Monarch Discussion - RK

Does scotland do the whole monarch thing?

We don't in Ireland, we figure its stupid because it changes on an election every 6 months. The position leaves the bearer with no power, and self imposed duties.

The extra prestige star is nice. But thats about it.

Nobody in Glasgow really cared about the monarch, nor the monarch ever had any power there. There is no point of it, the monarch is being elected by Galloway anyways, so being independent is the only solution for Glasgow.

Elois wrote:

I too am laughing, but not for the same reasons.

I nowhere mentioned the reasons why its funny for me, did I ?

No one in Ireland cares about monarchs either.

England is all about the monarchs, to their own detriment.

Honestly, I can see how one could make it work; if it was more about dynasties or guilds, which are not in the game.

For example, 6 months would be fine if it was more 'party based' rather than loose individuals. Every 6 months, someone from 'House Whatever' lists their candidate, vs. other houses or something, but all that is forum RP when it should be in the game. Then, monarchs would be cool and actually have some clout.

Interesting topic, maybe I should split

split off

Quote :

but all that is forum RP when it should be in the game.

Right now on the forums, they can make all the laws, rules, treaties, etc that they want, but they don't have a way to enforce them.

CC's change every 2 months as well, so you cannot count on constant cooperation from all counties even if you get it one time.

The "house' thing could be great fun for rp indeed.

If a clan gets their candidate the crown, it's a big thing for them. Mostly meaningless titles and whatnot. As much as I love Bare, I can't see his kingship being any different. If he comes at it as just a negotiating third party between the two counties I could see that working out well. Otherwise, it's really unclear what he could actually do. Still, last time I remembered, he was fond of the C.A. So that could be a plus.

What I find amusing is the biggest naysayers are the ones that would benefit the most from our term. But someone will always complain, right? No real sense of control if you can't shoot things down before they start. Just sad. Hate to quote Dr. Phil and all but everytime you point a finger at someone, there's three fingers pointing back at you. If you're not going to be part of the solution, I have nothing more to read on this topic.

I think that the monarchy in Scotland will be tainted for some time based on Rothar's actions. While I seriously doubt Bare and El would ever go his route, I also would expect more action than we saw from Cheatley's popular reign. I'm still not sure what Wallace did, if anything, either.

A mediator role between the two counties would indeed be a promising position for the monarchy to gain respect as an institution. And I agree that the 'House' aspect for RP is appealing.

But, the one big hiccup in all of this is that we haven't had a successful candidate that's able to RP with a diverse group of people to create a welcoming setting for all groups (or has wanted to). For that reason, I do think it's actually promising that El has taken the role as figurehead, simply because I have a hard time reading Bare's style of posts. Some characters at their core will always be anti-monarchy and it will take much negotiating and convincing to give them a reason to change. I'm afraid any less would end up being an OOC solution rather than an IC one.

In a matter of speaking, this isn't nay-saying. We just need to look at past examples of how things have worked out. By all means, if Bare can make the gig work out, hats off to the lad. But it's going to take ~ a lot o' work ~.

First, you have the numpties thinking kings and whatnot are English design. Even though the country of Scotland's older than merry ol' England, we've been crowning Scottish kings long before the numpties came along.

Then you have the county council's who'll be refusing to lease off their power to another player on the field.

And lastly you have to deal with the general population. They're mostly spiteful or too new to really understand or take part.

So yeah, it's going to be a lot of work. But if Bare can pull it off, many'a hat off to the boyo.

Terrasophia wrote:

I'm still not sure what Wallace did

Last I checked, he came, he won and then died

Again: Galloway decides who will be the king. Its not in Glasgows interests, vice versa, to recognize anything Galloway elects. Thats a dangerous thing, hence it should be ignored. If Galloway wants their own king, they can have. But for some reason they always want it to be national thing. They're powerhungry thats all.

Relevant here, I think:

Serdan wrote:

Xavierson wrote:

Conor wrote:

Quote :

It is not what power the citizens of Scotland want to give to the monarch

So, even if the Scottish people dont want or respect the new powerhungry "Royalty", you're going to try and jam it down our throat?

Quote :

you can keep kicking and screaming till the cows come home but the King and Queen can veto any treaty made simply because they hold the title of monarch, whether you like it or not.

And I can declare any thing they do null and void as well, we both have the same amount of power. If the majority of people decide they want this Sassenach institution, then so be it. But just because you and a few others are in favour of this now that one of your friends is in power, doesn't mean that the majority of people want it.

Unfortunately, you are all but un-noteworthy in the grand scale of things, but a monarch is a very rare commodity that is recognised across the continent. That is usually how monarchies work. Whether you, the little man, likes it or not, they will have power. Why do they have power? Because they simply exist. They can naturally just take power away from the people and other nations will accept this simply because that person is the monarch. In the end, you can ignore the monarch but then the same thing will just happen with what Rothar did. We tried to ignore the monarchy which then allowed him to do as he pleased on the international stage, giving Moss the title of Chancellor and her the right to speak for all of us in Scotland, claiming to foreign powers that SNF was a criminal organisation and such.

You can stay in your little hole but then you are only inviting the same thing to happen as happened before. Someone who wants to take advantage of the position will simply do so and cause Scotland, including you, lots of hassle and irritation. Better we form a structure around the monarchy where they are accountable for their actions then simply try to ignore it's existence and then find out that they have been speaking in the name of Scotland and have been denouncing you, your friends etc etc and placed a death warrant on you.

I don't think people understand what a monarchy is. It isn't a "diplomatic" thing. You don't get to say to the King/Queen that we will vote on whether we want you. It is a (IG Mechanic) position that people will abuse if given the chance and I would rather we unite under it, ensuring we actually get monarchs in that want Scotland to succeed instead of trying to ignore it and let destructive and immature people get away with treason by using that position and the authority that comes with it to good use.

Stop being ignorant. The Monarchy has power. This has been shown already. Lets all grow up and start acting like a nation as we should have done years ago instead of trying to hide ourselves in our counties thinking a Duke is good enough.

Or do you want another "Rothar" character to come in and declare to the world that they can invade in the name of the Scottish crown? I don't.

This kid is pretty clever for a Campbell. Kudo's to you, lad.

And Aye, its about damn time Scotland organized into 'Scotland', and stop being the tool of more powerful nations and groups that use her to their own advantage.

The more of it I do read, the more I do want to leave that stupid country once and for all.

Wasn't trying to make this about Scotland.

But speaking for myself, there is no monarch in the game that Chonnacht recognizes. Not France, not England, not Scotland. None of them have any real power compared to a County Council or an organization.

I admit, this can change, but so far there has been no reason to recognize any of them as legitimate. Not a one. Monarchs are useless so far, and that's because the game makes them that way.

I reckon you should all vote me queen of Ireland.

That's about all I have to contribute to this conversation

Anto, I think it's really distilled in what Xav posted, no matter which country. The monarch has power because it's recognized as authority externally. It doesn't matter so much what the opinion is of the subjects who put them there. Rothar is the best example of the havoc that can be caused by a monarch if they choose, simply because outside groups recognize the authority. Sure they would have more power with the support of their subjects if it was given, but it's not necessary. I'm glad to hear Ireland is firmly on track to keep the monarchy as a nothing more than a figure-head.

Terrasophia wrote:

Anto, I think it's really distilled in what Xav posted, no matter which country. The monarch has power because it's recognized as authority externally. It doesn't matter so much what the opinion is of the subjects who put them there. Rothar is the best example of the havoc that can be caused by a monarch if they choose, simply because outside groups recognize the authority. Sure they would have more power with the support of their subjects if it was given, but it's not necessary. I'm glad to hear Ireland is firmly on track to keep the monarchy as a nothing more than a figure-head.

Titles never create anything that isn't already there to begin with. There are very few people who see it differently, for example, in England. But that is not the norm. It might just be what you see more, due to your location though.

You might think a monarch would be recognized externally, but they are not (they change every 6 months, how ridiculous would it be for anyone to recognize any monarch, even their own); only in rare examples in places that already have created authority with their crown.

In other words, in a place like England, they would view another Countries monarch as someone with authority. To everyone else, the monarch is just another diplomat, nothing more.

I think there is something very true in what Xavierson said about Kings : if you just ignore them, they are able to cause a lot of trouble in diplomacy because other nations will take their "power" for granted. Monarchy in Scotland should be given a role of representation (not a decisional power) and be controlled at the same time.

Why not creating a parliament of Scotland, that would gather all councelors of Glasgow and Galloway, to settle business that concern both duchies ? I would add the mayors too, but maybe not since Galloway has one more town (if I'm right ?). The King or Queen would preside the parliament but would not vote.

One way or another, Glasgow and Galloway are bound to work together. Unity makes strength.

If people could see past their own noses and vanity, they would see their power (or lack thereof) comes from themselves, not from any title. If you didn't have power before some fancy title, guess what? You still have none.

But beside that, the system is designed to fail. In 6 months, nothing can get done of substance. Not when organizations have been operating 6+ years and they don't have rotating leadership.

Democracy is a broken concept when coupled with organizational leadership. You don't elect 'leaders', you elect servants. If a military elected their general, the war would be lost before it begun. If employees elected their boss, production would flat line.

It's an intriguing concept, but its still one that is rotten at its core. The more people try to assert their authority, the more they prove that they have none. All the same, just makes it easier to manipulate those clinging to their own fabrications...

Quote :

Why not creating a parliament of Scotland, that would gather all councelors of Glasgow and Galloway, to settle business that concern both duchies ? I would add the mayors too, but maybe not since Galloway has one more town (if I'm right ?). The King or Queen would preside the parliament but would not vote.

One way or another, Glasgow and Galloway are bound to work together. Unity makes strength.

Because the national government worked so well the last time..

Unity? Please, I've been hearing about that poppycock since Scotland opened, and guess what? Doesn't exist/ Galloway will fight Galloway, clan will bugger clan. Ayr will try to bugger Glasgow and Glasgow will give Ayr the buggering of a life time. You can't really just suddenly switch the light and go: ' Les beh fweinds! '. Doesn't work like that. Too many egos, too much - or little - at stake.

Unity helps, but uniting under an elected figurehead that will rotate every 6 months is a recipe for madness and disaster....

Should start with mutual alliances, defense first. If Galloway and Glasgow are destined to fight each other endlessly, then honestly they deserve to be conquered. But looking to create authority where there is none just will never work.

Aye, it helps. But there needs to be a solid reason to unite. At the moment, kingship's not really much of a bacon of light in that regard. Mostly because Galloway isn't fond of Bare and lastly because Glasgow hasn't ever really supported the kings come what may. Less likely after Rothar.

Again, the best the king could hope for is just to mediate treaties between the home counties. Can't imagine folk having a problem with that.

I agree, and thats what a monarch is good for in this game, to be a glorified diplomat or ambassador. It is unfortunate the way it is worked into the game, but deliberate; in that the monarchs are not designed to have any power lest they become actual leaders rather than servants..

As far as unity goes, I would disagree on one premise alone. In that, I think Scotland already has a very solid reason to unite, or they will be conquered once again.

The problem with Scotland, imo, is that they want to do things from the top down, with no foundation to build upon. Can't have national unity without a nation to begin with. Hard to follow one monarch, who contradicts the previous monarch, and the next monarch reverses stance once again; just because they are designated via popularity contest to be flavor of the week. You just can't expect decent results when you don't build for it. You can't build a solid defense or have people get along simply because 'I'm the monarch and I say so'. Scotland doesn't need a parent, it needs leaders who are pragmatic enough to compromise with each other and build a foundation together, for the sake of mutual existence.

That's the main problem with monarchs in the game really. They have no authority, none; except the same kind a parent would have over a grown child. Respect? Sure. Adult children might even listen to their parents at times, but never simply 'because I say so'. It's just not how it works, and so many learn the hard way.

Its kinda sad really. A golden chance has been handed to Scotland, and everyone is too busy worried about fluff instead of the storm building on the horizon.

I mean, really: what do you call 10 Kings in RK?

A very small army.

You make the wee itty mistake of forgetting that Scotland's full of idiots

They ought to unite and join up to deal with future English incursions, because lords and lairds know they'll come sooner or later. But will they bother with that? Nope, Galloway will look to see if WML will offer the elected any private council goodies whilst doing the same with Glasgow. I don't want to call Galloway a gloried whore, but honestly what else are they at this point, after whoring itself and Glasgow out? Instead of helping Glasgow with the Frets, they supported the bloody Frets. It's all:" memememe " With that county.
~~~

Another point on the kingship in Scotland - and I know this is RL historical stuff, so some might listen whilst others may not -, when our lads wrote the Declaration of Arbroath, they added this part:

Declaration of Arbroath wrote:

" Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King ".

Which in itself makes the king a servant to the people. It's really what gives Glasgow the basis to ignore the kings entirely.
But I suppose this all just speculation. Let's see what happens and how the cuifs will react to Bare.