to consider my request to Clark my proposal withdrawn.

My apologies—again—if there has been a misunderstanding.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I was probably unclear, and assume responsibility for this misunderstanding. Conta, you have my assurance that I will not be Clarking the bill until debate is finished from all parties. I assume that from this debate, if you continue to voice your position, it will become clear either what a bipartisan version will be or else that there is a difference in our views that cannot be surmounted, at which point you could introduce your competing bill.

I confess that my main reason for assuming the DOTT would not be Clarking anything was that they had not hoppered anything for public persual and debate yet.
EDIT: Never mind, I see it.

[Hooligan]

The RUMP offers its own apologies for the misunderstanding. I imagine that Senator Davis and I each assumed the other had let you know of our party's intention to help ensure that full discussion is allowed on this important issue, and that we do intend to delay Clarking any bill until such discussion has taken place.

I do offer you my assurance that the act once numbered 37RZ6 will not be re-Clarked for June, and I look forward to our discussions.

Your apologies are left on the table, and my own are laid there for you to accept.

Hooligan

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

HAHA I was first!

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

man, youse guys make my head hurt.

[Danihel Laurieir]

Lord Prime Minister, Senator Davis:

As you now know, the SOS has honored my request to withdraw my proposal--The Hereditary Monarchy Modified (A Little) Amendment, which is still in the Hopper--from the June Clark.

To extend the sorry-fest just a bit: I should have been more diligent in offering suggestions for modifications to Senator Davis's proposal and to my own.

Senator Davis, you are right: it's possible that we won't be able to reach consensus on this matter and we'll have to agree to disagree and pursue our own courses separately. But I think both sides sense that a mutually agreeable solution is not impossible, and I think we're both willing to bend our minds to the task. And that task is to insure that the Talossan Monarchy is a strong, enduring institution that is consonant with Talossan values.

Let me conclude tonight by saying that I am truly impressed by the generous and public-spirited nature of the majority party.

[Hooligan]

I thank the leader of the opposition for his compliment, and reassert that it is the hope of the majority to stand behind a proposal that will receive bipartisan (quardipartisan, actually -- hello, CRO and CLP!) support. This hope has always driven our actions, and was manifested in one form by our decision to change as little as possible in the current law of succession -- which I add was adopted by the Organic Law committee, on which the esteemed Count sat -- and to craft our proposal in such a way as to answer the opposition's "Blood is Not Enough" cry.

Hooligan ((

[Nic Casálmac'h]

2. It's insulting—for no apparently good reason—to adopted children of the King.

I wholly agree.

3. It forces the Ziu to undertake an unwieldy, labor-intensive and potentially nasty political process to remove any unfit members of the Royal line from the line of succession. Such a process is more likely to result in the Ziu "settling" for an unfit heir than in encouraging it to defend the honor and integrity of the Throne.

According to this proposal, all the Ziu has to do is vote an unfit heir out. How is "an unwieldy, labor-intensive and potentially nasty political process"? It seems to me little different than that contained in the DOTT proposal.

4. It makes it very difficult for the Kingdom to select another person (who happens to be far down some dizzyingly long line of succession) of King John's caliber as King should such a person be ready to assume the throne when the current King is "taken from the circles of this world." (King John, I note, was not in the royal line of succession—nor anywhere near it—when he was elected as King.)

This is true. I, however, think that this is one of those times where the risks outweigh the benefits. However, you do have a good point.

Under the DOTT proposal, when the current King abdicates (by whatever means), the Heir will assume the throne provisionally. During this provisional period the Ziu may—or may not—pass legislation to seek an election to elevate someone other than the Heir presumptive to the throne.

My main problem with the DOTT proposal is the heir becoming provisional king. I think this is a very silly way (and this isn't Camelot you know ) of dealing with this problem.

All this said, I remain open to further modifications of the DOTT proposal though it seems this present window for compromise has closed. For example, the suggestion that instead of a provisional period for the presumptive new King, there instead be a "forced interregnum" when the Kingdom goes without a King for a brief period while the new King is selected seems viable to me.

At the moment this interregnum idea seems the most reasonable to me. It makes far more sense than having the heir become king, but basically under the power of the Ziu.

[Catrina Þestra]

This feature of the DOTT proposal makes it easier for the Kingdom to avoid "settling" for a nitwit on the Throne.

I'm of the opinion that the heir apparent should be the next king, as per usual tradition. The Ziu can adjust the monarch's powers after it's been established that he's not a nitwit, if he is, he'll be a king in but name alone and the elected officials will merely have yet more (dare I say all?) of the power.