|
Post by Nathan on Jun 22, 2006 15:10:15 GMT -6
By Order of the Sovereign Natopian Emperor,
THANKING Count Brian for his exemplery service to the Empire during his service as Regent,
NOTING the original, albeit undeclared, intention of Regent being a temporary position, existing only in times of necessary regency,
I hereby release Count Brian from the position of Regent and abolish the position until needed again.
Decreed this Twenty-second Day of the Sixth Month of the Two-thousand and Sixth Year of the Common Era by His Sovereign Majesty, Nathan the Only, Sovereign Natopian Emperor, First Duke of Ziegeland, Sovereign of the Order of the Black Hole, Avatar of the House of Waffle-Paine, Grand Commander of the Natopian Defense Force, Earl of Lindstrom, Knight of Order of the Griffin, Knight of Sullifree, Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor, Knight Stranger of the Order of Ronen, Companion of the Order of the Rio Grande
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 23, 2006 10:28:39 GMT -6
...eh, I kinda thought a regent should remain regent and shouldn't have to be reappointed in case of an unknown absence... thats what the law sounded like... at least until incapacitation or firing of the first... I guess the law could work either way as it stands, but I kinda thought Regent was a permanent title that only occasionally had actual power.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jun 23, 2006 13:21:56 GMT -6
things are not always exactly what they seem in the land of Natopia
|
|
|
Post by Z on Jun 24, 2006 12:25:09 GMT -6
Long live the emperor!
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 25, 2006 10:42:18 GMT -6
However if you do go inactive what are we to do? Would you not rather have your say than let it go to the frenzy? I mean, I am going to be more inactive again soon so don't think I am doing this on a personal basis, it's just a recommendation that we view a law as such.
Oh well, doesn't matter, the new Constitution DEFINATELY insinuates Regent as a permanent position so whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jun 25, 2006 14:23:28 GMT -6
your new draft of the constitution insinuates that, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 25, 2006 14:53:55 GMT -6
Never did I elevate it as more than a draft.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jun 25, 2006 15:13:50 GMT -6
your previous post insinuated such
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Jun 25, 2006 15:23:16 GMT -6
well... what if he decided he wanted to chose another person? then a permanent position might not be best
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Jun 25, 2006 15:34:40 GMT -6
Well I could see squabbles being problematic but... eh. whatever.
I meant to type draft, sorry about that
|
|