We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Titles
Details
Submitted by[?]: Quanzari Restorationists
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2700
Description[?]:
| A Peerage System will be effected and controlled. In order of rank this is: Knight or Dame: A member of a Order of Chivalry, this is not a title of nobility. While the Crown may bestow knighthood, the Church, Noble Houses, and other organizations may also dub knighthood. It has no political value but is an honoriffic. Lord or Lady: The title of a member of Parliament. Title rescinds on retirement or expulsion from Parliament. Baronet or Baronetess: (Based upon the holding of an amount of land or equivalent assets to be determined by the College of Arms, and granted by Duke or Duchess to whom they have featly towards. A commoner may obtain this title. The title can be inheretied. Baron of Baroness: Member of a Noble House. The child of a Baronet may obtain thus. The following ranks may only be granted by the Crown: Count, Countess Marquis, Marquess The following title may only be granted by the Crown with Parliamentary approval: Duke, Duchess |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:55:29, January 20, 2009 CET | From | Quanzari Restorationists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | just started this to generate discussion. |
| Date | 04:17:50, January 21, 2009 CET | From | Hessexian Arab Royalists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | The land/property qualification would disadvantage the majority Arabs the most as we constitute the lower rung of the socioeconomic ladder. Therefore, we cannot support it. On the subject of titles, we do not oppose them, so long as the Arabs too be a part of the nobility. |
| Date | 05:12:01, January 21, 2009 CET | From | Order of the Golden Crown | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | We've been planning to institute some nobility system, so we support. However, in the interests of unity and Arab inclusionism, we will also oppose the property requirements. |
| Date | 16:16:37, January 21, 2009 CET | From | Quanzari Restorationists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | What then could be grounds for peerage that would allow for all peoples? Let's bring all ideas to the table. |
| Date | 17:40:59, January 21, 2009 CET | From | Hessexian Arab Royalists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | Do you consider Peerage and Members of Parliament to be the same thing? We would not oppose land qualifications for the nobility, but not for MPs. Please clarify. |
| Date | 17:56:54, January 21, 2009 CET | From | Quanzari Restorationists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | We would have liked to have had a land/property qualification for membership to Parliament, but that would have also obviously required limiting the number of seats in parliament to a bare minimum. So, Peerage not connected with Parliament, then. |
| Date | 18:27:57, January 21, 2009 CET | From | Hessexian Arab Royalists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | Then we support the 40 acre requirement. Perhaps it is best if we also list the titles so we can divide it up among the three ethnicities. |
| Date | 19:37:18, January 21, 2009 CET | From | Quanzari Restorationists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | Ok just made modifications, above. 40 acres is not a lot of land, meaning there are potentially thousands who would apply for peerage as minor nobility. That in mind, I have made the requirements for true being a baron somewhat more stringent. |
| Date | 20:18:44, January 21, 2009 CET | From | Hessexian Arab Royalists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | Are we following the same ranking as the British peerage( i.e. duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron)? |
| Date | 21:58:34, January 21, 2009 CET | From | Quanzari Restorationists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | essentially. I had a pared down version of it, but since it's all rp, doesn't really matter. The british system is pretty well known and understood. |
| Date | 05:39:38, January 22, 2009 CET | From | Coalizione di Chierici Islamica | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | This is a ridiculous extension of aristocracy. A peerage should not be passed down to be reduced to heirs working for nothing and having everything given to them. This act not only encourages an uneducated and unqualified established elite but makes for permanent social classes which have been whiped away for a reason. You do not have to be a royalist to support this. Neither do you need to be Republican. You merely have to believe in the ideals of working for your money and making your work count, not having everything given to you from birth. |
| Date | 06:36:49, January 22, 2009 CET | From | Hessexian Arab Royalists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | You don't have to be an aristocrat to be wealthy. Even non-noble families will pass on their wealth to their children, who will also not work for it. Therefore, we fail to see the difference between aristocrats and wealthy CEOs. Even rich republicans are guilty. |
| Date | 07:10:26, January 22, 2009 CET | From | Order of the Golden Crown | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | Let us not be naive: there must arise a civilized aristocratic presence in Quanzar. Republicans would have us believe that equality is the highest achievement of a civilization-- how boring, how thin; we categorically assert that all the best of culture and refinement should be concentrated in the able hands of the few-- so that the masses might toil beneath them and support those fine connoisseurs of frivolity and pleasures. Someday, God willing, the upper-echelons of the state will be sealed-off from the unwashed poor. Those who wish for equality wish that every man be equally miserable. Those who wish for aristocracy know that civilization's capacity for greatness is but meager and mean-- yet, when concentrated amongst the elect-- it can yield a rather glorious gem. |
| Date | 17:10:16, January 22, 2009 CET | From | Quanzari Restorationists | To | Debating the Titles |
| Message | I am going to revise this bill and put it to the vote |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 369 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 127 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 103 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." - Niccolo Machiavelli |