Gotta undo the oath.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

Jan 10, 2013 13:50:21 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I "mick" what Deet and Ián B-figlheu say above. Talossa is the language, the culture and the politics. It is not the monarchy and coats of arms, and never was before 2005. In general, the reviênsadéirs know this because they've been around longer, or because we made a point of remembering the past. Some current monarchists have a short historical memory and think that Talossan history began with KR1's abdication.

And to return to the starting point of this thread, it's simply wrong to insist on an oath that kind of turns the switches to one predominant direction. Apparently we all knew this when the "Reunision" happened, which is why nobody told me to go away when I didn't swear allegiance to the King.

This is a precedent that can't be reversed without risking a new civil war or some such. So if Andy or others are wanting to update their oath to something that is taking the whole picture into account, why don't we just let them... it has always been this way, by the way. Different oaths have been accepted. Let's update the respective law thus it is reflecting a reality that's already existing.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jan 10, 2013 13:59:26 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Anyway, if you think the ZRT are nutty extremists... take a look at these fellows. Been waiting for an excuse to post this link for a while to make a few RUMPers choke on their breakfast.

OMG. Who is this? Why are he/she/they anonymous?

I have to say I'm amused. After the provos handed in their armalites, the Continuity Republicans fight on.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jan 10, 2013 13:59:26 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Anyway, if you think the ZRT are nutty extremists... take a look at these fellows. Been waiting for an excuse to post this link for a while to make a few RUMPers choke on their breakfast.

We've already seen it. I think it came out January 2nd?

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2013 14:00:22 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jan 10, 2013 13:58:35 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

So, better a revolutionary leader commit the genocide rather than a person with a crown?

That's the question of whether it's better to try and fail than to never have tried.

.....it's better to not have people die in a genocide.

We have free speech. And that right is upheld by the courts. The legal system has strengthened considerably since the days of KRI. If a King oversteps his bounds, we hold him accountable under the same law that binds you or I.

If you think that constitutional protections are legalistic nonsense, the what good is any constitution you can or would propose? If courts are inadequate to protect, then would Miestra's promised land have none? Would we simply rely upon elected officials to mete out justice or allow mob rule to prevail? You readily discount balances of power, and that is a scary notion.

So far, what you have demonstrated is that you care more about the fight than the outcome. The Russians revolted for freedom and a better life and that revolution resulted in millions of murders. But that, you consider, a "great" revolution.

If Cromwell, Khadafi and Stalin are partial success stories in your eyes then I hate to see what you consider a failure.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2013 14:02:10 GMT -6 D. N. Vercáriâ said:

Jan 10, 2013 13:50:21 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I "mick" what Deet and Ián B-figlheu say above. Talossa is the language, the culture and the politics. It is not the monarchy and coats of arms, and never was before 2005. In general, the reviênsadéirs know this because they've been around longer, or because we made a point of remembering the past. Some current monarchists have a short historical memory and think that Talossan history began with KR1's abdication.

And to return to the starting point of this thread, it's simply wrong to insist on an oath that kind of turns the switches to one predominant direction. Apparently we all knew this when the "Reunision" happened, which is why nobody told me to go away when I didn't swear allegiance to the King.

This is a precedent that can't be reversed without risking a new civil war or some such. So if Andy or others are wanting to update their oath to something that is taking the whole picture into account, why don't we just let them... it has always been this way, by the way. Different oaths have been accepted. Let's update the respective law thus it is reflecting a reality that's already existing.

I don't believe anyone is insisting anything. People have expressed their disagreement with Andy's approach, but I have not seen anyone violating his right to protest thusly.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jan 10, 2013 14:06:40 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Jan 10, 2013 13:59:26 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Anyway, if you think the ZRT are nutty extremists... take a look at these fellows. Been waiting for an excuse to post this link for a while to make a few RUMPers choke on their breakfast.

We've already seen it. I think it came out January 2nd?

We spotted it around a week ago now, and I must say that I find it very interesting and a little mystifying.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 10, 2013 14:05:11 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

Jan 10, 2013 13:59:26 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Anyway, if you think the ZRT are nutty extremists... take a look at these fellows. Been waiting for an excuse to post this link for a while to make a few RUMPers choke on their breakfast.

OMG. Who is this? Why are he/she/they anonymous?

It's a former Republican citizen who never reunisized, who says "I stay anonymous to keep the focus on the ideas". Given the references to Irish republicanism, I have a pretty good idea who it is, and so should you, but they won't confirm.

I have to say I'm amused. After the provos handed in their armalites, the Continuity Republicans fight on.

At least they are friendly to the ZRT, rather than condemning us as sell-outs and traitors like real Contos would. But their political platform - that Republicans should refuse to take their seats in the Ziu - would be counterproductive in practice.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 10, 2013 13:50:21 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I "mick" what Deet and Ián B-figlheu say above. Talossa is the language, the culture and the politics. It is not the monarchy and coats of arms, and never was before 2005. In general, the reviênsadéirs know this because they've been around longer, or because we made a point of remembering the past. Some current monarchists have a short historical memory and think that Talossan history began with KR1's abdication.

While I think much of this is on the right track, I want to point out that while you rightfully resent someone trying to declare what Talossa is, it's equally wrongheaded to declare the same thing on their behalf. For many Talossans, the country is strongly identified with the monarchy and the monarch who has helped keep the country together and inviolate for as long as they've been citizens. And several citizens love the practice of heraldry as a hobby, and identify their country with that practice, as well, along with numerous other Talossans that have come to see heraldry as part of the modern country.

Talossa is about monarchy and democracy, and the balance between the two that has swung back and forth (and which obviously has passionate defenders on either side). It's about building a modern community and indulging in pompous fun, which is why we post on the Internet even as we research blazons. Some folks like some parts of Talossa more than others, and some folks even have views that oppose that of other folks - if you want to eliminate the sovereign, then of course you won't come to full agreement with those who want to keep that tradition. Talossa is Talossa, and you can define what that means for yourself. That's one of the most wonderful things about a nation as small as ours: it lets anyone be big.

[Óïn Ursüm]

Jan 10, 2013 13:57:44 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

For those interested, this is actually an Occitan cross, a symbol of the Counts of Toulouse, or Tolosa: an important step in the journey of our mythical ancestors.

[Andreas Lorentz]

Okay, then, I guess we're solid. I have un-oathed myself, and we're all groovy with that. Yes? I'll sleep better tonight knowing it.

[Owen Edwards]

Jan 10, 2013 20:59:24 GMT -6 Andreas Lorentz said:

Okay, then, I guess we're solid. I have un-oathed myself, and we're all groovy with that. Yes? I'll sleep better tonight knowing it.

Except, as I say, you haven't, given a statement of intent to breach a contract is not the same thing as breaching a contract .

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Jan 10, 2013 20:59:24 GMT -6 Andreas Lorentz said:

Okay, then, I guess we're solid. I have un-oathed myself, and we're all groovy with that. Yes? I'll sleep better tonight knowing it.

If you actually mean to un-oath yourself, that is most certainly not groovy, unless you're groovy with giving up your citizenship.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jan 10, 2013 22:10:11 GMT -6 Iustì Carlüs Canun said:

Jan 10, 2013 20:59:24 GMT -6 Andreas Lorentz said:

Okay, then, I guess we're solid. I have un-oathed myself, and we're all groovy with that. Yes? I'll sleep better tonight knowing it.

If you actually mean to un-oath yourself, that is most certainly not groovy, unless you're groovy with giving up your citizenship.

As the precedence of the Laws stand at this moment -

Renouncing your Oath is also renouncing your Citizenship. Your Oath is a step in your becoming a Citizen of the Kingdom. Renouncing that step means you didn't ( or don't want to ) take that next step.

If you want to change that , the get an Act passed that addresses that .

(Sorry about disrupting your sleep, there. )

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jan 11, 2013 0:24:43 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Jan 10, 2013 22:10:11 GMT -6 Iustì Carlüs Canun said:

If you actually mean to un-oath yourself, that is most certainly not groovy, unless you're groovy with giving up your citizenship.

As the precedence of the Laws stand at this moment -

Renouncing your Oath is also renouncing your Citizenship. Your Oath is a step in your becoming a Citizen of the Kingdom. Renouncing that step means you didn't ( or don't want to ) take that next step.

If you want to change that , the get an Act passed that addresses that.

I think you need to re-swear the oath with Miestrâ's wording.

And then you politicians get to work to abolish the oath. Why do we have to swear an oath become citizens?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

What a fascinating thread this is! I am pleased by its thoughtful tone and generally high level of civility so far.

Jan 10, 2013 16:41:08 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Talossa is about monarchy and democracy, and the balance between the two that has swung back and forth (and which obviously has passionate defenders on either side). It's about building a modern community and indulging in pompous fun, which is why we post on the Internet even as we research blazons. Some folks like some parts of Talossa more than others, and some folks even have views that oppose that of other folks - if you want to eliminate the sovereign, then of course you won't come to full agreement with those who want to keep that tradition.

This, this, this. Some republicans accuse monarchists of a short memory because some monarchists make a much bigger deal of heraldry and titles than was in the case in the past. I say some republicans also have a short memory, because they remember best what was important to them about Talossa. I think monarchy -- a kingdom in Wisconsin -- has been part of the charm of Talossa for many immigrants since the beginning of the Cybercit era, at least for many US immigrants. As for titles? Bob Murphy was made Earl of Kenwood, Ben was made Viscount of Vuode by King Robert II (which became part of the royal title and then was split out again so that Ben could hold the title personally if he abdicated), and I believe at least 8 knighthoods were granted in the pre-split era. Ben adopted his personal arms (the ones S:reu Ursüm has pointed out) in 2002. So yeah, titles and heraldry have been part of Talossa for a long time. No one made as big a deal of them before 2005, but they were always there.

On heraldry in a republic: I like the monarchy, but I don't think heraldry in a republic is as dumb an idea as Sir Iustì does. There was this one important republican rebel who prominently displayed his coat of arms all over the place after successfully leading a revolution against a monarchy. He once disclaimed any opinion "that heraldry, coat-armour, &c., might not be rendered conducive to public and private uses with us; or that they can have any tendency unfriendly to the purest spirit of republicanism." That would be George Washington.

On the immediate question of citizenship oaths, I think so far I agree with Owen about how to conceptualise the issue. Sir Mick, you mention current legal precedent. What precedent would that be? I am aware that an explicit renunciation of one's citizenship has been interpreted (e.g. by the Court of Chivalry) as a repudiation of the oath of citizenship. I am not aware of the reverse situation coming up: a repudiation of the oath without explicit renunciation. As the oath is the creation of statute, it can be a condition of obtaining citizenship (as the Ziu is empowered to legislate regarding the naturalisation process) but whether adhering to the oath can be made a condition of retaining citizenship is a more doubtful question. It would not seem to qualify as a renunciation under Article XVIII Section 9 or 10 of the OrgLaw. Even if an argument could be made that the oath was sworn with fraudulent intent (which I do not believe to be the case here -- I accept Andy's representations on the matter), citizenship could not be revoked without action by the Uppermost Cort (Art XVIII Sec 5). Absent fraud, I'm not sure what crime could apply here. As far as I know we still don't have a legal definition of treason, and we don't have a crime of lese-majesty (nor would one be organic).