Sunday, August 08, 2004
Hanover: Nationalist Sentiment Rising in Calormen
Our story begins on January 25th, 2003, when His Majesty James I of Hanover entered into a Treaty of Annexation with Justin I, Duke of the Dominion of Athenoi and Count of Cyrus. With this action, Athenoi and Cyrus became part of the Kingdom of Hanover and Hanover became a Commonwealth.
The historical record regarding Calormen is not so clear.
Without explanation, on April 25th, 2003 James I published his Royal Proclamation: Royal styles document and "James, by the Grace of God King of Hanover" became "James, by the Grace of God of Hanover and of His Other Realms and Territories King, Emperor of Calormen, Head of the Commonwealth"
From whence Calormen?
From the Commonwealth pages of the Kingdom of Hanover's web site the problem - while not resolved - is at least owned up to and a reason for the lapse in the historical record given:
Now, all this is all old news.
Why should it suddenly be an issue now, some year and a half later?
It's not clear, but at least two issues stand out as possibilities: one internal Calormen issue, one external foreign policy issue.
In the Rt. Hon. Sir Wyatt-James McIntyre's August 3rd post entitled The Future of Calormeni, A Call for a Referendum, Sir Wyatt-James asks for a referendum "in light of recent events and the lack of a commonwealth charter".
What "recent events," one wonders?
Certainly, one recent internal event on everyone's mind is the recent uproar over church establishment (or lack thereof) in Calormen.
Another not-so-dramatic issue begins with the appointment of Mr. Kevin Hood as the Ambassador to the Kingdom of Gotzborg . Ambassador Hood is charged with initiating relations with that Kingdom - though he is explicitly restricted from "entering into treaties nor treaty negotiations without the consent of the Crown."
Subsequent discussion in Calormen's forums could lead one to question whether everyone is on the same page regarding Ambassador Hood's brief - is he representing Hanover? Or Calormen? Or both?
In any event, nationalistic fever - if not of epidemic proportions - is, nonetheless, on the rise in Calormen to the extent that His Majesty Alexander I of Hanover felt it necessary to gently remind the Calormeni in the thread A Plan for Calormen, Future Constitutional Arrangements that it is Alexander I's duty to provide, in his words, the ultimate guidance of Calormen.
Prince Justin has been a little less gentle stating, in the same thread, that with regard to the Commonwealth Constitution "Calormen is entitled to what His Majesty thinks it is in fact."
Will Sir Wyatt-James and Ambassador Hood lead Calormen down a course away from Hanover, closer to Hanover or parallel to Hanover?
So far, the discussion between the Crown and the leaders of Calormen has been civil with both sides being careful and cautious in their public statements.
Only time will tell how this issue will unfold but - for the moment - Calormen seems to be the ideal venue for those who keep track of things Hanoverian.
Bill Bekkenhuis
Reporter, The Morovian Telegraph
bekkenhuis@fast.net
The historical record regarding Calormen is not so clear.
Without explanation, on April 25th, 2003 James I published his Royal Proclamation: Royal styles document and "James, by the Grace of God King of Hanover" became "James, by the Grace of God of Hanover and of His Other Realms and Territories King, Emperor of Calormen, Head of the Commonwealth"
From whence Calormen?
From the Commonwealth pages of the Kingdom of Hanover's web site the problem - while not resolved - is at least owned up to and a reason for the lapse in the historical record given:
The Kingdom of Calormen is in a bit of an unusual position in that, for such a young nation, it has specific portions of her history lost to her. Specifically the treaty binding it to the Commonwealth of Hanover has been lost, but all witnesses agree that it did, in fact, exist. In any case, the defacto position is that the Kingdom is a partner in the commonwealth of Hanover. (See the History of the Kingdom of Calormen link.
Now, all this is all old news.
Why should it suddenly be an issue now, some year and a half later?
It's not clear, but at least two issues stand out as possibilities: one internal Calormen issue, one external foreign policy issue.
In the Rt. Hon. Sir Wyatt-James McIntyre's August 3rd post entitled The Future of Calormeni, A Call for a Referendum, Sir Wyatt-James asks for a referendum "in light of recent events and the lack of a commonwealth charter".
What "recent events," one wonders?
Certainly, one recent internal event on everyone's mind is the recent uproar over church establishment (or lack thereof) in Calormen.
Another not-so-dramatic issue begins with the appointment of Mr. Kevin Hood as the Ambassador to the Kingdom of Gotzborg . Ambassador Hood is charged with initiating relations with that Kingdom - though he is explicitly restricted from "entering into treaties nor treaty negotiations without the consent of the Crown."
Subsequent discussion in Calormen's forums could lead one to question whether everyone is on the same page regarding Ambassador Hood's brief - is he representing Hanover? Or Calormen? Or both?
In any event, nationalistic fever - if not of epidemic proportions - is, nonetheless, on the rise in Calormen to the extent that His Majesty Alexander I of Hanover felt it necessary to gently remind the Calormeni in the thread A Plan for Calormen, Future Constitutional Arrangements that it is Alexander I's duty to provide, in his words, the ultimate guidance of Calormen.
Prince Justin has been a little less gentle stating, in the same thread, that with regard to the Commonwealth Constitution "Calormen is entitled to what His Majesty thinks it is in fact."
Will Sir Wyatt-James and Ambassador Hood lead Calormen down a course away from Hanover, closer to Hanover or parallel to Hanover?
So far, the discussion between the Crown and the leaders of Calormen has been civil with both sides being careful and cautious in their public statements.
Only time will tell how this issue will unfold but - for the moment - Calormen seems to be the ideal venue for those who keep track of things Hanoverian.
Bill Bekkenhuis
Reporter, The Morovian Telegraph
bekkenhuis@fast.net
Comments:
<< Home
As the second emperor of Calormen and the culprit who forever intertwined the destinies of Hanover and Calormen, I can only shake my head in amazement over the trouble which this miniscule dominion has caused in recent times.
What's the big problem? Whence the call for independence from Hanover? Calormen is independent of Hanover and always has been! She is a Commonwealth member nation, not a colony of Hanover. That she is ruled by an individual who is also King of Hanover is immaterial. Australia is ruled by a woman who is also Queen of Scotland, but that doesn't subject Australia to Scotland or vice-versa!
King Alexander is the ruler of Calormen, not because he is King of Hanover, but because he inherited the title from King Thomas who inherited the title from me. I inherited it from Emperor Christopher I when he ceded his empire to me.
Now as Calormen is an absolute monarchy, the emperor (or king now, apparently) can do whatever he wants. If he wants a shared parliament for both Hanover and Calormen, then as long as Parliament approves, so be it. Calormen has no say.
Short of an action like that, however, Calormen is not subject to Hanover in any way, shape or form. Calormen is subject only to the King, who happens also to be king of Hanover.
I should also like to state that T.S. Elliot's spelling of "Calormen" should be observed if the name is to remain, and that the people of Calormen were, in Elliot's work, known as the "Calormene", not the "Calormani" or the "Calormeni" or the "Calermoni".
Furthermore, I would like to comment on the following:
"Without explanation, on April 25th, 2003 James I published his Royal Proclamation: Royal styles document and 'James, by the Grace of God King of Hanover" became "James, by the Grace of God of Hanover and of His Other Realms and Territories King, Emperor of Calormen, Head of the Commonwealth'"
The explanation, plain as day, is included in the Letters Patent. We had become, in addition to King of Hanover, King of Athenoi and Emperor of Calormen, thus necessitating a revision of the royal style.
With regard to the missing treaty, how do you lose a treaty? Of course it exists, somewhere. Try the old Kingdom of Hanover Yahoo mailbox or the Yahoo cabinet group. Cutterham must have a copy of it somewhere; he drafted it.
At any rate, the matter was public, it was announced, the letters patent creating the office of GG of Calermon were published as well as Christopher Anderson's adoption into the House of Marchmain and subsequent appointment as governor-general of Calormen (a position from which he was never actually dismissed, despite subsequent appointments to that office which, I believe, actually violate the treaty).
Louis I
King of Varennes & Chambord
Second Emperor of Calormen
Post a Comment
What's the big problem? Whence the call for independence from Hanover? Calormen is independent of Hanover and always has been! She is a Commonwealth member nation, not a colony of Hanover. That she is ruled by an individual who is also King of Hanover is immaterial. Australia is ruled by a woman who is also Queen of Scotland, but that doesn't subject Australia to Scotland or vice-versa!
King Alexander is the ruler of Calormen, not because he is King of Hanover, but because he inherited the title from King Thomas who inherited the title from me. I inherited it from Emperor Christopher I when he ceded his empire to me.
Now as Calormen is an absolute monarchy, the emperor (or king now, apparently) can do whatever he wants. If he wants a shared parliament for both Hanover and Calormen, then as long as Parliament approves, so be it. Calormen has no say.
Short of an action like that, however, Calormen is not subject to Hanover in any way, shape or form. Calormen is subject only to the King, who happens also to be king of Hanover.
I should also like to state that T.S. Elliot's spelling of "Calormen" should be observed if the name is to remain, and that the people of Calormen were, in Elliot's work, known as the "Calormene", not the "Calormani" or the "Calormeni" or the "Calermoni".
Furthermore, I would like to comment on the following:
"Without explanation, on April 25th, 2003 James I published his Royal Proclamation: Royal styles document and 'James, by the Grace of God King of Hanover" became "James, by the Grace of God of Hanover and of His Other Realms and Territories King, Emperor of Calormen, Head of the Commonwealth'"
The explanation, plain as day, is included in the Letters Patent. We had become, in addition to King of Hanover, King of Athenoi and Emperor of Calormen, thus necessitating a revision of the royal style.
With regard to the missing treaty, how do you lose a treaty? Of course it exists, somewhere. Try the old Kingdom of Hanover Yahoo mailbox or the Yahoo cabinet group. Cutterham must have a copy of it somewhere; he drafted it.
At any rate, the matter was public, it was announced, the letters patent creating the office of GG of Calermon were published as well as Christopher Anderson's adoption into the House of Marchmain and subsequent appointment as governor-general of Calormen (a position from which he was never actually dismissed, despite subsequent appointments to that office which, I believe, actually violate the treaty).
Louis I
King of Varennes & Chambord
Second Emperor of Calormen
# posted by 
: August 18, 2004 at 12:04 PM
: August 18, 2004 at 12:04 PM << Home
