-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
June-August 1888
Though the truce was called on the 11th, stubborn patches of violence still persisted. Lemarque loyalists - those that did not surrender with d'Esperey - carried on their righteous duty in the more isolated southern hills, egged on by the few remaining Legitimistes. Paris itself would take until the 27th to fall, as the garrison there believed the surrender to be a ploy. In England, where the uneasy English-Anglois truce hung by a thread, militias were under explicit orders not to fight each other but recognition of the chain of command was not universal.
Anglois-English relations were still extremely poor and could still deteriorate even further. When news of the fall of Lemarque reached the English Parliament, a flurry of optimism gripped the nationalists - this was their chance, they thought. Such was their confidence that they boasted of it to the Faction Anglois' faces - when Deputy Prime Minister of England, John Roberts, assembled a joint meeting which included senior members of the Anglois loyalist movement he proposed an outrageously provocative bill - the 'Parliament the Status of the Monarchy and Dissolution of Union Act'. The Faction Anglois stormed out immediately. Though there was little reason to believe this was an act of malice towards the Anglois on the Deputy Prime Minister's part, Roberts had made a grave faux pas in suggesting that the Anglois become a minority in a new Kingdom of England - something which was the key reason for the Faction Anglois's existence. Worse still, other members of the English Parliament openly lauded the Dissolution Bill, with high ranking members of both the ELP and the ILP, as well as leaders of the National Army, openly supporting it. None of this reassured the southerners, who rioted in London and Bristol when the Bill was presented to them. But, the response was not frothing rage universally across the Anglois - some individual Faction Anglois members, such as two-time war hero Jaques Smith, advocated for joining the English in return for certain concessions.The English Parliament were, after all, banking on the hope that the Anglois rejected Blanc more than they rejected England, and that they would prefer living under English heel in a conservative country than being part of the majority in a socialist one. This gamble was likely to fail for two reasons: firstly, it was demonstrably false that England was significantly more conservative than France. Though Blanc, the victor in France, was indeed an open socialist the English Parliament could hardly boast of their conservative credentials - nearly half of the Parliament (when the Faction Anglois were out of the picture) were members of the English Labour Party, and the remainder, the ILP, willingly joined Blanc's coalition in 1880. In fact, until 1880 the English Labour Party consistently was voted for by a larger proportion of the population and gained a larger proportion of their seats than their counterparts in France. And those old enough to remember the English Revolution remembered that the English cause was republican, not royalist. Secondly, the English overplayed their own hand - though they held the majority of the isle and indeed the ENA was the largest single army by manpower in Britain they had only just eeked into a stalemate with the Faction Anglois and they performed neither dismally nor spectacularly. Though England did possess some truly exceptional commanders, the slapdash nature in which the ENA was hastily assembled was a significant damper on their performance compared to the Faction Anglois, who had been preparing for a second conflict in England since the end of the first one as well as having help from the Lemarquists. If it came to fighting off a Blancist invasion it would be the Anglois, not the English, in a better position to fight back. As such, the Anglois put forth the Marquand Proposal (named for its author), which proposed a partition between England and Southern England inside of a federal Dual Monarchy. Roberts would eventually retract his Dissolution Bill and replace it with the Unity Bill, which called for English-Anglois co-operation against Blancist France - which though an improvement did not fully sooth the ruffled feathers in London. The Prime Minister, H.L Bennet, made his own suggestion, which was total devolution for all constituent nations except for a few national responsibilities.
Faction Anglois rioting in London (Londres).
England itself faced difficulties. Across the north, nearly 200,000 workers were unemployed - the lack of work in Newcastle and Liverpool had driven many young fit men to the National Army, but with the cessation of hostilities they would return home and join the jobless masses. Once a powerhouse of industry, the north was a shell of what it once was and many were frustrated with the Parliament's obsession with purely constitutional issues. While the people of England did not cry out for a republic, it was not fair to say they were the ardent monarchists that Bennet and Roberts claimed them to be - they were certainly not all willing to continue to war for the sole purpose of maintaining a monarchy. The English Labour Party capitalised on this, feeling awkward with the growing anti-socialist feelings in the ILP, and sought relief for the battered English industry - the need for jobs, welfare, and worker's dignity was as important as the rights of the English Parliament, and the well-being of the people came before the well-being of the English Nationalists. The visits of the notorious leftist Albert Boisier provoked similar feelings in the urban south, as many felt neither Blanc nor the English Parliament were taking their feelings seriously. Still, this gave Blanc an impressive bargaining chip - bailing out English industry in exchange for concessions and a tone down of their seperatism, as well as socialist allies in England. The anxiety over England's economic future was shared by the moneyed classes - there was a fear that the introduction of customs between England and France would unleash havok on business across the British Isles, and while Britain had the edge in maritime trade most of the crown colonies were aligned with France and would be lost to England should they sever ties. Though France was not exactly in the best shape economically, England had more to lose.
Meanwhile, in France, Blanc faced stirrings of his own. The divide between constitutionalist liberals and socialists became more pronounced by the day - with no Lemarqueist devil to unite them, and a vast political vacuum sitting where the now bitterly divided Parti Liberale once stood, many saw an opportunity in anarchy. Though a socialist, Blanc was committed to multi party democracy and co-operation with liberals, which spurred callous resentment from his enemies in the PTF. Francois Egalite's Foutainebleau Declaration - which (among other things) called for the abolition of the Monarchy, female suffrage, intervention in the Burgundian Revolution (though by this point the cause of the Burgundian Communards was effectively lost) and a ban of all monarchist political parties - gained much attention from the more far left Communards, and the Declaration became required reading in some leftist circles. Direct criticism of Blanc himself came from the radical misfit Albert Boisier, who pointed scathing attacks on his co-operation with liberal forces - unfortunately for Boisier, Blanc was considered a war hero by the vast majority of left-of-center Frenchmen, and only quietly disliked by the remainder. However, as soon as the war ended there was immense pressure to seek meaningful compromise with England. The flight of Henri XI left the Dual Monarchy kingless but technically still with a man on the throne - though there was no mechanism for the Estates-General to dethrone the king and no precedent existed for a rewriting of the constitution, many republicans saw this as the opportunity they had waited for. The Monarchy was, however, popular with many and while Henri XI was not a particularly stunning example of its successes, Henri X had been a model constitutional ruler. Blanc was personally republican, but he was also a realist and understood that the monarchy was a sacred cow many would not seen sacrificed for ideological purity. But Henri XI could no longer be trusted - if he were stripped of his crown the throne would pass to his brother's only daughter, Elisabet, who had no real political interests and could easily be a rubber stamp for a democratic government. The greater sword held over Blanc's head, however, was that of the union - the Great Anglo-French Question. Despite the English Parliament's oddly amnesiac suspicion of Blanc, the Premier of France was possibly the best friend they could have in Paris - as a youth he campaigned for greater rights for the English and against the treatment of English political prisoners. But the English were having none of it, demanding at first full independence north of the channel, and when the Anglois protested scaled back their ambitions to near total devolution with a skeleton government with control over a few national responsibilities. This was fine to Blanc, in theory, but his main goal was the cessation of hostilities and keeping the vultures (ie. Burgundy) at bay. Total control of the channel was vital to the interests of France, and leaving behind the Anglois to the English jeopardized that, and the economic links between Paris and London would be disastrous to break. The was also great domestic support for the continued union - most liberals supported it, even if they thought it could be reformed, and Montefortism was still strong on the mainland.
Delegates from across the Dual Monarchy meet in Laon. Invitation criteria was kept vague and many attended, however much of the work was done in backrooms and closed meetings between the English, Anglois, and French.
Thus Blanc, motivated to bring all the factions of France together on equal footing, called the Conference of Laon. It was, by design, to be a circus of ideology - even Legitimistes snuck into the proceedings (though wisely were shunted into sideshows whilst the grownups fought it out in the main debates). While in attendance himself, Blanc organised a multi-national negotiating team for the Government's cause to lead the charge against the English, which included some Englishmen and even ILP members such as Augustine Hawkins. The English, on the other hand, brought all of their heavyweights, hoping to sledgehammer the French into submitting to their demands - which included anything up to total independence. The Faction Anglois, suspicious of being used as a pawn for either English or Blancist interests, had only two real goals, avoiding becoming a minority in their own country and the continuation of the Plantagenet monarchy. The other nationalities of the Dual Monarchy attended, such as the Welsh, the Bretons, the Basques, the Occitans and even the Burgundian minority on the borderlands, but their demands were secondary to the Big Three - Liverpool, London, and Paris.
It is the First of August, 1888, and the Conference of Laon has begun. Attendees must come to a decision on the following points:
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
Discuss, debate, argue on these points until a conclusion is made. The English, the Anglois, and the Blanc Government must come to an agreement unanimously on each point. The conference will last in real time until the 27th of June or until an agreement is made by all parties. Other groups are free to contribute.
((My immediate proposals on each points, noting I don't have too much time on my hands, at the moment, so IC might be a bit late in appearing))
1) No later than January 1st, 1890, should election campaigns begin. I understand there is a need to rebuild, but a year and a half lull should be enough, lest the population grow anxious.
2) No opinion, as long as Lemarque receives the punishment he is due, no more, no less.
3) No opinion, supportive of some disciplinary action, though much less severe than Lemarque's.
4) I yield to the Anglois opinion on this matter, though I'd pressure him to abdicate over forcing him from the the throne. Sets a less dangerous precedent, in my opinion.
5) Further stripping of powers from the monarch, though they will still have their place in government. Absolutely no republic.
6) Ideally, two regional governments and England and France represented within the national cabinet, and holding massive powers in their constituent regions (national government deals with affairs affecting both regions, military, foreign policy, etc.), with strong protections of all ethnic groups within the monarchy. Willing to give leeway on this, but I would not like to see England divided.
7) Ireland is to be recognized as independent, but the socialist/communist government shall not be dealt with otherwise.
8) The national military shall swear an oath of loyalty to the elected government above all others, even the king. Local divisions in each region shall swear loyalties to the national and regional elected governments, but are expected to support the union unless it is acting explicitly against the well-being of the regional people. Military leaders are prohibited from elected office for a duration of five years away from service, and must be non-partisan while serving.
9) Referendum, and votes in the relevant elected bodies, both before, and after the elections. Referendums that result in failure can be overturned by the appropriate regional body, presuming the regional body receives a 3/4 majority in favor. Otherwise, only a simple majority is needed in every case.
((Just getting the ball rolling, I suppose. I reserve the right to change my mind, I'm rather tired as is, and might think differently when I've slept this through.))
1) No later than January 1st, 1890, should election campaigns begin. I understand there is a need to rebuild, but a year and a half lull should be enough, lest the population grow anxious.
2) No opinion, as long as Lemarque receives the punishment he is due, no more, no less.
3) No opinion, supportive of some disciplinary action, though much less severe than Lemarque's.
4) I yield to the Anglois opinion on this matter, though I'd pressure him to abdicate over forcing him from the the throne. Sets a less dangerous precedent, in my opinion.
5) Further stripping of powers from the monarch, though they will still have their place in government. Absolutely no republic.
6) Ideally, two regional governments and England and France represented within the national cabinet, and holding massive powers in their constituent regions (national government deals with affairs affecting both regions, military, foreign policy, etc.), with strong protections of all ethnic groups within the monarchy. Willing to give leeway on this, but I would not like to see England divided.
7) Ireland is to be recognized as independent, but the socialist/communist government shall not be dealt with otherwise.
8) The national military shall swear an oath of loyalty to the elected government above all others, even the king. Local divisions in each region shall swear loyalties to the national and regional elected governments, but are expected to support the union unless it is acting explicitly against the well-being of the regional people. Military leaders are prohibited from elected office for a duration of five years away from service, and must be non-partisan while serving.
9) Referendum, and votes in the relevant elected bodies, both before, and after the elections. Referendums that result in failure can be overturned by the appropriate regional body, presuming the regional body receives a 3/4 majority in favor. Otherwise, only a simple majority is needed in every case.
((Just getting the ball rolling, I suppose. I reserve the right to change my mind, I'm rather tired as is, and might think differently when I've slept this through.))
Augustine Hawkins addressed a working group dedicated to fresh elections,
"I believe next Spring would be the best time for a fresh election. Perhaps mid-March. It would give parties plenty of time to organize and campaign, while also not being to far from now, allowing the current political interregnum to continue. Furthermore, it is my belief that all parties that wish to compete should be allowed to do so. Preventing that would be undemocratic. Furthermore, universal suffrage, as established by the Monteforte Government, should be restored."
"I believe next Spring would be the best time for a fresh election. Perhaps mid-March. It would give parties plenty of time to organize and campaign, while also not being to far from now, allowing the current political interregnum to continue. Furthermore, it is my belief that all parties that wish to compete should be allowed to do so. Preventing that would be undemocratic. Furthermore, universal suffrage, as established by the Monteforte Government, should be restored."
After a rather heated argument between Guenevere and Philippe over some of the specifics of his statements to be made, that saw Guenevere permanently burn some potential tricks that were originally to be saved for matters more drastic in order to ensure the compliance of Philippe, the following starting position on these matters was to be placed by Philippe.
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
To be scheduled for July 1889, with time for rebuilding to occur and militias to be disbanded to prevent intimidation at the ballot whether this intimidation be potentially by Faction, ENA or Blancists.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
All members of the government to stand trial and be tried for high treason with the death penalty but this to be commuted by special act of the newly elected Estates General come whenever that reconvenes to exile either from the metropolitan to Ceylon or some other island or to any other nation in the New World bar Plantagenia for obvious reasons that such a vile traitor might even attempt to rip up the succession accord with our brethren there.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
d'Esperey to be charged with high treason and to be given the death penalty by law, but a full pardon/commuting to a either complete innocence or small sentence in a "nice" prison in order to prevent the same pure reactionaries from becoming so militant over a betrayal of a man who ended the conflict.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
Henri XI by his support for Lemarque and his decision to flee the Dual Monarchy should be taken to have abdicated and the heir to the throne should take it. No need to force such an abdication by act of man, for he has already abdicated his royal responsibilities and duties to his subjects and should so forfeit his entire position. Should the Dauphin reject this, then we shall go the next 4 in line to the throne. If they all reject this then there should be a referendum on Monarchy or Republic. Following a monarchy result there should be further referenda on either the Duke of York or the Legitimist candidate.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
That the previous proposition by myself be taken in this regard with the monarch losing many of their current powers, with some to be potentially returned via law of the Estates General if future monarchs prove able to resist the temptations of removing someone they personally dislike. That a republic only be instated in a republic chosen by the chain of events possible above, and that any future attempts to bring about one require unanimity from all the federal governments of the Dual Monarchy.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
That the Dual Monarchy be subdivided into 7 distinct federal governments, 3 under the aegis of the Kingdom of England, 3 under the Aegis of the Kingdom of France and one under their own aegis with the Kingdom of Navarre. These federal governments to have their own sweeping powers, for them to them have a Royal Assembly elected for the whole of the various kingdoms and then to have a national cabinet made up of a coalition of people from the three kingdoms (but practically typically only one or so Basques). As such the English Parliament is to become this for the whole of the Kingdom of England the Estates-General this for the Kingdom of France and for the Kingdom of Navarre the Legebiltzarra. The full seven federal governments to be the Principality of Wales, the Principality of Albion (Anglois Areas) and the Principality of Northumbria (English areas) in the Kingdom of England. The regions in France to be the Duchy of Brittany, the French State and the Grand Duchy of Occitania. Kingdom of Navarre having the Euskadi Country. These federal regions should form as lower houses for the upper house equivalent in each Kingdom's Royal assembly in the English Parliament, the French Estates-General and the Basque Legebiltzarra. With the national cabinet handling matters of foreign policy, the military and infrastructure.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
That the Second Irish Republic be recognised, but that if the government there becomes a dictatorship then action should be taken to restore the previous Lordship as a very autonomous dominion and democracy restored there.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
That there should be the creation of a national unit of guard to safeguard not just the Lord Chancellor or the wider national cabinet of the whole Dual Monarchy but the constitution that will be ratified by this conference and later by the governments itself. This guard should be the size of 16,000 men with 6,000 to be in Paris and Londres and 4000 in Bilbao.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
That all decisions to be made here will be accepted by popular referendum before the Estates-General reconvenes and that if accepted that the National Estates-General become the French Estates-General and so forth.
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
To be scheduled for July 1889, with time for rebuilding to occur and militias to be disbanded to prevent intimidation at the ballot whether this intimidation be potentially by Faction, ENA or Blancists.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
All members of the government to stand trial and be tried for high treason with the death penalty but this to be commuted by special act of the newly elected Estates General come whenever that reconvenes to exile either from the metropolitan to Ceylon or some other island or to any other nation in the New World bar Plantagenia for obvious reasons that such a vile traitor might even attempt to rip up the succession accord with our brethren there.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
d'Esperey to be charged with high treason and to be given the death penalty by law, but a full pardon/commuting to a either complete innocence or small sentence in a "nice" prison in order to prevent the same pure reactionaries from becoming so militant over a betrayal of a man who ended the conflict.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
Henri XI by his support for Lemarque and his decision to flee the Dual Monarchy should be taken to have abdicated and the heir to the throne should take it. No need to force such an abdication by act of man, for he has already abdicated his royal responsibilities and duties to his subjects and should so forfeit his entire position. Should the Dauphin reject this, then we shall go the next 4 in line to the throne. If they all reject this then there should be a referendum on Monarchy or Republic. Following a monarchy result there should be further referenda on either the Duke of York or the Legitimist candidate.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
That the previous proposition by myself be taken in this regard with the monarch losing many of their current powers, with some to be potentially returned via law of the Estates General if future monarchs prove able to resist the temptations of removing someone they personally dislike. That a republic only be instated in a republic chosen by the chain of events possible above, and that any future attempts to bring about one require unanimity from all the federal governments of the Dual Monarchy.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
That the Dual Monarchy be subdivided into 7 distinct federal governments, 3 under the aegis of the Kingdom of England, 3 under the Aegis of the Kingdom of France and one under their own aegis with the Kingdom of Navarre. These federal governments to have their own sweeping powers, for them to them have a Royal Assembly elected for the whole of the various kingdoms and then to have a national cabinet made up of a coalition of people from the three kingdoms (but practically typically only one or so Basques). As such the English Parliament is to become this for the whole of the Kingdom of England the Estates-General this for the Kingdom of France and for the Kingdom of Navarre the Legebiltzarra. The full seven federal governments to be the Principality of Wales, the Principality of Albion (Anglois Areas) and the Principality of Northumbria (English areas) in the Kingdom of England. The regions in France to be the Duchy of Brittany, the French State and the Grand Duchy of Occitania. Kingdom of Navarre having the Euskadi Country. These federal regions should form as lower houses for the upper house equivalent in each Kingdom's Royal assembly in the English Parliament, the French Estates-General and the Basque Legebiltzarra. With the national cabinet handling matters of foreign policy, the military and infrastructure.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
That the Second Irish Republic be recognised, but that if the government there becomes a dictatorship then action should be taken to restore the previous Lordship as a very autonomous dominion and democracy restored there.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
That there should be the creation of a national unit of guard to safeguard not just the Lord Chancellor or the wider national cabinet of the whole Dual Monarchy but the constitution that will be ratified by this conference and later by the governments itself. This guard should be the size of 16,000 men with 6,000 to be in Paris and Londres and 4000 in Bilbao.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
That all decisions to be made here will be accepted by popular referendum before the Estates-General reconvenes and that if accepted that the National Estates-General become the French Estates-General and so forth.
Name: Guillaume Roland Henri d’Etretat-Douvres, comte de Cendreford (“Roland de Cendreford,” “General-Count Cendreford,” “that Anglois bastard”)
Date of Birth: June 12, 1836 (52)
Nationality: Anglois
Career: Soldier, politician, guerrilla leader
Ideology: Conservative
Party/Faction: Faction Anglois
Biography: Cendreford’s lineage supposedly goes back to Rollo of Normandy. More recently (within the last 300 years) his extensive noble family has thickly populated both Normandy and Angleterre and holds lands on both sides of the Channel.
Cendreford himself is the eldest surviving son of prominent Anglois nobles in Kent and a major landlord in his own right. Having served for most of his adult life in the Dual Monarchy’s various wars, both at home and abroad, Cendreford earned particular enmity among nationalists for his role in fighting the last English rebellion. Retired honorably from the Armee Royale, Cendreford expected a comfortable retirement at home with his many grandchildren.
Instead, just a few years later, he finds himself at the head of the Faction Anglois’ militant wing, fighting an irregular war and cleaning up yet another English mess. His extensive military experience, iron determination, and thick bankroll played a crucial part in the Faction’s success against the parliamentary army, and now he enters negotiations with his usual cynical sangfroid. Maybe, just maybe, the country he gave his best years to won’t disintegrate around him.
Date of Birth: June 12, 1836 (52)
Nationality: Anglois
Career: Soldier, politician, guerrilla leader
Ideology: Conservative
Party/Faction: Faction Anglois
Biography: Cendreford’s lineage supposedly goes back to Rollo of Normandy. More recently (within the last 300 years) his extensive noble family has thickly populated both Normandy and Angleterre and holds lands on both sides of the Channel.
Cendreford himself is the eldest surviving son of prominent Anglois nobles in Kent and a major landlord in his own right. Having served for most of his adult life in the Dual Monarchy’s various wars, both at home and abroad, Cendreford earned particular enmity among nationalists for his role in fighting the last English rebellion. Retired honorably from the Armee Royale, Cendreford expected a comfortable retirement at home with his many grandchildren.
Instead, just a few years later, he finds himself at the head of the Faction Anglois’ militant wing, fighting an irregular war and cleaning up yet another English mess. His extensive military experience, iron determination, and thick bankroll played a crucial part in the Faction’s success against the parliamentary army, and now he enters negotiations with his usual cynical sangfroid. Maybe, just maybe, the country he gave his best years to won’t disintegrate around him.
Honorable delegates, esteemed Chair,
As a representative of the French nation, I would like to give the position of my caucus on the issues at hand. France as an entity, as a nation, has long been marginalized, and it is time for her to speak out. However, we have no wish to sunder the Union, nor to act against our brethren in the other national communities. I would like to frame these points as blueprints for further discussion, and hope that we can reach a solution amenable to all. I thank you, and France thanks you, for your ears.
I will discuss the points in the order the chair has presented them.
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
No earlier than June 1st, 1890, and able to be postponed if instability resumes. We must ensure the nation remains stable in this trying time.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
Charles Lemarque should receive royal pardon, even if his actions are condemned by the government. It is the only way to heal the wounds our country has suffered and bring all participating sides together again.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
For the same reasons, d'Esperey should receive full pardon.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
There is little reason to upset the current order. A republic will only further send our nation into degeneracy, and other alternatives could prove divisive. Henri XI should remain on the throne if he receives the consent of the delegates assembled here to do so. If he does not, another suitable monarch should be found, considering candidates both in and out of the current line of secession.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
The Plantagenet crown is the status quo and should be respected as such, but the Dual Monarchy's constituent nations must be able to express their own identities and cultures by having national symbols of their own. Subnational entities with their own sovereigns, clearly subordinate to the national governments, should be organized for the great communities of the Dual Monarchy.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
The tensions underlying 1886 will never be solved without a form of federalism. The Dual Monarchy should become a federation, constructed as follows:
The current Estates-General and King of England and France shall constitute the Federal Government, responsible for defense, foreign affairs, trade and other matters of international policy. Both England and France should have national governments with clearly delineated, constitutionally reserved powers to attend to their own affairs in a meaningful fashion, including the ability to set their own budgets, levy their own taxes and pass their own laws. Furthermore, the six communities of the Dual Monarchy, being the English, Welsh, Anglois, Bretons, French and Occitans, should each be given their own local governments devolved either from the federal government or their constituent national government, depending upon their wishes. These governments should have their own executives, chosen by the people of those communities, and should be able to set cultural and linguistic policies as they see fit. Please turn your attention to this diagram of one possible implementation of this system, based on my deliberations with other delegates.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
The Dual Monarchy should not recognize the Irish Republic, and should not legitimize its claim to govern Ireland. An embargo is possible. However, outright military action should not be undertaken at this time, due to the precarious international situation.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
As addressed above, the creation of national parliaments and state governments will do much to alleviate the sources of tension that caused the Civil War. However, radical changes to the electoral laws are neither practical nor desireable. Republican parties and unions should remain outlawed, and suffrage criteria should not be changed.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
The agreement, once concluded, should be ratified by the extant English Parliament and French National Assembly. If passed by both, it will enter into effect.
Thank you, and I will be happy to take questions.
- E. Villers
As a representative of the French nation, I would like to give the position of my caucus on the issues at hand. France as an entity, as a nation, has long been marginalized, and it is time for her to speak out. However, we have no wish to sunder the Union, nor to act against our brethren in the other national communities. I would like to frame these points as blueprints for further discussion, and hope that we can reach a solution amenable to all. I thank you, and France thanks you, for your ears.
I will discuss the points in the order the chair has presented them.
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
No earlier than June 1st, 1890, and able to be postponed if instability resumes. We must ensure the nation remains stable in this trying time.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
Charles Lemarque should receive royal pardon, even if his actions are condemned by the government. It is the only way to heal the wounds our country has suffered and bring all participating sides together again.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
For the same reasons, d'Esperey should receive full pardon.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
There is little reason to upset the current order. A republic will only further send our nation into degeneracy, and other alternatives could prove divisive. Henri XI should remain on the throne if he receives the consent of the delegates assembled here to do so. If he does not, another suitable monarch should be found, considering candidates both in and out of the current line of secession.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
The Plantagenet crown is the status quo and should be respected as such, but the Dual Monarchy's constituent nations must be able to express their own identities and cultures by having national symbols of their own. Subnational entities with their own sovereigns, clearly subordinate to the national governments, should be organized for the great communities of the Dual Monarchy.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
The tensions underlying 1886 will never be solved without a form of federalism. The Dual Monarchy should become a federation, constructed as follows:
The current Estates-General and King of England and France shall constitute the Federal Government, responsible for defense, foreign affairs, trade and other matters of international policy. Both England and France should have national governments with clearly delineated, constitutionally reserved powers to attend to their own affairs in a meaningful fashion, including the ability to set their own budgets, levy their own taxes and pass their own laws. Furthermore, the six communities of the Dual Monarchy, being the English, Welsh, Anglois, Bretons, French and Occitans, should each be given their own local governments devolved either from the federal government or their constituent national government, depending upon their wishes. These governments should have their own executives, chosen by the people of those communities, and should be able to set cultural and linguistic policies as they see fit. Please turn your attention to this diagram of one possible implementation of this system, based on my deliberations with other delegates.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
The Dual Monarchy should not recognize the Irish Republic, and should not legitimize its claim to govern Ireland. An embargo is possible. However, outright military action should not be undertaken at this time, due to the precarious international situation.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
As addressed above, the creation of national parliaments and state governments will do much to alleviate the sources of tension that caused the Civil War. However, radical changes to the electoral laws are neither practical nor desireable. Republican parties and unions should remain outlawed, and suffrage criteria should not be changed.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
The agreement, once concluded, should be ratified by the extant English Parliament and French National Assembly. If passed by both, it will enter into effect.
Thank you, and I will be happy to take questions.
- E. Villers
Augustine Hawkins added the following plan to consideration,
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
We must balance the need to restore order with the need to have a democratically elected government as soon as is feasible. As such, I believe an election this coming Spring should be aimed for. All parties that wish to compete should be allowed to, even if they are overtly Republican.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
Lamarque and his cabinet should be subject to a free and fair trial with a maximum penalty of life in prison. Capital punishment is immoral and should not be used.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
The General did contribute to the quicker end of the conflict, but was also probably the person most responsible in the first place. He should be discharged from the military and maybe even exiled from the mainland of the Dual Monarchy.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
It is my preference that King Henri return to the throne, but if this does not prove feasible, Elisabeth should offered the throne.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
I do not believe major changes to the monarchy is needed in this regard, although it should be made clear that the Monarch’s role in politics is limited to purely symbolic.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
Excessive Federalism should be discouraged. The current powers of the Kingdom governments should be codified and written up though. The central government should also be subject to a vote of confidence by the national parliaments. If both (or a majority if more kingdoms are established) parliaments pass a motion of no confidence, the Estates-General is dissolved and fresh elections are to be called. Furthermore, the rights of the various minorities in the Dual Monarchy should have their right to their cultures and languages guaranteed and the existing dimiscration should be ended.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
The Second Republic should not yet be recognized, but neither should the Monarchy take hostile action against it. This is an issue better left to the future elected government.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
Hopefully the devolution, and support of democratic norms, will prevent this. The people have shown they will not tolerate such a coup. Laws can also be passed that make this even more clear.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
Once the new Estates-General is elected, the results of the conference should be submitted to it for consent as one vote. If it votes against it, then they must come up with a new plan that they can pass.
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
We must balance the need to restore order with the need to have a democratically elected government as soon as is feasible. As such, I believe an election this coming Spring should be aimed for. All parties that wish to compete should be allowed to, even if they are overtly Republican.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
Lamarque and his cabinet should be subject to a free and fair trial with a maximum penalty of life in prison. Capital punishment is immoral and should not be used.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
The General did contribute to the quicker end of the conflict, but was also probably the person most responsible in the first place. He should be discharged from the military and maybe even exiled from the mainland of the Dual Monarchy.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
It is my preference that King Henri return to the throne, but if this does not prove feasible, Elisabeth should offered the throne.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
I do not believe major changes to the monarchy is needed in this regard, although it should be made clear that the Monarch’s role in politics is limited to purely symbolic.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
Excessive Federalism should be discouraged. The current powers of the Kingdom governments should be codified and written up though. The central government should also be subject to a vote of confidence by the national parliaments. If both (or a majority if more kingdoms are established) parliaments pass a motion of no confidence, the Estates-General is dissolved and fresh elections are to be called. Furthermore, the rights of the various minorities in the Dual Monarchy should have their right to their cultures and languages guaranteed and the existing dimiscration should be ended.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
The Second Republic should not yet be recognized, but neither should the Monarchy take hostile action against it. This is an issue better left to the future elected government.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
Hopefully the devolution, and support of democratic norms, will prevent this. The people have shown they will not tolerate such a coup. Laws can also be passed that make this even more clear.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
Once the new Estates-General is elected, the results of the conference should be submitted to it for consent as one vote. If it votes against it, then they must come up with a new plan that they can pass.
... and that's how I saved Karl Marx' life and first met with my wife.
- Astonishing story, comrade Egalite! Finally our readers heard this legendary story firsthand! But let's return to current events and our interview. When do you think the Election Day should be scheduled?
- I think that election campaign should start in July next year, after plebiscite, and Estates-General should be opened on 1st of January 1890.
- What we should do with Lemarque and his government?
- They deserve a fair trail. If the court will justify them, then so be it. And d'Esperey should be pardoned but he must leave our country.
- And what about King?
- I said it many times and will say again: only Republic will satisfy working people. All Plantagenets should be expelled.
- What are your views on the future Constitution and the federal system?
- Union of two equal nations, England and France. Minorities will have cultural autonomy, English and French will be official languages, but every province will have right to install local language as third official language. Federalist proposals sounds insane, Welsh parliament! Ridiculous! What's next? Their own Estates General in every village? National parliaments will lead to further fragmentation of former Dual Monarchy.
- What do you think about our relations with Ireland? Should we recognize their Independence?
- Let's be honest: Ireland is already independent de facto. And we have no choice but to recognize this situation de jure. But Irish government should know: if Irish workers and peasants will rise up against capitalists and landlords we will intervene on revolutionaries' side.
- How we can prevent repeating nightmares of civil war? Is it even possibly?
- I hope that basic civil rights, like freedom of press, freedom of assembly, equal voting right, women's suffrage will help us.
- And how conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens?
- By plebiscite next spring or earlier, if possible. Until 1890 Blanc government should remain in charge.
- Thank you for your interview comrade Egalite. The L’Humanité newspaper thanks you for your collaboration
- Astonishing story, comrade Egalite! Finally our readers heard this legendary story firsthand! But let's return to current events and our interview. When do you think the Election Day should be scheduled?
- I think that election campaign should start in July next year, after plebiscite, and Estates-General should be opened on 1st of January 1890.
- What we should do with Lemarque and his government?
- They deserve a fair trail. If the court will justify them, then so be it. And d'Esperey should be pardoned but he must leave our country.
- And what about King?
- I said it many times and will say again: only Republic will satisfy working people. All Plantagenets should be expelled.
- What are your views on the future Constitution and the federal system?
- Union of two equal nations, England and France. Minorities will have cultural autonomy, English and French will be official languages, but every province will have right to install local language as third official language. Federalist proposals sounds insane, Welsh parliament! Ridiculous! What's next? Their own Estates General in every village? National parliaments will lead to further fragmentation of former Dual Monarchy.
- What do you think about our relations with Ireland? Should we recognize their Independence?
- Let's be honest: Ireland is already independent de facto. And we have no choice but to recognize this situation de jure. But Irish government should know: if Irish workers and peasants will rise up against capitalists and landlords we will intervene on revolutionaries' side.
- How we can prevent repeating nightmares of civil war? Is it even possibly?
- I hope that basic civil rights, like freedom of press, freedom of assembly, equal voting right, women's suffrage will help us.
- And how conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens?
- By plebiscite next spring or earlier, if possible. Until 1890 Blanc government should remain in charge.
- Thank you for your interview comrade Egalite. The L’Humanité newspaper thanks you for your collaboration
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
As soon as possible. Let’s get it over with.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
They were just following orders. Convict them, then commute the sentence to house arrest.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
The mob needs a scapegoat and Esperey is twice faithless. Hang him.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
The King remains the King as long as he wishes to reign. If not him, then his legal heir.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
The civil war was the product of feckless criminality and opportunism on the part of specific individuals. No change necessary.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
The Dual Monarchy should be reorganized along an imperial model and the ‘nations’ divided up into provinces. Individual provinces should be permitted to request a limited internal devolution of powers via referendum, including the right to have a provincial legislature. Provincial governors are appointed by the King.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
We’ll get back to them later. Oh yes.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
Unnecessary.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
A national referendum, if you think it’s really necessary.
— General-Count Cendreford
As soon as possible. Let’s get it over with.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
They were just following orders. Convict them, then commute the sentence to house arrest.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
The mob needs a scapegoat and Esperey is twice faithless. Hang him.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
The King remains the King as long as he wishes to reign. If not him, then his legal heir.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
The civil war was the product of feckless criminality and opportunism on the part of specific individuals. No change necessary.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
The Dual Monarchy should be reorganized along an imperial model and the ‘nations’ divided up into provinces. Individual provinces should be permitted to request a limited internal devolution of powers via referendum, including the right to have a provincial legislature. Provincial governors are appointed by the King.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
We’ll get back to them later. Oh yes.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
Unnecessary.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
A national referendum, if you think it’s really necessary.
— General-Count Cendreford
Albert Boisier, becoming increasingly cynical, adresses the current situation of the conference in a speech.
This conference is the epitome of the absurdity of this whole conflict. As i am speaking, the negotiations are not advancing for one reason : The National Integrity of England. The Civil War could very well resume for this one reason.
the Nationalists from England, blinded by their pride and foolishness, seems to refuse any kind of compromise, as they wish for an united England inside the Union. I have spoken with the Anglois during the riots of Londres and they reject the idea of being under the heel of the English Parliament. While i believe that the English citizens need to be raised to the same status as the Anglois and the other minorities of the Union, i tell them to not repeat the mistakes the Anglois have done.
I must also emphasize on something that has been forgotten since the beginning of the Conference, especially in England : Our economy is in crisis and the working class is starving. Right now, in one of the world's leading economy, hundreds of thousands of honest workers are left jobless, with no solution whatsoever to help them. The English Nationalists have said and done nothing about this tragedy ! It is a shameful behaviour and if they really care about the english people as they pretend to, they should help the workers of England to find a job and they should enact social reforms to make their lives better instead of being obsessed with constitutional issues.
And to my fellow comrades who are present at the conference, i tell them to continue the fight for a socialist Republic. We may not see the Birth of the United Republic today but the struggle goes on. For now, we must compromise with the other factions to make sure we are not left out.
Pour un Prolétariat libre, vive la République !
This conference is the epitome of the absurdity of this whole conflict. As i am speaking, the negotiations are not advancing for one reason : The National Integrity of England. The Civil War could very well resume for this one reason.
the Nationalists from England, blinded by their pride and foolishness, seems to refuse any kind of compromise, as they wish for an united England inside the Union. I have spoken with the Anglois during the riots of Londres and they reject the idea of being under the heel of the English Parliament. While i believe that the English citizens need to be raised to the same status as the Anglois and the other minorities of the Union, i tell them to not repeat the mistakes the Anglois have done.
I must also emphasize on something that has been forgotten since the beginning of the Conference, especially in England : Our economy is in crisis and the working class is starving. Right now, in one of the world's leading economy, hundreds of thousands of honest workers are left jobless, with no solution whatsoever to help them. The English Nationalists have said and done nothing about this tragedy ! It is a shameful behaviour and if they really care about the english people as they pretend to, they should help the workers of England to find a job and they should enact social reforms to make their lives better instead of being obsessed with constitutional issues.
And to my fellow comrades who are present at the conference, i tell them to continue the fight for a socialist Republic. We may not see the Birth of the United Republic today but the struggle goes on. For now, we must compromise with the other factions to make sure we are not left out.
Pour un Prolétariat libre, vive la République !
In Defense of the Dual Monarchy
As the fires and passions of our tragic civil war slowly dissipate we must exercise vigilance, they still smolder. Grievances and grudges remain and it is our duty to rectify this, least we experience another conflict that pits brother against brother, father against son. While advances in our nation were made, clearly they were not enough. But as those with misguided ideals shout for revolutionary measures and an end to the monarchy, they seek to sunder a critical foundation of what can be and has been good governance. Do not be fooled by their rhetoric, this war was not about regionalism as some might say or even the crown, it was a war for democracy. Oppressive individuals who sought, in their fear of radicalism and disregard for the rule of law, to end what dedicated men like Charles Monteforte and others have done. As a nation of laws we must ensure order, tempered by the changing times we adapt if we are to survive.
Regrettable that His Majesty, King Henri XI, took action whether by fear, coercion or another factor and sided with the Lemarque regime. It is worth mentioning he did not launch nor initially supported this mad choice by the former minister of war. Yet while some call for his abdication, others wish leniency for the ringleader and the turncoat d’Esperey. The former is the catalyst for the bloodshed while the latter was doing what was feasible to save their own skin. Whether or not His Majesty wishes to return, he will see his powers diminished. If he does forgo abdication, his return will be welcomed. Otherwise, support should be given to the next legal heir and successor.
Another force seeking to destroy our union is that of regionalist ambitions. This was not the rallying cry as some would have you believe, they saw the struggle as an opportunity to carve out their own nations and this will not be so. Minority rights and the rights of all others should be respected and protected, the universal suffrage acts of Monteforte, suspended by Lemarque to fulfil his own agenda, are the bedrock of this union and should continue to do so. We are stronger united, these last decades has shown that no power on this earth can match us. We are a bastion of might, a beacon of liberty and the example all others should emulate. We are an imperfect union, the civil war acutely illustrated this but the alternatives other seek will tear our people apart and relegate them to the dustbin of history. To follow in these methods is to create another fatal mistake, one our great nation may not recover from.
Long Live the Dual Monarchy!
~ Pierre Gitane
( General stances on the points incoming:
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
In favor of elections slated for next spring in April to allow for proper government authorities to rebuild, recover and prepare what is needed for these historic elections.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
Vehemently in favor of a fair trial against Lemarque. With confidence in the courts, let the punishment fit the crime. If it is death, let it be death. Exile? Then exile it shall be.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
Also strongly in favor of a fair trial, d’Esperey is credited with ending the civil war but remember which side he was when it started. He is no hero, merely a man who saw the writing on the wall and decided to save his own skin. If leniency is to be afforded, exile.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
In tremendous support of His Majesty King Henri XI on the throne, however, if he abdicates we are in favor of his legal royal successor.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
The monarchy is to be preserved, nothing less than that will be entertained.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
We recognize that the current state of affairs cannot continue least we find another Lemarque or worse, in our midst. While we are completely against any sort of federation we are open minded about the structure of devolution, increases in local governance in the form of provincial legislatures.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
While it festers with radicals there will be no recognition whatsoever, but are firmly against intervention.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
Oaths of loyalty to the union, and the king, are to be taken by all government officials and the military. They are to adhere to the rule of law and any and all ordinances passed by the Estates General. Local divisions in each province shall swear loyalties to any higher echelon and so on all the way to the top, supporting the union is explicitly expected unless it is tangibly acting against the well-being of the people of the Dual Monarchy as a whole. Military leaders are prohibited from elected office until a period of seven years has passed since retirement. The rights of minorities are to remain sacred and with their inclusion n the democratic process championed for here on. Various freedoms are to be guaranteed such as the freedom of religion, the press, property, etc.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
By referendum with a simple majority, cumulative of the entire nation.
Jack Chester, as part of the English delegation, addresses the assembled conference
Since the guns have fallen silent across England and France, events have moved at a pace which has constantly threatened to plunge our nations back into conflict. Much has been said by all sides to inflame the passions of men these last months. For my part, I am truly sorry for any statements I have made which have caused our Anglois brothers to fear for their future in England. I never wished for them to feel like strangers in their own land, and we must make every effort to work together with the Faction, to bridge the gap which so clearly exists between these two great peoples which exist on our island and create a truly inclusive government..
As for the matters to be considered at this conference:
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
These must be held by the end of 1889. Time must be allowed for armed forces to be demobilised and order to be restored, so that voting can take place with safety and dignity.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
Lemarque must be tried for crimes against the state, with reference to his unlawful usurpation of power which caused this conflict to ensue. I would recommend that a guilty verdict result in permanent house arrest, so that Lemarque and his government may live out their days unable to harm others, but without the unnecessary cost of their lives.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
The harshness with which d'Esperey treated his fellow countrymen, simply due to their politics, is deplorable. However, one must note that he surrendered to Blanc and brought and end to the fighting in France. I would recommend permanent house arrest for him also.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
It is time for a truly constitutional monarchy to reign. Henri XI may remain on the throne, but only if he assents to an act of both houses of the Estates General removing any remnants of true executive power from the person of the Monarch in perpetuity. His Majesty's government must be the instrument of the will of his people - no other body or person so do so. If he cannot assent to this, I propose that Elisabet assume the throne assenting to the same bill.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
It is my belief that a fair and just monarch, embracing the ideals of democracy and government by constitution, can act as a unifying figure for the peoples of England and France. I therefore voice my support for the Plantagenet monarchy, within the limits in place as discussed above.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
I have always made it clear that England must be one state, indivisible from Berwick to Cantorbery. But I also recognise and regret my hasty rush to back total independence for England, which I now recognise would only create new divisions within my dear country. That is why I support the continuation of the Dual Monarchy, with the devolution of most responsibilities from the Paris government, which would retain the matters of foreign relations, military direction and the government of the Dual Monarchies overall economic area. I believe that by working together, we can create real prosperity for all citizens of our countries, with freedom and enterprise at the heart of all we do.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
I would move to recognise the Irish Republic and work to establish normalised relations with the new government. I see radical socialists lurking just under the surface in Dublin and the only way for us to head off a new threat to stability ermging acros the Irish Sea is to engage with the current government and strengthen our mutual economic and cultural interests.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
To my mind, the catastrophic events of 1886 came about from a lack of respect of the rule of law by the military, who only had regard for their own ideology rather than the well-being of the people. Therefore, the military can never again be in a position whereby they can overthrow the democratically elected government. Civilian control of the military must be complete and unambiguous. The only way a government should be changed must be by a vote of no confidence and/or elections. The devolved national assemblies must also guarantee representation for the various peoples of their constituent countries, so that all voices and interests are given an equal hearing.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
Following the elections, national plebiscites should be held across the Dual Monarchy. Should the situation arise where some countries reject the Conference resolutions, it must reconvene to discuss amended terms.
Since the guns have fallen silent across England and France, events have moved at a pace which has constantly threatened to plunge our nations back into conflict. Much has been said by all sides to inflame the passions of men these last months. For my part, I am truly sorry for any statements I have made which have caused our Anglois brothers to fear for their future in England. I never wished for them to feel like strangers in their own land, and we must make every effort to work together with the Faction, to bridge the gap which so clearly exists between these two great peoples which exist on our island and create a truly inclusive government..
As for the matters to be considered at this conference:
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
These must be held by the end of 1889. Time must be allowed for armed forces to be demobilised and order to be restored, so that voting can take place with safety and dignity.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
Lemarque must be tried for crimes against the state, with reference to his unlawful usurpation of power which caused this conflict to ensue. I would recommend that a guilty verdict result in permanent house arrest, so that Lemarque and his government may live out their days unable to harm others, but without the unnecessary cost of their lives.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
The harshness with which d'Esperey treated his fellow countrymen, simply due to their politics, is deplorable. However, one must note that he surrendered to Blanc and brought and end to the fighting in France. I would recommend permanent house arrest for him also.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
It is time for a truly constitutional monarchy to reign. Henri XI may remain on the throne, but only if he assents to an act of both houses of the Estates General removing any remnants of true executive power from the person of the Monarch in perpetuity. His Majesty's government must be the instrument of the will of his people - no other body or person so do so. If he cannot assent to this, I propose that Elisabet assume the throne assenting to the same bill.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
It is my belief that a fair and just monarch, embracing the ideals of democracy and government by constitution, can act as a unifying figure for the peoples of England and France. I therefore voice my support for the Plantagenet monarchy, within the limits in place as discussed above.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
I have always made it clear that England must be one state, indivisible from Berwick to Cantorbery. But I also recognise and regret my hasty rush to back total independence for England, which I now recognise would only create new divisions within my dear country. That is why I support the continuation of the Dual Monarchy, with the devolution of most responsibilities from the Paris government, which would retain the matters of foreign relations, military direction and the government of the Dual Monarchies overall economic area. I believe that by working together, we can create real prosperity for all citizens of our countries, with freedom and enterprise at the heart of all we do.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
I would move to recognise the Irish Republic and work to establish normalised relations with the new government. I see radical socialists lurking just under the surface in Dublin and the only way for us to head off a new threat to stability ermging acros the Irish Sea is to engage with the current government and strengthen our mutual economic and cultural interests.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
To my mind, the catastrophic events of 1886 came about from a lack of respect of the rule of law by the military, who only had regard for their own ideology rather than the well-being of the people. Therefore, the military can never again be in a position whereby they can overthrow the democratically elected government. Civilian control of the military must be complete and unambiguous. The only way a government should be changed must be by a vote of no confidence and/or elections. The devolved national assemblies must also guarantee representation for the various peoples of their constituent countries, so that all voices and interests are given an equal hearing.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
Following the elections, national plebiscites should be held across the Dual Monarchy. Should the situation arise where some countries reject the Conference resolutions, it must reconvene to discuss amended terms.
General-Count Cendreford, unhappily staying in Laon for the pan-imperial trash fire, dictates the following letter to prominent Faction members both on this side of the Channel and across:
[...]
I’ve been to a few meetings now and all I’m seeing from our so-called ‘leadership’ is spineless liberalism and unforced capitulation. Most of them have given in to the Yorkists and the other tiny fringe separatist groups without even bothering to figure out how strong they were.
I found out recently that Le Marquand wants to set up a Basque autonomy. I spoke to the Basque delegation; there’s three of them, and they’re their entire separatist party! Three of them, and Le Marquand wants to give them the King’s rightful inheritance!
The only other Faction speaker is practically a Yorkist separatist!
I need all of you to get behind me as I try to keep the Union together. Tell Le Marquand and his little inbred Islander coterie that we’re for common-sense conservatism, Unionism, and the indivisibility of the realm. Do it for God, King, and Country. And do it for me, because for Christ’s sake I’m tired of all this nonsense.
- General-Count Cendreford
[...]
I’ve been to a few meetings now and all I’m seeing from our so-called ‘leadership’ is spineless liberalism and unforced capitulation. Most of them have given in to the Yorkists and the other tiny fringe separatist groups without even bothering to figure out how strong they were.
I found out recently that Le Marquand wants to set up a Basque autonomy. I spoke to the Basque delegation; there’s three of them, and they’re their entire separatist party! Three of them, and Le Marquand wants to give them the King’s rightful inheritance!
The only other Faction speaker is practically a Yorkist separatist!
I need all of you to get behind me as I try to keep the Union together. Tell Le Marquand and his little inbred Islander coterie that we’re for common-sense conservatism, Unionism, and the indivisibility of the realm. Do it for God, King, and Country. And do it for me, because for Christ’s sake I’m tired of all this nonsense.
- General-Count Cendreford
Guenevere sees the General-Counts letter and after reading what is clearly the ravings of someone who belongs in the gallows along with Lemarque and d'Esperey writes to Philippe giving him discretion over how to best respond and telling him not to worry too much and to try to arrange things with Capitane Jacques Smith to make sure that this lunatic is properly known as such among the Faction.
Philippe taking this, agrees too much with Cendreford for his liking but finds the man distasteful and a man who clearly has not seen the fact that a permanent solution across the whole Dual Monarchy is needed and that federalism will ensure that after the English annoyance is squashed that there won't arise a Basque or Occitan one. He'd seen enough war to know that his desires also included being able to stay at home to enjoy the peace and not being called to put down piss-ant rebellions every 5 years in Navarre or Savoie.
He moves to speak to the Faction face to face, knowing that it remains more persuasive than the impersonal letters all too often used.
Friends, countrymen, Anglois. I come to you today, and specifically quote the English playwright and author of the great play Augustus to say that we fundamentally must understand the situation in this conference the outside influences that remain that should be taken note of, those influences being the fact that in this conference we are ourselves alone as those of the right and are beset by Nationalists, Liberals and even Socialists. Our friend, who so kindly promoted himself to General-Count without so much as a understanding that to call oneself that in an informal army reeks of pretensions and we should not forget his ludicrous claimed ancestry has decided to ignore this context and put forward a brazen plan that I would support in many ways if it were not the case that in this conference we are the minority and need to compromise.
He talks of only 3 Basque Separatists but forgets that that is the entire Basque delegation, clearly I want to keep Navarre in the Dual Monarchy, but to do so would require us to take decisive action to prevent such separatist feeling and to keep them happy with their continued part in our glorious nation. He speaks of me and the good Capitane as being Yorkist separatists and yet clearly of our illustrious leaders he is the one most to be found wanting. He clearly does not represent the majority view and these are the delusions of a desperate person seeking to retain his influence after the war has waned.
This man's actions will only result in more war, and I tell you that my dream of an Anglois England and our rights being upheld also includes our land being unravaged by war, with the fields not ransacked and the manors not burned out. Just think of Bristol, where too many of our comrades will have to spend a great deal of money to ensure their rebuilding. And to think, who here desire more war? To see more of their sons and their friends and even one day themselves felled in attempts to squash our rebellions. I for one have seen the carnage firsthand, and one wonders whether or not Cendreford was blind not to see it too. I want a comprehensive and and yes, federal, solution such that I can spend my years enjoy my time in the Channel Islands and to avoid having to marshal my self or in future my children off to fight a 3rd English Rising, or a Umpteenth Basque Rising or a Socialist Rising.
And so we must speak of the other reason why federalism, no matter how abominable you might personally find it to be is needed to ensure our own continued survival and peace. The English have been ignoring their own people, and the same is true to a much lesser extent in France as regards the Blancists as a whole. I have personally been one to fight the English Socialist Militias and they were more tenacious than the ENA and more dangerous to ourselves. For the English Socialist does not just hate our language, but our class and wishes to see us doubly destroyed. The same is true everywhere we go, and local autonomy for all regions will help them assuage local sores and issues and prevent constant risings in other regions such as we saw with this catalyst in Wales this time. Fundamentally, the Red Menace is best squashed on a local level to ensure that it never grows.
I rest my case, and say to all of you who have ever given pause to this man's letters to remember who is with you in person and who has looked after his own men and those of the faction as a whole with my personal leek and potato crops that have kept us all from going hungry during the campaigning and the camping. An army marches on its stomach, and everyone here has felt my contribution on both the logistics front and on the fighting. It would be rash of me to claim that it was thanks to my efforts that Suffolk remained under our control, and it would truly be rash as the one's whose efforts it was that secured that was the soldiery. As an officer I am proud of my results, but I'm more proud of you here who fought on and benefited from my logistics work and fought all the same with all your teeth and nails. And to those who doubt my logistical efforts, or besmirch the soldiers whom we have to thank for their victory we need only say one thing:
Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
Philippe taking this, agrees too much with Cendreford for his liking but finds the man distasteful and a man who clearly has not seen the fact that a permanent solution across the whole Dual Monarchy is needed and that federalism will ensure that after the English annoyance is squashed that there won't arise a Basque or Occitan one. He'd seen enough war to know that his desires also included being able to stay at home to enjoy the peace and not being called to put down piss-ant rebellions every 5 years in Navarre or Savoie.
He moves to speak to the Faction face to face, knowing that it remains more persuasive than the impersonal letters all too often used.
Friends, countrymen, Anglois. I come to you today, and specifically quote the English playwright and author of the great play Augustus to say that we fundamentally must understand the situation in this conference the outside influences that remain that should be taken note of, those influences being the fact that in this conference we are ourselves alone as those of the right and are beset by Nationalists, Liberals and even Socialists. Our friend, who so kindly promoted himself to General-Count without so much as a understanding that to call oneself that in an informal army reeks of pretensions and we should not forget his ludicrous claimed ancestry has decided to ignore this context and put forward a brazen plan that I would support in many ways if it were not the case that in this conference we are the minority and need to compromise.
He talks of only 3 Basque Separatists but forgets that that is the entire Basque delegation, clearly I want to keep Navarre in the Dual Monarchy, but to do so would require us to take decisive action to prevent such separatist feeling and to keep them happy with their continued part in our glorious nation. He speaks of me and the good Capitane as being Yorkist separatists and yet clearly of our illustrious leaders he is the one most to be found wanting. He clearly does not represent the majority view and these are the delusions of a desperate person seeking to retain his influence after the war has waned.
This man's actions will only result in more war, and I tell you that my dream of an Anglois England and our rights being upheld also includes our land being unravaged by war, with the fields not ransacked and the manors not burned out. Just think of Bristol, where too many of our comrades will have to spend a great deal of money to ensure their rebuilding. And to think, who here desire more war? To see more of their sons and their friends and even one day themselves felled in attempts to squash our rebellions. I for one have seen the carnage firsthand, and one wonders whether or not Cendreford was blind not to see it too. I want a comprehensive and and yes, federal, solution such that I can spend my years enjoy my time in the Channel Islands and to avoid having to marshal my self or in future my children off to fight a 3rd English Rising, or a Umpteenth Basque Rising or a Socialist Rising.
And so we must speak of the other reason why federalism, no matter how abominable you might personally find it to be is needed to ensure our own continued survival and peace. The English have been ignoring their own people, and the same is true to a much lesser extent in France as regards the Blancists as a whole. I have personally been one to fight the English Socialist Militias and they were more tenacious than the ENA and more dangerous to ourselves. For the English Socialist does not just hate our language, but our class and wishes to see us doubly destroyed. The same is true everywhere we go, and local autonomy for all regions will help them assuage local sores and issues and prevent constant risings in other regions such as we saw with this catalyst in Wales this time. Fundamentally, the Red Menace is best squashed on a local level to ensure that it never grows.
I rest my case, and say to all of you who have ever given pause to this man's letters to remember who is with you in person and who has looked after his own men and those of the faction as a whole with my personal leek and potato crops that have kept us all from going hungry during the campaigning and the camping. An army marches on its stomach, and everyone here has felt my contribution on both the logistics front and on the fighting. It would be rash of me to claim that it was thanks to my efforts that Suffolk remained under our control, and it would truly be rash as the one's whose efforts it was that secured that was the soldiery. As an officer I am proud of my results, but I'm more proud of you here who fought on and benefited from my logistics work and fought all the same with all your teeth and nails. And to those who doubt my logistical efforts, or besmirch the soldiers whom we have to thank for their victory we need only say one thing:
Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
Last edited:
It is late in the evening, and Henry has retreated to his personal chambers. Today the issue of abdication was discussed, and an agreement was not yet reached. In response, he decides to write a letter to the king.
Your Royal Highness,
it seems the moral obligation to write to you has fallen upon me. The great Conference being held in the city of Laon has today discussed the issue of the monarchy. And whilst the overwhelming majority has agreed that the monarchy must maintained, this was even supported by a part of the Republicans in the name of compromise, the issue of who is to be this monarch is still very contentious.
I shall be direct, I highly urge you to abdicate. Whilst I do recognize your right to the Throne as rightful King of both England and France, I must also recognize that you are highly unpopular with both large parts of the representatives and a large part of your subjects. If you were to return from exile to take the throne again, I will foresee another period of great instability, if not a rekindling of the civil war we seek to officially end.
If you were to abdicate however, and let the Dauphine of Wales, your niece Elisabeth, take the throne, you would secure the Monarchy for the centuries to come, and the Plantagenets right to rule. If would also be highly likely that you would not become a subject to a banishment enforced upon you by the Conference currently being held. You would be allowed to return to the realm and take up residence wherever you wish.
I do hope that you take my advice to heart, for the sake of the monarchy, for the sake of the Plantagenets and the sake of the country at large.
Your humble subject,
Henry Lawrence Bennet, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of England
Your Royal Highness,
it seems the moral obligation to write to you has fallen upon me. The great Conference being held in the city of Laon has today discussed the issue of the monarchy. And whilst the overwhelming majority has agreed that the monarchy must maintained, this was even supported by a part of the Republicans in the name of compromise, the issue of who is to be this monarch is still very contentious.
I shall be direct, I highly urge you to abdicate. Whilst I do recognize your right to the Throne as rightful King of both England and France, I must also recognize that you are highly unpopular with both large parts of the representatives and a large part of your subjects. If you were to return from exile to take the throne again, I will foresee another period of great instability, if not a rekindling of the civil war we seek to officially end.
If you were to abdicate however, and let the Dauphine of Wales, your niece Elisabeth, take the throne, you would secure the Monarchy for the centuries to come, and the Plantagenets right to rule. If would also be highly likely that you would not become a subject to a banishment enforced upon you by the Conference currently being held. You would be allowed to return to the realm and take up residence wherever you wish.
I do hope that you take my advice to heart, for the sake of the monarchy, for the sake of the Plantagenets and the sake of the country at large.
Your humble subject,
Henry Lawrence Bennet, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of England
After much time spent wrangling people into action, and making a frantic peace deal in the name of returning home to the Channel Islands, Philippe has been successful in getting support from prominent members of the Blancists and the former ENA or atleast he thinks so. Originally he was planning to publish this via some unknown toady, but lately he feels as though doing it publicly as himself would either give him more credit or give him a good excuse in resignation to escape Guenevere and return home for good. To that end he glances at those he has been speaking too privately and announces his proposal for the Conference to be adopted:
So says, Philippe le Marquand. And he calls to action all people to vote on this peace proposal such as the good Jacques Smith of my own faction, and to Bosier and the Blancists and to the Prime Minister and his Deputy of the English.
This can be our resolution, and all of you had privately supported this compromise, so publicly I ask that you endorse this and we may end this conference and all return home!
OOC: If you wish to support this proposal, then you need to "co-sign" it by posting yourselves here in the thread saying as much in some manner such that this may be endorsed and the Conference be ended.
Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
1) The date for free and open elections for the Estates-General.
To be scheduled for July 1889, with time for rebuilding to occur and militias to be disbanded to prevent intimidation at the ballot whether this intimidation be potentially by Faction, ENA or Blancists.
That it be enshrined that the electorate qualifications can only ever be loosened to allow more voters and never tightened to remove the right to vote from those that previously could or would have been able to.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
All plotters and putschists to stand trial for high treasion against the nation and its people and equally for all those who died in the bloodshed that happened during the recent civil strife. The maximum sentence, death, should be available if decided upon by the judge.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
d’Esperey to have a fair and free trial with no sentence limitations, for the crimes of high treason against the nation and its people and for the bloodshed caused by the war he helped instigate. The Judge to ofcourse take his peace role into account but equally remember how he helped instigate the conflict and death should remain a possibility if the Judge deems it to be needed.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
Henri XI is to be invited back on our behest, and will have a re-coronation in the same way as he was coronated originally to show that it is a new dawn for the Monarchy and that he is not being forced to abdicate by the will of the parties involved. If his understanding that he is just as much King of the English and French as England and France is such that he will not submit to this recoronation, that he should abdicate.
Should Henri reject this, then we shall go the next 4 in line to the throne. If they all reject this then there should be a referendum on Monarchy or Republic. Following a monarchy result there should be further referenda on either the Duke of York or the Legitimist candidate.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
That the previous proposition by myself be taken in this regard with the monarch losing many of their current powers, with some to be potentially returned via law of the Estates General if future monarchs prove able to resist the temptations of removing someone they personally dislike. That a republic only be instated in a republic chosen by the chain of events possible above, and that any future attempts to bring about one require unanimity from all the federal governments of the Dual Monarchy.
That the monarch shall appoint the (Lord) Chancellor based on the recommendation of the Estates-General, and this shall be enshrined as not just working principle but fact of governance and that the Monarch must appoint a Head of Government who might pass a resolution of confidence in the Estates General.
In addition, that the fundamental freedoms of public assembly, the free and unmolested press and the free speech and thought of all citizens along with their expression be enshrined as guarded by the Monarch as one of their royal duties. That all people are entitled to a free and fair trial according to the laws of our nation, and that all people are confirmed in their property rights as private citizens on the same merits. Finally as the last of these principles, that while the Monarch will ofcourse retain the majority faith of Roman Catholicism, that the general freedoms won after the Wars of Religion be maintained by the constitution and by Royal Blessing of all these. That these freedoms and their protection be the ultimate duty of the Monarch and the Monarchy in our glorious nation.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
That the Dual Monarchy invest seven distinct devolved assemblies or councils, 3 under the aegis of the Kingdom of England, 3 under the Aegis of the Kingdom of France and one under their own aegis with the Kingdom of Navarre. These devolved councils to have their own powers, for them to them have a Royal Assembly elected for the whole of the various kingdoms and then to have a union cabinet and assembly, the Union Estates-General, for the whole monarchy across the Three Kingdoms. As such the English Parliament is to become this for the whole of the Kingdom of England new National Assembly this for the Kingdom of France and for the Kingdom of Navarre the new Legebiltzarra. The full seven federal governments to be the Principality of Wales, the Principality of Albion (Anglois Areas) and the Grand Duchy of Northumbria (English areas) in the Kingdom of England. The regions in France to be the Duchy of Brittany, the Sygarian Region/Soissons State and the Grand Duchy of Occitania. Kingdom of Navarre having the Euskadi Country. These federal regions should form as lower houses for the upper house equivalent in each Kingdom's Royal assembly in the English Parliament, the French National Assembly and the Basque Legebiltzarra (or Basque Parliament). That for the seven regions the leader’s title is just Speaker of the House/President of the Assembly, that for National Governments the title is Prime Minister or equivalent in the local language and that for the Union government the leader is the Chancellor or Lord Chancellor dependent on their status in terms of birth.
That the regional devolved assemblies and councils to (the 7) have control over educational and cultural issues, with infrastructure and nationalisation to the national/royal assembly(the 3/2.5) and foreign relations, military matters and foreign trade to be the purview for the union assembly and cabinet. That the Union government also have the ability nationalise industry and companies, either as private entities or nationalise royal industry and companies to the central/union government’s control, and be able to fund and subsidise key industries or projects needed as they see fit. Taxation shall be the remit of all bodies with their ability to tax according to their desires for their own purview, such that people are taxed by 3 bodies; Federal Tax for Education and Cultural Heritage issues and maintenance, National Tax for infrastructure issues and national economic projects and Union/Central Tax for the military and for the direction of Union funds to keep the bureaucracy running and for trade deals and Union economic projects.
And that we should enshrine in our system the idea that this union is fundamentally voluntary even if no explicit legal mechanism for separation is put in place. With the unanimous consent of all local regions under a royal/national government, the national government may be abolished and the regions placed directly under the Union government, with the local regions taking over the powers previously allotted to the national/royal government to use within their own devolved regions. The regions may also unanimously within themselves vote to abolish the local devolved regions and only have the national/royal government in terms of local government.
In order to prevent the abuse of power by governments higher than any assembly in a manner harmful to the people of the Dual Monarchy, a special process can be triggered that will cause snap elections in the higher assembly being challenged and the lower assemblies that were part of the challenge. This process is formally caused by a 2/3 minimum of the assemblies responsible to the higher one voting for such a move. This move is to be called “Censure of the Assembly” and will thus need for example, Albion and Wales support to trigger elections in the English Parliament and will cause them upon this theoretical to cause National/Royal elections and elections in all responsible assemblies; which in this case would be Northumbria, Albion and Wales. In a similar way, the royal governments of say Navarre and France can trigger snap elections in all the royal assemblies and also in the Union/Central Estates-General.
That the constitution for which this monarchy is governed by be modified by the actions either of the motion being brought up in the National/Royal governments by a 2/3 vote or by a 50% vote in the Union/Central assembly. That any changes should be formed into a new constitutional document and then this new amended constitution be approved or rejected by the assembly. No amendments may ever be made, but for the replacement of the constitution with a new one as provided for by this mechanism.
It also be made clear, that in the case of laws clashing that the law passed by the authority with the higher point, in the order that the higher bodies go from local/devolved < royal/national < union/central. It should be noted that laws explicitly known to likely conflict with lower laws be required to have notification to the lower body/bodies whose laws will be overridden and a one month time minimum before said law will go into effect to prevent accidental prosecution etc. If a lower body attempts to legislate against a higher assembly, then those laws never enter the books and the lower body instead given ability to start a commission in the higher legislative chamber to look in to affecting change that satisfies both bodies in their current electoral identity.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
That the Second Irish Republic be recognised in that it is no longer governed as the Lordship of Ireland as a constituent part of the Dual Monarchy, but that the current dictatorship be regarded as a corruption of their liberty-based aspirations and that we support the Irish people who had acted against perceived repression and not this Red Tyranny. No offensive action is to be taken.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
That there should be the creation of a national unit of guard to safeguard not just the Lord Chancellor or the wider national cabinet of the whole Dual Monarchy but the constitution that will be ratified by this conference and later by the governments itself. This guard should be the size of 16,000 men with 7,000 to be in Paris and Londres and 2000 in Bilbao. This guard to be recruited locally from the various constituent parts of the country. That these members swear an oath to the Dual Monarchy, the Constitution of our illustrious Monarchy and the cabinet of the Dual Monarchy and in that order of preference. Members to take this oath upon joining this corps, and upon the incumbency of a new cabinet. This corps and guard to be known as the Royal Constitutional Guard.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
That all decisions to be made here will be accepted by popular referendum before the Estates-General reconvenes.
To be scheduled for July 1889, with time for rebuilding to occur and militias to be disbanded to prevent intimidation at the ballot whether this intimidation be potentially by Faction, ENA or Blancists.
That it be enshrined that the electorate qualifications can only ever be loosened to allow more voters and never tightened to remove the right to vote from those that previously could or would have been able to.
2) The charges against Lemarque, his government, and a trial so that they will be tried according to the laws of the Dual Monarchy.
All plotters and putschists to stand trial for high treasion against the nation and its people and equally for all those who died in the bloodshed that happened during the recent civil strife. The maximum sentence, death, should be available if decided upon by the judge.
3) The charges against d'Esperey, and whether he is culpable despite his part in bringing an early end to the conflict.
d’Esperey to have a fair and free trial with no sentence limitations, for the crimes of high treason against the nation and its people and for the bloodshed caused by the war he helped instigate. The Judge to ofcourse take his peace role into account but equally remember how he helped instigate the conflict and death should remain a possibility if the Judge deems it to be needed.
4) Whether Henri XI shall remain on the throne and, if not, his successor.
Henri XI is to be invited back on our behest, and will have a re-coronation in the same way as he was coronated originally to show that it is a new dawn for the Monarchy and that he is not being forced to abdicate by the will of the parties involved. If his understanding that he is just as much King of the English and French as England and France is such that he will not submit to this recoronation, that he should abdicate.
Should Henri reject this, then we shall go the next 4 in line to the throne. If they all reject this then there should be a referendum on Monarchy or Republic. Following a monarchy result there should be further referenda on either the Duke of York or the Legitimist candidate.
5) The constitution of the Dual Monarchy in relation to the Crown, including non-monarchist alternatives.
That the previous proposition by myself be taken in this regard with the monarch losing many of their current powers, with some to be potentially returned via law of the Estates General if future monarchs prove able to resist the temptations of removing someone they personally dislike. That a republic only be instated in a republic chosen by the chain of events possible above, and that any future attempts to bring about one require unanimity from all the federal governments of the Dual Monarchy.
That the monarch shall appoint the (Lord) Chancellor based on the recommendation of the Estates-General, and this shall be enshrined as not just working principle but fact of governance and that the Monarch must appoint a Head of Government who might pass a resolution of confidence in the Estates General.
In addition, that the fundamental freedoms of public assembly, the free and unmolested press and the free speech and thought of all citizens along with their expression be enshrined as guarded by the Monarch as one of their royal duties. That all people are entitled to a free and fair trial according to the laws of our nation, and that all people are confirmed in their property rights as private citizens on the same merits. Finally as the last of these principles, that while the Monarch will ofcourse retain the majority faith of Roman Catholicism, that the general freedoms won after the Wars of Religion be maintained by the constitution and by Royal Blessing of all these. That these freedoms and their protection be the ultimate duty of the Monarch and the Monarchy in our glorious nation.
6) The future of the internal democracy of the Dual Monarchy, including the relationship between the constituent nations and further devolution of national governments.
That the Dual Monarchy invest seven distinct devolved assemblies or councils, 3 under the aegis of the Kingdom of England, 3 under the Aegis of the Kingdom of France and one under their own aegis with the Kingdom of Navarre. These devolved councils to have their own powers, for them to them have a Royal Assembly elected for the whole of the various kingdoms and then to have a union cabinet and assembly, the Union Estates-General, for the whole monarchy across the Three Kingdoms. As such the English Parliament is to become this for the whole of the Kingdom of England new National Assembly this for the Kingdom of France and for the Kingdom of Navarre the new Legebiltzarra. The full seven federal governments to be the Principality of Wales, the Principality of Albion (Anglois Areas) and the Grand Duchy of Northumbria (English areas) in the Kingdom of England. The regions in France to be the Duchy of Brittany, the Sygarian Region/Soissons State and the Grand Duchy of Occitania. Kingdom of Navarre having the Euskadi Country. These federal regions should form as lower houses for the upper house equivalent in each Kingdom's Royal assembly in the English Parliament, the French National Assembly and the Basque Legebiltzarra (or Basque Parliament). That for the seven regions the leader’s title is just Speaker of the House/President of the Assembly, that for National Governments the title is Prime Minister or equivalent in the local language and that for the Union government the leader is the Chancellor or Lord Chancellor dependent on their status in terms of birth.
That the regional devolved assemblies and councils to (the 7) have control over educational and cultural issues, with infrastructure and nationalisation to the national/royal assembly(the 3/2.5) and foreign relations, military matters and foreign trade to be the purview for the union assembly and cabinet. That the Union government also have the ability nationalise industry and companies, either as private entities or nationalise royal industry and companies to the central/union government’s control, and be able to fund and subsidise key industries or projects needed as they see fit. Taxation shall be the remit of all bodies with their ability to tax according to their desires for their own purview, such that people are taxed by 3 bodies; Federal Tax for Education and Cultural Heritage issues and maintenance, National Tax for infrastructure issues and national economic projects and Union/Central Tax for the military and for the direction of Union funds to keep the bureaucracy running and for trade deals and Union economic projects.
And that we should enshrine in our system the idea that this union is fundamentally voluntary even if no explicit legal mechanism for separation is put in place. With the unanimous consent of all local regions under a royal/national government, the national government may be abolished and the regions placed directly under the Union government, with the local regions taking over the powers previously allotted to the national/royal government to use within their own devolved regions. The regions may also unanimously within themselves vote to abolish the local devolved regions and only have the national/royal government in terms of local government.
In order to prevent the abuse of power by governments higher than any assembly in a manner harmful to the people of the Dual Monarchy, a special process can be triggered that will cause snap elections in the higher assembly being challenged and the lower assemblies that were part of the challenge. This process is formally caused by a 2/3 minimum of the assemblies responsible to the higher one voting for such a move. This move is to be called “Censure of the Assembly” and will thus need for example, Albion and Wales support to trigger elections in the English Parliament and will cause them upon this theoretical to cause National/Royal elections and elections in all responsible assemblies; which in this case would be Northumbria, Albion and Wales. In a similar way, the royal governments of say Navarre and France can trigger snap elections in all the royal assemblies and also in the Union/Central Estates-General.
That the constitution for which this monarchy is governed by be modified by the actions either of the motion being brought up in the National/Royal governments by a 2/3 vote or by a 50% vote in the Union/Central assembly. That any changes should be formed into a new constitutional document and then this new amended constitution be approved or rejected by the assembly. No amendments may ever be made, but for the replacement of the constitution with a new one as provided for by this mechanism.
It also be made clear, that in the case of laws clashing that the law passed by the authority with the higher point, in the order that the higher bodies go from local/devolved < royal/national < union/central. It should be noted that laws explicitly known to likely conflict with lower laws be required to have notification to the lower body/bodies whose laws will be overridden and a one month time minimum before said law will go into effect to prevent accidental prosecution etc. If a lower body attempts to legislate against a higher assembly, then those laws never enter the books and the lower body instead given ability to start a commission in the higher legislative chamber to look in to affecting change that satisfies both bodies in their current electoral identity.
7) The relationship between the Dual Monarchy and the Second Irish Republic.
That the Second Irish Republic be recognised in that it is no longer governed as the Lordship of Ireland as a constituent part of the Dual Monarchy, but that the current dictatorship be regarded as a corruption of their liberty-based aspirations and that we support the Irish people who had acted against perceived repression and not this Red Tyranny. No offensive action is to be taken.
8) The creation of democratic safeguards to prevent the events of 1886 from reoccurring.
That there should be the creation of a national unit of guard to safeguard not just the Lord Chancellor or the wider national cabinet of the whole Dual Monarchy but the constitution that will be ratified by this conference and later by the governments itself. This guard should be the size of 16,000 men with 7,000 to be in Paris and Londres and 2000 in Bilbao. This guard to be recruited locally from the various constituent parts of the country. That these members swear an oath to the Dual Monarchy, the Constitution of our illustrious Monarchy and the cabinet of the Dual Monarchy and in that order of preference. Members to take this oath upon joining this corps, and upon the incumbency of a new cabinet. This corps and guard to be known as the Royal Constitutional Guard.
9) The method in which the conclusions of the Conference of Laon will be ratified by the citizens of the Dual Monarchy.
That all decisions to be made here will be accepted by popular referendum before the Estates-General reconvenes.
So says, Philippe le Marquand. And he calls to action all people to vote on this peace proposal such as the good Jacques Smith of my own faction, and to Bosier and the Blancists and to the Prime Minister and his Deputy of the English.
This can be our resolution, and all of you had privately supported this compromise, so publicly I ask that you endorse this and we may end this conference and all return home!
OOC: If you wish to support this proposal, then you need to "co-sign" it by posting yourselves here in the thread saying as much in some manner such that this may be endorsed and the Conference be ended.
Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
Last edited:
Augustine Hawkins gave a speech regarding the final proposal,
"While I have a great many reservations about this document, ultimately compromise was necessary and I believe this is the best reform minded Unionists. Could hope for. I also urge my peers representing the government to support this proposal as well. The Conference should be brought to an end, and this result should be submitted to the population for a referendum."
At the Conference, Albert Boisier decides to make a small comment about the Proposol of le Marquand.
Today is the day peace has been reached in The Union. Of course this is no socialist revolution like the Communards have dreamed of, but this is a compromise that i have negotiated with the other parties to make sure that never again a reactionnary dictatorship will be imposed to the people and to make sure that this bloody civil war, which caused the death of many civilians, is put to an end.
I, Albert Boisier, sign the proposal of Le Marquand.
Today is the day peace has been reached in The Union. Of course this is no socialist revolution like the Communards have dreamed of, but this is a compromise that i have negotiated with the other parties to make sure that never again a reactionnary dictatorship will be imposed to the people and to make sure that this bloody civil war, which caused the death of many civilians, is put to an end.
I, Albert Boisier, sign the proposal of Le Marquand.