Gotta undo the oath.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jan 14, 2013 12:08:01 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

I think I speak for the majority of us who are uncomfortable with the monarchy when I say that we view the king when he grants whatever it is, as just a proxy for the nation itself.

In other words, to refuse arms, titles etc would be the same as to reject Talossa, and that is not what Flip et al want to do. To force that would be practically forcing us a huge step towards renouncing our citizenships.

I am convinced we can find a way to let republicans and royalists coexist in Talossa. Let's focus on that.

My point is that one asks for Arms, from a specific person. No one is required to ask for them, or "wear" them. It's a gift, not an achievement. No one is forced to ask for them, or forced to "wear" them.

A title is earned - not asked for and given.

I have no problem with people not asking for a CoA. ( It's less work for me if they don't! )

Again, I feel that it's comparable to ask for a gift, and then turn your back on the person that gave you the gift.

[Owen Edwards]

And given how much some folk have made of the fact Ben only rarely created titles and gave arms, and it's all a post-2005 Woolley-an innovation to be despised and laughed at as childish, I don't think the arms, at least, can be seen as something John is only a proxy for - the titles, maybe (as they represent achievement...but they're still entirely in John's gift), but a gift of the King who saw the CoA put together in its current form and whose personal authority, quite separately from the constitution, is the only basis for the gift?

And this IS republicans and royalists co-existing. Co-existence can just be noisy .

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jan 14, 2013 12:52:51 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

And this IS republicans and royalists co-existing.

On your terms.

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2013 12:08:01 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

I am convinced we can find a way to let republicans and royalists coexist in Talossa. Let's focus on that.

Me too. But I think that issues like the CoA get stuck in people's heads. I think these academic discussions, when civil, are helpful to gain perspective and develop better understanding.

I think if Mick looks at Flip's displaying the CoA as "I don't like you but km keeping the gift you gave me" that is probably a sticking point. I agree with all of the critiques of my examples. So, the only recourse I have is to double back to my own CoA.

Had a big ol' cross put on it when I was a monk. Left the order, left the church, converted to Judaism and I still display the same CoA.

Granted, this is about an item on my CoA, not the person who awarded it. But I can understand holding onto a CoA even if its meaning to you has changed.

In my opinion, a gift eventually becomes yours. I have a watch that was given to me by an ex girlfriend in 2005. Back then I thought of it as a gift. After about two years had passed, in my mind, it stopped being a gift and was just mine.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I will admit that after writing that, I thought of the classic "it's mine now " concept -

The Engagement ring.

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2013 13:13:18 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

I will admit that after writing that, I thought of the classic "it's mine now " concept -

The Engagement ring.

And I'm not saying I would have done the same thing were I in Flip's shoes. I am just saying I can see why he does it and fault him not for his chosen path.

[Owen Edwards]

Jan 14, 2013 13:09:08 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

Jan 14, 2013 12:52:51 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

And this IS republicans and royalists co-existing.

On your terms.

Well, no, you've probably missed the point of what I said. The fact we have discussions like these is the lifeblood of Talossa - that we all discuss (hopefully politely) the things that matter and give our varying opinions. Most people here have said "well maybe the oath needs changing", but we're discussing how that might work - some would want the King excised from it, whilst some (like me) reckon that makes the business nonsensical.

It's an adult discussion, led by Andy showing genuine integrity.

And as for the CoA as a gift, I get what you mean, but it seems to me to be a gift after the order of, say, a knighthood or peerage - I've always thought it ridiculous that certain lords were part of the "Man of Blood" party and wanted a republic, BUT ALSO wanted to retain their peerages and landed privileges. Their peerages depended on the authority of the grantor, the King; now, Parliament itself could have decided it was granting titles, and that's fine, but if your title is from the King, it only exists within his authority.

Seems like CoAs are the same sort of thing - the arms given you to emblazon on your shield when you go to war for your King. The very fact you wear them shows your allegiance to him.

...which opens up the intriguing possibility that Flip still does swear fealty to the King, and did not mean what he said above; he's an infiltrator into the Republican ranks!

[Deleted]

I'm gonna throw out the possibility of blood oaths and swearing allegiance to L. Ron Hubbard.

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2013 13:09:08 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

Jan 14, 2013 12:52:51 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

And this IS republicans and royalists co-existing.

On your terms.

Seriously?!? Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to come back. Do you have a problem with the agreement that was reached in reunision? I'm pretty sure that Fiova was your terms. It is great having you all here but let's not get this twisted.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

I think what S:reu Anglatzara is getting at is that some people seem adverse to people agitating for a more republican vision of Talossa. To say that we co-habit is fair enough, but us republicans have to settle with 'co-habiting' in a monarchy (which I'm cool with, so long as nobody tries to prevent me from voicing my objections to the monarchic system, nor deny that my vision of Talossa is less legitimate - not that I'm saying anyone thinks that, of course).

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2013 17:49:27 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

I think what S:reu Anglatzara is getting at is that some people seem adverse to people agitating for a more republican vision of Talossa. To say that we co-habit is fair enough, but us republicans have to settle with 'co-habiting' in a monarchy (which I'm cool with, so long as nobody tries to prevent me from voicing my objections to the monarchic system, nor deny that my vision of Talossa is less legitimate - not that I'm saying anyone thinks that, of course).

That's fine but his wording suggests that he was forced to go with an agreement that was entirely one sided. I remember things differently. I remember those involved listened to what both sides said and came up with a solution that we all agreed to. Is my memory failing me? To say that he is forced to "co-exist" on our terms is completely disingenuous.

[Owen Edwards]

V's on the money - Johan made it sound a little like he was being oppressed, but in fact it's the same as being in a state which has areas you don't agree with...i.e. every state and every person.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Be it known that the Chancery sent the following personal message to M:sr Lowry:

Do you still wish to withdraw your signature from the oath, with the knowledge that doing so will end your citizenship?
Or do you want to stay, and (as most of the Republicans did) abide by the oath under protest, while working toward effecting a change?

S:reu Iustì Canun, UrGP.
Secretar d'Estat del Regipäts Talossan.

The Secretary of State received this response:

Yes, withdraw it and throw me out.

Thanks,

Andy

And so...

WHEREAS M:sr Andy Lowry has expressed that he no longer wishes to avail himself of Talossan citizenship (The Best Thing Money Can't Buy),

THEREFORE the Chancery hereby terminates his Talossan citizenship, effective immediately



Done by my hand in the name of King John and under his Royal Seal this 14th day of January in the year of the common era 2013, in the 6th year of the reign of our gracious sovereign King John, and of the independence of Talossa the 34th.

Sir Iustì Canun, UrGP, Secretar d'Estat

[Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu]

You're kidding.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Jan 14, 2013 21:11:16 GMT -6 Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu said:

You're kidding.

I never kid while I'm wearing my SoS hat.