Commonwealth Forums

My Lords and Gentlemen,

As the rules of Our Parliament are suspended for the discussion of the Organic Law, I shall, with advice from the Prime Minister continue the discussion with "Part II".

Part II. The King

5. The sovereignty of the Kingdom shall continue to be freely vested in the King, as the Head of State and the embodiment of the nation’s majesty and permanence.
6. The King shall reign for the duration of his natural life, or until such a time as he may freely and publicly abdicate the Throne. If, in the judgment of the Privy Council, the King has failed to execute his duties as Head of State for a duration of no less than three months, he shall be deemed to have abdicated the Throne.
7. Upon the death or abdication of the King, the Privy Council shall meet secretly to elect his successor. During the interregnum, the Parliament and other government institutions shall continue to function, and the Privy Council shall execute the duties of the Head of State inasmuch as may be necessary.
8. As the ultimate source of worldly justice in the Kingdom, the King shall enjoy immunity from prosecution for any offence under the laws of Hanover. His ministers shall be responsible for all government actions.
9. The King’s natural and adopted family members shall constitute the Royal Family of Hanover, and shall enjoy the highest honour and respect of all Hanoverian citizens. No member of the Royal Family may serve as a Member of Parliament.
10. The King shall nominate no less than three people to be his Privy Council. Immediately upon swearing the oath appointed for them, those nominated shall become Privy Counsellors. No person shall be a Privy Counsellor by virtue of his rank or office.
11. Except as otherwise allowed by this Organic Law, the Privy Council shall meet only to give advice on matters which require secrecy in order to protect the Kingdom and its citizens. Disclosing matters discussed in the Privy Council without the King’s consent shall be a treasonous offence.

I take the floor to begin the discussion with some opening thoughts.

As you might imagine, this section is of particular interest to me. My interest must transcend not only my reign, but those of my successors as well. The balance that needs to be struck is one that empowers the Monarchy enough to properly fulfill its duties, but also protects the Monarchy from the dangers of excess.

Point 5. Should the constitution explicitly state that the term "King" may, in fact, represent a woman should the sovereign be a Queen? I believe this should be the case as Hanoverian law and tradition allow for a female sovereign. It would not be good for the nation if, even upon rightful ascension to the throne, that the Queen be challenged over a gender specific term.

Point 6. I believe future Sovereigns of Hanover should be required to take the same affirmation I took.

Point 7. It should be possible for the King to appoint a regent for times of distress or other things which may temporarily make it impossible for the King to perform his duties. I also like that the King may, of course, advise the Privy Council of his choice, but that ultimately they can act on their own and pick the one they feel will best serve the nation. The Throne of Hanover should not be available to someone only by accident of birth.

Point 8. No comments.

Point 9. No comments.

Point 10. Should the PC be strictly limited by law to citizens? Technically, it does not have this limitation as written. Also, how does one leave the council, or be taken out?

Point 11. It might be good to also say what maximum penalty treason carries with it.

The Parliament should now discuss this part, with these comments and especially introducing their own comments as well.

I relinquish the floor to as before.

Most Gracious Sovereign,

5. I would suggest that we have a new section in Part I, indicating that usages of male pronouns, etc., should include female forms.

6. The original draft of this document did indeed include the oath. However, it occurred to me that it might be better to include that in a more comprehensive, detailed document on succession and coronation (which I believe is necessary) rather than the constitution. One issue is that the next sovereign might wish to have a purely secular investiture or a full religious coronation, which would naturally have implications on the oath. Perhaps we could simply say that the King must swear to govern by the laws, etc., as I believe the Gresham Constitution did.

7. Observing what a prolonged regency did to Morovia, I would oppose allowing long-term regencies in this Constitution. Thus, I think the three-month provision should remain, whether or not a Regent is actively exercising the King's powers.

10. Your points are valid. Therefore, I amend Section 10 to read as follows:

11. Assigning penalties is more properly the business of a Penal Code -- and as promised in Your Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, I intend to propose such a Code immediately after a constitution is in place. I wanted to make it clear, however, that disclosing Privy Council secrets would be considered treason, which has never been written down before.

Seeing no more discussion, I take the floor again.

On the advice of the Prime Minister, as as the rules are formally suspended for the duration of this discussion, I am inviting our allies, friends, experts and other interested parties to add their input and comments in this discussion as guest speakers

Guest speakers should address the Parliament as any other member and should keep their comments on topic and use proper decorum.

I relinquish the floor to the next poster as before.

Most Gracious sovereign,

May I point out section 8. Does this passage mean that the serving sovereign is absolutely immune to Hanoverian law, even if the Sovereign purposefully and willfully breaks the laws of Hanover? How can the Sovereign, as a citizen of Hanover, be immune to laws that pertain to all citizens. As well if the serving sovereign does willfully break the law, then the statement "Ultimate source of worldly justice" becomes devoid of truth and thus negates immunity thereof. Perhaps a re-phrasing of this section should include a negation of this right if the sovereign is found to indeed willfully and purposfully break a law.

Most gracious Sovereign,

Please do not take my input here on the floor as a personal offence. It is not intended as one. In no way is it meant to implicate anything.

I relinquish the floor to the next poster as before.

My Lords and Gentlemen,

The immunity of a reigning king to the law is a principle found in virtually all monarchical constitutions. In modern times it is justified principally because, in a constitutional monarchy such as Hanover, all government decisions should be made by ministers, with the Crown (somewhat ironically) functioning as an adviser; thus, the King is not responsible for the actions taken in his name.

The traditional argument, however, is that because the King dispenses justice in the Kingdom, and theoretically presides in all courts, he cannot be tried for any offence -- that would mean giving a judgment against himself. However, this is undermined (as the jurist Blackstone himself notes) by the fact that all prosecutions are undertaken in the King's name, so he can already rule against himself in court.

Micronationally speaking, I think the real justification is much simpler: if the people had power to prosecute the King, trouble-makers (and there are plenty) would do it all the time. And who could be trusted to judge the King? Hanover had problems with an all-powerful court before; such a court would usually comprise only one judge, anyway. The only other options are the Privy Council or Parliament; the first is (by definition) biased in favour of the King, while the second can be easily manipulated by paper dolls, etc., as indeed has been done elsewhere in the past.

Most Gracious sovereign,

I agree with what the Lord high treasurer has brought forth for the most part. However the issue of a future reigning sovereign who has become corrupt and commits crime/s should be addressed as this can irreperably damage the nation itself if there is no recourse to stop it through your nations law.
May I point out historically the damage that has been ravaged upon nations that were ruled by corrupt and mad sovereigns. War, sweeping changes to the worse for the people, diplomacy leading to war, reputations destroyed and government members charged for false crimes.

Most Gracious Sovereign,
Again I refer to this as a future fail safe for Hanover. Even though the reigning sovereign has little hand in government, a corrupt or dastardly individual appointed or inherited in the future can break down a nation if there is no repercussions to treasonous actions. What if the Queen of England sold national secrets to Britians enemies? What if the Prince of Whales was found to be a murderer? Surely one can appreciate the fallout of such things, immunity in this regard can lead to chaos in the people who demand justice.

Most Gracious Sovereign,

I am of course only advising and have no say in your nations dealings. I am simply bringing forth advice that may help prevent Major problems in Hanovers future.
From A micronantional perspective, this issue could destroy the nation itself with people and government members leaving if "percieved Justice" is left undone to a deserving head of State if they commit dastardly acts against your law.

I know my people and government would not tolerate myself "dodging justice" if I was found to have broken a law. I offer this as food for thought to the Honorable members of this parlaiment.

Most Gracious Sovereign,
If Crown is not hereditary, (as you have called it , by accident of birth), why would a citizen, by that same accident be barred from Parliament? Perhaps you grace would consider striking the last sentence of section 9 of part II, in the interest of 'equality before the law' of all citizens, regardless of family association.

Most Gracious Sovereign,
Turning now to section 8, perhaps Your Grace would consider clarifying the pool of candidates from which the Privy Council may elected a Sovereign, and it might please Your Grace to ensure that the interregnum (during which the Privy Council acts as Regent) is of limited duration, and provide for the possibility of the Council not being able to reach agreement on the next Sovereign.

Most Gracious Sovereign,
Perhaps more of Your Grace's attention should be directed to the 'deemed to have abdicated' clause of section 6. Your Grace may want to ensure that provision is made for the public proclamation of the abdication, as well as for ensuring that the Privy Council communicates its intention of so acting in a public manner to the Sovereign.

Yours most respectfully,
Bo Register, Marquess of Mobile, Baron Von Servers of Fayette
Her Majesty's Governor-General in and for the Dominion of British West Florida

My Lords and Gentlemen,

I take the floor for the moment.

The topic of Sovereign Immunity is one that has challenged some of the greatest legal minds. Therefore it is no wonder that we grapple with it today. I have given it some thought, and do not claim to have the final answer but I put forth these comments for your consideration.

There seem to be two classes of "crimes" here, and it is important to distinguish them. The first is a "crime of state" wherein the sovereign does things detrimental to the nation, such as wars and oppressive laws. The second is an "individual crime", such as a murder.

For "crimes of state", the nation is well protected by the responsibility of the ministers. There are checks on the Sovereigns power that keep him from running amok, although some damage may occur. This is inevitable of any post with responsibility and power. This is exactly why the constitution is being formed. In an absolute monarchy the nation would have no recourse but to resort to overthrow of such a monarch.

As the Constitution is proposed the King acts in concert, hand in glove, with Parliament in all the critical decisions of the nation. The King does not conduct treaty negotiations or formal diplomacy alone, nor does he pass laws or do any other thing which might be injurious to the nation. Indeed, the King is the final safety net for the nation from a Parliamentary error through the instrument of Royal ascent.

For "Crimes of the individual", the nation is not as well protected. Some precedent already exists, however. Point 6 states "If, in the judgment of the Privy Council, the King has failed to execute his duties as Head of State for a duration of no less than three months, he shall be deemed to have abdicated the Throne." This means, simply, that in some cases the Privy Council does, in fact, sit in judgment of the Throne. A murderous King could, I believe, be reasonably said to be failing in his duties as Head of State. The duties are not explicitly enumerated, but I do not believe that any sane person would accept the murder of ones subjects as a duty properly befitting the King. The time component of the judgment is unclear, for a murder happens in an instant and lasts forever, and so perhaps some additional language could be added to clarify when the privy council may act.

Of paramount importance though are two fundamental thoughts:

First, the law should be able to accommodate any situation so that actions outside the law (rebellion, assassination, etc) are not needed.

Second, the law must protect the institution of the Monarchy, not just the man. This means that it cannot be a simple thing to forcibly remove a Sovereign from the Throne, or the Throne shall lose its effectiveness and therein be unable to act as head of state safeguarding he nation from Parliament and other threats to the liberties of his subjects. It must be a grievous thing to replace the King such that only when the King himself as made no other recourse possible does it become available, or the King may as well not be a King at all.

I relinquish the floor to the next poster as before.

My Lords and Gentlemen,

I take the floor again as I find I have additional thoughts to put forth.

One assumption that seems to be almost unwritten but none the less present is that there exists but one punishment for any "crime", removal from the Throne. This sets up an untenable situation where an infraction could result in a punishment that far outweighs the crime.

The mind is drawn to the more infamous crimes, such as murder. But it should be noted that murder is an extreme example and that an entire host of unsavory behavior comes before that ultimate act.

For crimes of property, just compensation should be sufficient.

Indeed, a King may commit an act of manslaughter, by negligence or some such, and to my mind, still be perfectly able to carry out the duties of state, and yet at the same time should also be required to compensate the dependents of the departed.

In this we will find two major problems.

First is that act of drawing up charges against the King. There will need to be some sort of vetting process to keep every malcontent from throwing accusations at the Crown for no more reason than to have something to say. It seems that immunity from infractions, and misdemeanors is well in keeping with the spirit and needs of the nation. Having the Crown needing to defend itself against such things as the violation of a noise ordinance is silly on the face of it. And, should someone press for such insanity this King would request that Parliament act expressly make the Monarchy exempt from all such trifles.

Second, is the process of such a trial should one be needed. By the very constitution the judges owe their allegiance to the Crown and cannot be expected to objectively judge it.

I do not believe a prefect answer exists, only a best fit, and this is what we should strive for with the constitution. We should not be trying to explicitly denote each possibility, but create a framework where justice, and not blind adherence to the law, prevails.

Should the King do something that causes harm to someone, then they have the right to bring their petition to the Crown for remedy, and baring that, to approach parliament for compensation. This allows the Crown the chance to perceive the harm, and dispense justice, without the need for judicial intervention. Perhaps that is the very blueprint we should use?

If a subject believes the Crown has harmed him, he first approaches the Crown with his grievance. If he cannot find the remedy there he then may bring his complaint before the Parliament, and finally, only after those are exhausted and the charge be sever enough might the privy council be required to hear the case.

I relinquish the floor to the next poster as before.