The Forums of Glennain

Friends and fellow Hanoverians:

Recently, I allowed myself to chime into a discussion underway on the Pendronian forums (now that I've been directed to the correct, active forums!) about the possibility of a union between our nation and theirs.

I know at this point you must be rolling your eyes and thinking, "oh, here he goes again," but I entreat you to read the thread in the Pendronian forums or to interject yourself into the discussion here, where I have reproduced my post.

From the Pendronian forums:

Greetings.

It's been awhile since last I posted in these forums so I ought to begin by saluting the wonderful people of Pendronia.

You'll pardon me for resurrecting this somewhat dated thread, but I couldn't help but be intrigued by the topic.

Some of you are well aware of my impassioned opposition to the earlier proposed "union" of Hanover and Morovia. As King Alexander rightly points out, this "union" would have been more along the lines of a takeover of Hanover by Morovia.

I opposed the unification as suggested by Morovia for several reasons, chief of which was the unfairness shown to Hanover by the Morovians, forcing our kingdom to become a mere subsidiary of their chronically ill nation. It made no sense whatsoever that the stronger and healthier of the two nations should become subordinate to the weaker, less populous (and once again dormant) nation.

The second point of my opposition was allowing King Vincent III to reign over both realms. Although I'm sure he's a splendid individual, he is not a competent ruler, having allowed his nation to fall into ruin any number of times, and now once again.

My proposed solution was a dual monarchy, such as has been discussed in this thread, with a king for Hanover and a king for Morovia. In this way, each nation would retain its unique characteristics and its own monarchy while sharing a hyphenated name with the other. The Austria-Hungary example was brought-up then as it has been in this thread.

While this would have been a fine solution to the matter, offering a unique political entity and the promise of a stronger community, my enthusiasm for this solution was not shared by Mr. Bekkenhuis of Morovia, for whom no idea which is not his own is ever acceptable. The Morovians rejected the plan and moved on. They are back where they started now: dormant.

The negative circumstances under which I objected to the unification between Morovian and Hanover do not exist between Pendronia and Hanover. Pendronia has an active and responsible king who is universally held in high regard and who has always been a friend to the people of Hanover.

Additionally, my current succesor on the throne of Hanover is one of your own and already enjoys the esteem and trust of the people of Pendronia. Even in the case of a union with one monarch, I would be entirely pleased, regardless of which of these two fine gentlemen were to reign.

Nevertheless I do like the idea of a unification of these two realms within an empire, with a king for each nation, each serving as electors of the emperor along with the nobility. Not only do I think this is an acceptable plan, I think it is a very exciting idea and one which ought to be seriously considered by the peoples and governments of both nations.

Within the context of such a plan, there exists the opportunity to create a unique micronational entity: an empire. While there are plenty of micronations which call themselves "The Empire of...", the fact is that none of them really is an empire. It would be fascinating indeed to see a micronational empire come into existence which really was--in fact, and not just in name--an empire.

I hope that we will, as citizens of our respective nations and as friends and allies, continue to discuss this idea, which I think is a very tantalizing one.

With esteem,

James

Duke of Marchmain
Hanover

Well, I'd be in favour. It would require a complete overhaul of the Hanoverian Commonwealth, though - I don't think it would be useful to have too many different levels of protectorates and dominions. Athenoi and Calormen should simply become part of Hanover, or become independent.

I like the idea of electing an Emperor (but "Holy Roman" will never be in his title!). The only problem would be ensuring continuity between the reigns of each Emperor. In Babkha, they've perfected the art of succession, but here in Hanover we've had more than our share of turbulance in the past. I think the best way forward would be to have fairly frequent changes of Emperor - perhaps with a simple system of rotation - so that any one person doesn't get too entrenched in power.

If we're going to do this, let's do it sooner rather than later - we don't want to reform our Constitution here in Hanover only to find that we're going in a new direction. Either way is good, as long as we go one way.

I agree with the Duke of Brunswick here in some aspects. While I do not want to rush into this, I do not feel we should perfect a constitution and then lose it when merging into an Empire. However, we do need our own way of Government before we get into the Empire? Or will both nations(Hanover and Pendronia) have the same sort of Government? I do not think that the Emperor however should be frequently changed. I say that the Emperor stays until he abdicates. That would almost be like a President if we did it like that. And I definately do not want that in any way. These are all kinks that will need to be worked out with both nations. I assume the Emperor shall be Emperor of Hanover-Pendronia? Who are candidates for the Emperor?

With Respect and Esteem,

+Justin

Your Grace:

I do have one concern about your last statments. I do not wish or intend to see the Commonwealth dismantled. I would like to see the Governor-General of Calormen's hard work continue and both Commonwealth nations to remain. We should not dismantle this to join an Empire. While I do like the idea, I do not want to see this happen. This is one of my concerns. The idea of the unification is a good one, that would benefit both nations, but not at the expense of the commonwealth?

I hope you understand, this and the rest are kinks that we will work out.

With Respect and Esteem,
+Justin

Well, it will be important to hear from His Majesty on the subject before we start talking about electing emperors and dismantling commonwealths. I think at this point, we're just in discussion mode in a very casual way. We ought to keep that in mind as we continue to propose ideas and discuss the future.

Lord Brunswick:

Mindful of the status of this discourse, I should say that I see no reason for the Commonwealth of Hanover to be dismantled should Hanover become part of a dual state empire. I don't see how the current situation interferes with empire in any way. The Hanoverian Commonwealth of Nations and the Kingdom of Pendronia unite to form an empire. Wherein do you see a difficulty here? Why cannot the Commonwealth nations continue to report to their king or emperor, who is and will remain the same person as the King of Hanover in the same way that any Hanoverian duchy would report to the King of Hanover?

I think it's important to remember that it isn't really correct to suggest independence for the Commonwealth nations as they are already independent. They are united with Hanover in commonwealth, not in empire. The government in Calormen, for example, is not subject to the government of Hanover. The government of Calormen is not even subject to the King of Hanover, strictly speaking. The government of Calormen is subject to the Emperor of Calormen. Should Hanover unite with Pendronia in Empire, I can conceive of no reason why the individual who sits upon the throne of Hanover should not continue to sit upon the thrones of Calormen and Athenoi.

What I can see, however, is the possibility of a Commonwealth nation becoming rather populous one day and wanting to become a member nation of the empire with its own, unique monarch who is not also King of Hanover. But that's a distant possibility and we can cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

Additionally, I see no reason to halt work on the constitution or to rush to create an empire on account of the constitutional restructuring. There is no reason why the two nations need to have uniform constitutions. Here in the United States, we have 50 separate states each having a unique constitution. The federal constitution trumps the state constitutions. Anything in state law which does not conform to federal law is, as they say in baseball, "outta there." That's what the courts are there for.

Continue to work on the Hanoverian Constitution as if nothing were going to change. This whole talk of empire is just that at this juncture: talk. It may never happen. Should empire someday happen, any necessary changes will result from any discrepancies with the Imperial constitution and can be dealt with at that time.

Quote:I think the best way forward would be to have fairly frequent changes of Emperor - perhaps with a simple system of rotation - so that any one person doesn't get too entrenched in power.

I think that checks and balances, not imperial term limits, are the best way to ensure that one person doesn't become too powerful. I could see an elective monarchy, but I don't like this--forgive me--"simulation sector" mentality which says that everything must be constantly changed, with elections four times a year, constitutional conventions ad nauseam, a new emperor every year and we all get to take turns being in charge, &c, &c, &c. With all due respect to my dear Lord Brunswick, that reduces our nation-building efforts to a silly game. Change for the sake of change is alot of fun when we're talking about wardrobes or interior design. For a government or a nation however, that approach is a recipe for disaster.

We have to be adult in our approach to nation building. No nation has elections four times a year or even twice a year. If we're to have an elected emperor, I say we either elect him for life or grant him generous terms. An emperor ought to be a stabilizing force and he ought to be able to spend his time governing rather than campaigning like a two-bit politician. I would give to our emperor at least as long of a term as is granted the President of the United States: four years. And then, I would not set a term limit. If the empire is satisfied with the emperor, the electors should be at liberty to reconfirm him over and over again.

Let's get away from the children's games and set a higher standard for this empire than has been observed elsewhere. We in the Kingdom of Hanover have always talked about excellence, as have the people of Pendronia. If we are to do this, let's keep our standards high, let us be mindful of the fact that we are not a game, let us insist upon being adult about things, and let us do it right.

All-in-all, this idea offers the potential for a lengthy and satisfying discussion and constructive effort between the populations of Hanover and Pendronia, and isn't this nation-building effort what we are all really here for to begin with?

I look forward to seeing where we all go with this.

My friends,

I have been thinking about this for some time now.

At first I was opposed to the idea, however, I have changed my mind. The key issue for me is always, what is best for the Kingdom of Hanover?

An active, thriving citizen base is always at the heart of this nation. It is also at the heart of the nation of Pendronia. Other important similarities continue to speak of the benefits to be reaped between the cooperation of our two nations. The closer we are, the better.

In general I think we should widen the dialog with the Pendronians to see how they feel about such an arrangement. I believe some are in favor of it. They hold to the same reservations that we do. Loss of identity and so on. Therefore diplomacy, sensitivity, tact and good old fashioned respect will be required for any such motion to succeed.

In reference to some of the specific points:
1) I don't see the need to dismantle anything.
2) I don't think we should stop working on the constitution.


I have directed HRH Prince Justin, as Plenipotentiary to Pendronia, to initiate the first stages of a formal relationship. I did this not only because of our traditional ties, but because I hoped it would bring us closer together.


Regards,
HM Alexander of Hanover

Your Majesty:

I applaud your diplomatic efforts to encourage a greater closeness between your Hanoverian subjects and the people of Pendronia. May I congratulate HRH, the Duke of Guelph on his appointment to this very important post.

I look forward to continuing this dialogue with the people of Pendronia and to observing the Crown's ongoing efforts toward unity between our two peoples. Know that I am at Your Majesty's disposal if I can be of service to you in this worthy project in any way.

God save the King.

Your Royal Highness the Duke of Marchmain:

First of all, thank you for the congradulations. It is a possition that I have desired since I came to micronationalism, diplomacy. I look forward to working with Pendronia and keeping the friendship at a high.

Also, I would not in any way like to see short terms and constant change in the Empire. Elected Emperors are not my favorite thing in the world but I could see it happening, and would agree for it on certain conditions. Also, you aren't suggesting electing the Kings of the nations are you? These are the electors so they are the only ones who vote for the Emperor, yes? Not the people themselves? I hope this is the case. The Kings(Electors) and nobles of each realm are the ones who elect the Emperor. The term should be a long one, I agree with HRH The Duke of Marchmain. At least 4 years. I would like life terms; however, I have saw many abdications and I don't think that many people would want to be Emperor for Life. But never short constant change in the Emperor, I hope.

I look forward to discussing this in the future with all of you and the people of Pendronia and perhaps one day making comprimises with both peoples to form this potential Empire. We are both Great Nations and we could benefit from each other.

With Respect and Esteem,

+Justin

James, Your Majesty, Prince Justin,

The problem I see developing with the Commonwealth is an issue of the Commonwealth nations' rights within the Empire. If, as you imply, the Empire is going to be set up based on the existing structure of realms within each kingdom (i.e. the Duchies), with each Duke becoming an Elector of the Emperor, and presumably each King having a greater share of the vote than a Duke, then what will be the status of the Comomnwealth nations within that structure?

At present, the Commonwealth nations are little more than names and titles, as are the Duchies, and as far as I can see, they will not develop much beyond this for a very long time - our first concern must be with developing Hanover itself. And yet, the Commonwealth nations are, as you say, technically independent of Hanover.

Will they be part of the Empire, under the rule of the Emperor? That would mean that the King of Hanover gets not one portion of the royal vote, but three, since he is also King of Athenoi and of Calormen (and that's another thing - it will be ridiculous to go on calling Calormen an "Empire"). So, Hanover's King will have more share of the vote than Pendronia's. I can't see them agreeing to that.

And if the Commonwealth nations remain part of a Commonwealth with Hanover, but outside of the Empire, without voting power, surely the power of the Empire will be undermined? The King of Hanover will still have more power than the King of Pendronia, because he will also rule the Commonwealth nations, outside the Empire's control. Anything Hanoverians wanted to do, that was against Imperial law, they'd simply have to go to a Commonealth nation to do it.

So the status of the Commonwealth nations, as I said in my previous post, must be reevaluated. As far as I am concerned, they should be no more than the Duchies of Hanover, under the rule of one King of Hanover, who is in turn under the Empire. Or else, they should be severed from Hanover and from the Empire.


Now, as for halting work on the Constitution, I think we come to a dilemma in our difference of opinion over the nature of this Empire. Surely, the Empire would involve a union of the differnt institutions of the two nationms - legislature, judiciary and executive. There simply are not enough people to man both "federal" and "state" institutions. And moreover, if we do not unite our nations in this way, what would be the point of the Empire in the first place? It would simply be an additional level of bureaucracy.

I do not believe either nation will agree to a joint forum with the other - especially since both nations have just done an expensive revamp. So union will not come about there. Where union must come about is within the governmental institutions, and that will require a constitution designed for that purpose. And what will be the point of Empire, without union?


Now, finally, the term of office of the Emperor. Short elective terms are "simulation-sector", huh? I'm sure I don't have to remind you, but the Roman Republic, the pre-dictatorial form of one of history's greatest civillisations, and one of the most important forefathers of the modern European culture on which Hanover is modelled, was ruled by two consuls, elected for a term of just a year. Talk to me about having an "adult approach" - this is the daddy of political organisation.

It's absurd to even hope that a sane micronationalist is going to be an active monarch of an expanding nation for four years. The only micronationalists who have served that long, and actively, thus far, would not be classified "sane" by most observers. In micronations, the monarch needs to be a driving force behind every aspect of the nation - he needs to be enthusiastic and energetic, and that sort of thing doesn't last. We wouldn't want a burnt out Emperor on the throne, doing nothing. At the end of the day, a stable micronation is a dead one (look at Morovia!) - we need constant evolution and expansion, and that means short terms for our rulers.

Your Grace:

First of all, I have some points about the Commonwealth's names. Such as the Dominion of Athenoi, it is similiar to a duchy in the way that when I attatched it- it was to become a part of Hanover, not a protectorate. It belongs to Hanover under Hanover's King. I, the Viceroy, represent the King so that he does not have so much to do, figurtively speaking. As for the Empire of Calormen, I don't see why its name cannot stay EMPIRE, I mean look at India under British Colonial Rule. Queen Victoria was "Empress of India" and she still had other nations in the Empire- the Sudan, ect. I don't know, this may not be the case in Hanover, but I saw a somewhat similiarity.

And OH MY GOODNESS, the Duke of Brunswick gave out a Morovia bad mouthing... you basically said Vincent III is insane, Im not one to disagree with others opinions but....wow.

OH I just love my job.

With Respect and Esteem,

+Justin