Warning: mysqli_fetch_row() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, boolean given in /var/www/html/gtx0.com/core.php on line 94
Adventurous Jobs, and the Duties of the Rich to the Poor - Gtx0 ?>


Adventurous Jobs, and the Duties of the Rich to the Poor
Posted: Posted September 9th, 2018 by chiarizio
View Source Report Thread Views

In other threads, about wealth and class and privilege, I’ve suggested that Reptigan, and maybe Adpihi, have class systems that are organized in a way to keep inequality from growing too much too fast.

It partly depends on obligating the rich to do certain things to help the poor; and partly on obligating the poor to undertake certain dangerous or hard jobs for the benefit of society.

I also mentioned that “explorers” and similar people would be the “rock stars” of my concultures.

So I’m thinking, what if every upper-class family were obligated (through “soft” sanctions — social pressure rather than law) to pay to outfit some lower-class youngster with everything s/he’d need to probably survive and succeed at a tour of duty on one of these adventurous, which is to say dangerous and difficult, assignments?

What if they got to call him/her their “child”, for at least as long as s/he were on duty?

What if they got to bask in the reflection of whatever glory s/he earned?

For that matter, the upper classes would not want their offspring and heirs to abstain from these prestige-generating jobs; they’d want at least some of their children to earn some of that glory first-hand.

I’m thinking, when an upperclass family was sending a newly-adult (or at least nearly-adult late adolescent) out to seek glory, they’d not only pay for his/her equipment and training; they’d also find some likely lower-class youth, and pay for that one’s training and equipment as well, with the understanding that the lower class youth would become their darling’s “buddy”, and “watch out” for him/her for the duration.

The two youths would be called each other’s “siblings” while in the service. After their service was finished, they’d still be called “siblings”, unless they’d fallen mutually in love and wanted to marry, and in fact could marry.

Lots of opportunity for drama.

Maybe the lower class kid dies but the upperclass kid survives (perhaps the poorer kid sacrificed himself/herself to save his/her buddy.)

Maybe it happens the other way: the rich kid dies and the poor kid now has to comfort the bereaved parents.

Maybe, after they muster out, they don’t like each other enough to call one another siblings.

Or, maybe, the rich kid wants to marry but the poor kid would rather just be friends. Or the other way around.

Or, they both are in love, but they’re the same sex, and it’s (probably) the first marriage for both of them. (At any rate it couldn’t be the third marriage for either of them!) One’s first two marriages are supposed to be for offspring, so they’ll have to wait at least eighteen to twenty-seven months even if they really rush things. And actually third marriages are supposed to be delayed until after menopause or the climacteric, so they may have to wait more like twenty years or so.

———

Me, I like this idea.
What does anyone else think?

——————=======+++++++*******:::::::%%%%%%%########

ADDED IN EDIT:

It has occurred to me that one of the pair might want to make a career out of the service, while the other might want to pursue some less-adventuresome career.
Suppose they got married (I imagine this would be a minority outcome), and one (say, the one from the poor background) wanted to stay in the service, while the other wanted to enter the workforce (say, the kid from the rich family wanted to get into the family business).
As long as they could have and raise a kid or two, I think the stay-at-home would benefit from having a well-admired spouse, and the career adventurer would benefit from having the financial backing of a well-to-do spouse.

This would be especially interesting if the adventurer were the wife and the stay-at-home were the husband.

Actually, if the wellborn one wanted to keep adventuring and the one with humble origins wanted to settle down, and they married, the wealthy family might take the humble-born child-in-law into their business.

There are 24 Replies
Load all posts On page: 1 2 3
  settingsSettings

In other threads, about wealth and class and privilege, I’ve suggested that Reptigan, and maybe Adpihi, have class systems that are organized in a way to keep inequality from growing too much too fast.

It partly depends on obligating the rich to do certain things to help the poor; and partly on obligating the poor to undertake certain dangerous or hard jobs for the benefit of society.

I also mentioned that “explorers” and similar people would be the “rock stars” of my concultures.

So I’m thinking, what if every upper-class family were obligated to pay to outfit some lower-class youngster with everything s/he’d need to probably survive and succeed at a tour of duty on one of these adventurous, which is to say dangerous and difficult, assignments?


I think the Reptigan notion of taming inequality is interesting. Could we have some examples?

Re explorers cum rockstars. It wasn't so very long ago that, at least in the US and possibly the UK, explorers and inventors and pioneers were society's big stars! In the day, the papers and newsreels were full of the great strides in aviation, technology & science. Lindbergh flew across the ocean in an airplane and was feted as a hero and they made movies about the feat. Anymore if someone announced a cure for cancer or alzheimers this week, it might get a mention on Yahoo News, but the story would be crammed between any one of half a dozen jumped-up "celebrities" having a melt down and the 24-7 coverage presidential tweets and for that matter the 24-7 coverage of "celebrity" tweets.

The system you describe reminds me rather of 19th century Britain. That was a time of a great awakening to the social ills of society and that wealthy people ought to help the less fortunate as a matter of social duty.

The notion of "taking in" a poor kid or three for that kind of adventure I think is an interesting idea. Kind of somewhere between an apprenticeship and a practical schooling and a public works programme. Perhaps after the tour of duty is over, such a young person could wind up with a commission as a (very) junior officer in the military or with a position of some authority in a business concern (a foreman for example). If an artistic or scientific or spiritual or some other kind of talent-gift is revealed, perhaps the rich family would be obligated to steer their adopted child into an appropriate course of study.

I think such a system would benefit society in several ways. Obviously, only a few can be directly helped in this way. But, those few will basically be shunted into the middle classes as teachers, civil servants, career military, physicians, artists, perhaps even politics as local councilors or (commons) MPs. They will help as economic drivers and also may serve as object lessons for other poor people. In a highly stratified class system, the serf can never hope to become a lord; but in a system like this, he may hope that his kids can become shop keepers or physicians or guild lords or naval officers.

What if they got to call him/her their “child”, for at least as long as s/he were on duty?

What if they got to bask in the reflection of whatever glory s/he earned?


Possibly. In any event, it would behoove the adopting family to tout the triumphs of their adopted adventurer in the press of the day. After all, the child's successes will reflect well on the family.

For that matter, the upper classes would not want their offspring and heirs to abstain from these prestige-generating jobs; they’d want at least some of their children to earn some of that glory first-hand.


Sure. And this also reminds me of earlier days in America and Britain where the young men were often sent into the military to earn some glory and renown for the family.

I’m thinking, when an upperclass family was sending a newly-adult (or at least nearly-adult late adolescent) out to seek glory, they’d not only pay for his/her equipment and training; they’d also find some likely lower-class youth, and pay for that one’s training and equipment as well, with the understanding that the lower class youth would become their darling’s “buddy”, and “watch out” for him/her for the duration.


Sounds reasonable.

The two youths would be called each other’s “siblings” while in the service. After their service was finished, they’d still be called “siblings”, unless they’d fallen mutually in love and wanted to marry, and in fact could marry.

Lots of opportunity for drama.


Probably too much drama. ;)

Maybe the lower class kid dies but the upperclass kid survives (perhaps the poorer kid sacrificed himself/herself to save his/her buddy.)

Maybe it happens the other way: the rich kid dies and the poor kid now has to comfort the bereaved parents.


Naturally, in the former situation, the wealthy "sibling" would be socially motivated & encouraged, within this system, to look after his "sibling's" family in some way. A kind of weregild. A situation might then develop where, when he himself marries and begins a family, he'll choose to "take in" a son or daughter from that same family that his own "sibling" came from.

We'll need proper words for these extended relationships!

Such a situation could last for generations and perhaps lead to some acceptable level of intermarriage, depending on how relatively high or low the wealthy family is and how relatively well-to-do or not the "taken in" children end up. For example, I doubt very much that a high noble or royal family will "take in" a random urchin off the street. And such a one, if he ended up becoming a guild master, for example, would not make for an appropriate match for a princess royal. But the son of a wealthy physician might make for a decent match to the daughter of a minor noble.

Maybe, after they muster out, they don’t like each other enough to call one another siblings.

Or, maybe, the rich kid wants to marry but the poor kid would rather just be friends. Or the other way around.


Possibly. Much will depend on the kind of society. I'm kind of liking this idea for Auntimoany, having as it does some affinity for certain earlier British ideals. But I rather doubt that a daughter of a wealthy family would be paired with a "taken in" boy. Way too much potential for future problems! Also unlikely that two such male "siblings" would want to marry one another. Unless, in Reptigan / Adiphi, pseudo-same-sex attracted behaviours are socially acceptable and in some ways expected (I'm thinking like ancient Greece). That is not the case in Auntimoany. In any event, the wealthy young man would be expected to marry a suitable girl so the wealth can be passed along to a suitable heir! (Now, if the two boys dìd happen to both be same-sex attracted ánd were mutually attracted to each other, I could see a situation where the wealthy boy could be married to a girl for convenience and dynastic considerations while also being joined with his "sibling" in actual brotherhood. And they'll just have to keep mum as to what that entails.)

Or, they both are in love, but they’re the same sex, and it’s (probably) the first marriage for both of them. (At any rate it couldn’t be the third marriage for either of them!) One’s first two marriages are supposed to be for offspring, so they’ll have to wait at least eighteen to twenty-seven months even if they really rush things. And actually third marriages are supposed to be delayed until after menopause or the climacteric, so they may have to wait more like twenty years or so.


Sensible.

Me, I like this idea.
What does anyone else think?


I'll definitely be working out how these ideas might apply in The World!

It has occurred to me that one of the pair might want to make a career out of the service, while the other might want to pursue some less-adventuresome career.
Suppose they got married (I imagine this would be a minority outcome), and one (say, the one from the poor background) wanted to stay in the service, while the other wanted to enter the workforce (say, the kid from the rich family wanted to get into the family business).
As long as they could have and raise a kid or two, I think the stay-at-home would benefit from having a well-admired spouse, and the career adventurer would benefit from having the financial backing of a well-to-do spouse.

This would be especially interesting if the adventurer were the wife and the stay-at-home were the husband.

Actually, if the wellborn one wanted to keep adventuring and the one with humble origins wanted to settle down, and they married, the wealthy family might take the humble-born child-in-law into their business.


Quite possibly!

Posted September 9th, 2018 by elemtilas
View Source Quote Report

Examples?

Before you asked, I was thinking of this in terms of the charities whereby an USAmerican family can sponsor a child from-and-in a third-world country, beginning by helping them pay for an elementary-school education. Of course this also involves helping the sponsored child fulfill those more basic needs they have to not be too worried about to concentrate sufficiently on school.
The sponsors get regular updates on the status of the child —— especially including photos! And they are encouraged and enabled to correspond to the child. Once the child is educated enough and mature enough, the updates begin to include correspondence from the child. This might continue until the child comes to the States to finish a professional degree and meet their sponsors! Then they’ll probably go back home to open a practice there, but continue a lifetime sort of penpalship with their sponsors.
(All of that depends hugely on a string of lucky breaks, no single one of which is all that unlikely, but the entire sequence is kinda improbable. )

But, after reading what you asked, it occurred to me that a real-world example of the Krupp family ironworks, and a canon fictional example of Major Barbara, could be an extreme example of something like this. In the Krupp family, the child who inherits the ironworks is always a foundling. I believe the RL Krupp family makes a habit of adopting at least one foundling every generation? I don’t really know; I’m sure I could check it out, and maybe later I will do so. In Major Barbara, the foundling was already adult when the family met him, and he and their daughter Barbara wound up marrying (unless I’m mistaken — I never saw the whole play :$: ).

—————

It might be typical, if the rich “kid” and their “poor” buddy stayed friends their whole lives, for them to become one another’s third spouses, no matter what their sexes were, once they’d both had all the children they ever wanted to have, and had passed the age when they’d be likely to have more.

In Reptigan, this kind of sponsorship might be extended between sapience-types. AIs and non-human biosapients might sponsor, and/or be sponsored by, humans and/or each other. Maybe several of the first few cross-type marriages would be such third marriages.

I’m really intrigued by your notion that a tragedy such as the sponsored youth sacrificing their life, or maybe just taking permanently crippling wounds, to save the sponsoring family’s child, could lead to a generations-long patron/client relationship between the families!

I seem to have had the idea that the sponsoring family would usually expect their sponsored child to come into business with them, if they didn’t just keep adventuring, or go into some profession where they could help the sort of people who lived in the circumstances they themselves came from.

I put a bit of thought into what sort of arrangement a couple would have to make if the mother were the explorer and the father were the stay-at-home worker.
I think, in order to conceive, gestate, give birth to, and start to raise a child, she’d need to be able to get home to her husband (and child, after a while) every night for about 2.5 years.
After that she could be available for adventuring missions up to at least six months a year for up to at least the next five years.
Then if they want a second child, she’d take another “active rest” of duty near home for another 2.5 years.
Probably after that she’d retire from active duty. OTOH if she did another tour of five years of six-out-six-in duty, at the end she might not want a third kid because of her age. But she might be just young enough to have a third kid; however, this being Reptigan (or possibly Adpihi), she and her first husband wouldn’t want him to be the father of her third child.

Six months a year of long-distance marriage wouldn’t damage the marriage, because they’d both be free to take on a second spouse, who would be comfortable with the primacy of the first marriage. Chances are, after their initial 2.5-year bride-and-groomship, he’d find somebody local and she’d find someone else in the service. A pair of questions that interests me is, would he find a mature wife who was or had been already married and maybe a child or two, or would he find a virgin ( or at least a maiden)? For her part, would she find an older, more experienced veteran, who might also be a sort of mentor, or would she find a young man on his first tour, whom she could mentor?

—————

In Victorian times, in England, the country was still reacting to the threat of the French Revolution and the threat of the Napoleonic dynasty.
England already had a gentler-than-usual-for-Europe Pareto distribution of property wealth. In England, 30% of the people owned 70% of the wealth; in most European (or, at least, West and Central European) countries, 20% of the people owned 80% of the wealth. (In some, 10% of the people owned 90% of the wealth.)
The upper and middle classes of England thought it their duty to forestall any resentment the property-less inhabitants might have toward them. At least they didn’t want them angry enough to have a revolution; certainly not angry enough to want to behead people just for being born rich!
So they put effort into charitable projects. They’d sponsor houses-cum-schools for orphaned, or sometimes just poor, kids to live and grow up and be taught how to support themselves. They’d send around food, and items they may have made with their own hands, to families one of whose parents was ill. Especially if it were a one-parent house, or the sick individual were the only breadwinner, or the only one able to do the normal lady-of-the-house chores.
Even in America the first ‘student loans” weren’t really loans at all; originally they were outright scholarship grants from (at first) minor nobles and (later) rich commoners. Then, when they became loans, they were at first zero-interest loans.

In the military an officer’s chances for advancement, especially while young, depended in part on the interest of someone wealthy or otherwise important (such as a Congressman or Senator in the US, or a Peer or an MP in England). So that’s another parallel between RL (perhaps specifically Victorian England) and this stuff. I suppose even now, a cadet who somehow has a good relationship with a military contractor, might have a leg up.

For canon fiction, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCN_Series .
And https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/major-barbara .
For RL history, there’s this: https://g.co/kgs/zf7dsc

[quote=“Wikipedia”] Andrew Undershaft was loosely inspired by a number of figures, including the arms dealer Basil Zaharoff, and German armaments family Krupp. Undershaft's unscrupulous sale of weapons to any and all bidders, as well as his government influence and more pertinently his company's method of succession (to a foundling rather than a son), tie him especially to Krupp steel.


[quote=“Wikipedia”] Krupp was also a revolutionary company that paved the way for workers rights. Alfred pioneered a system in which if the worker pledged loyalty to the company, he would be offered an unprecedented amount of benefits and social programs including on site technical and manual training, accidental, sickness, and life insurance, housing (sometimes free), recreational facilities, parks, schools, bath houses, and department stores. Widows and orphans were guaranteed pay if their husbands and/or fathers were killed.



—————

If you’re familiar with the plot of Prince of Persia, you might have seen that a commoner kid who saved a royal life, might be “adopted” into the royal family. There would likely be some specification made that he couldn’t inherit the throne, nor could he or his descendants enter the line of succession. But I think he might have been made a Life Lord! (In fiction he might be made a Duke or a Serene Highness).

I don’t know if you’ve heard of the White Rajahs, but IRL there was a British family who were adopted by some heirless Rajah of some Insular Southeast Asian country after rescuing him from pirates, who actually became the Rajahs of that country. So that’s probably a possibility.

———

IRL the bigger the donation and the more complete the sponsorship, the likelier the sponsor was upper class and/or rich. Like Bill and Melinda Gates, e.g.

————

I have the feeling I just rambled some. You’re free to actually organize whatever you want to respond to!

Posted September 10th, 2018 by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

BTW I was assuming that, as far as the Corps or Services or whatever-the-word is concerned, the rich recruit and the poor recruit would be equals, for as long as they were in the service. It’s just that the service would try to keep them posted together. They’d probably get promotions at around the same time, unless one were unusually talented or the other were unusually untalented. If it were to turn out that, say, one was a great C.B. and the other were a great J.A.G. Corps member, they might still try to keep them as near each other as was practicable.

In their own and their families’ minds, they would be cognizant of their duties to look out for each other. This obligation might be better enforced upon the poor kid (partly in their own mind) than upon the rich kid, but the rich kid’s family, and the service, would regard it as a point of honor that the obligation was reciprocal. And judging by cop shows the rich kid would start regarding his/her buddy’s or partner’s welfare as essential to her/his own!

It would be after completing their (first?) tour, that the difference in their classes might come back up.

Posted September 10th, 2018 by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

BTW I was assuming that, as far as the Corps or Services or whatever-the-word is concerned, the rich recruit and the poor recruit would be equals, for as long as they were in the service.

In their own and their families’ minds, they would be cognizant of their duties to look out for each other.


I think this is a fascinating bit of geopoesy! It strikes me that what you're describing is, in my mind at least, a little more modern that what I was describing. Your Service Corps sounds a lot like a social descendant or evolution of my "taking in" system; a more official organisation, perhaps with government involvement. It's starting to remind me of a combination of the ancient practice of fosterage (where a noble would take the son of another and raise him along with his own children) coupled with the WPA and with a touch of Peace Corps thrown in to the mix.

Posted September 11th, 2018 by elemtilas
View Source Quote Report

It's starting to remind me of a combination of the ancient practice of fosterage (where a noble would take the son of another and raise him along with his own children) coupled with the WPA and with a touch of Peace Corps thrown in to the mix.

Sounds about right.
Thanks!

Posted September 12th, 2018 by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

It occurred to me that, if such a system were indeed prevalent in the U.K., the young fosterling might indeed become a Lord, though probably only a life lord rather than a lord whose oldest/youngest son/daughter would inherit his/her lordship.

If the humbly-born kid’s talents were spiritual or ecclesiastical or whatever, his/her patron’s family would steer him/her into the church. If s/he rose in the ranks thereof, s/he might become a Lord Spiritual. There were always more Lords Spiritual than Lords Temporal since 1351, when the parliament created by the Magna Carta in 1215 was split into a House of Lords and a House of Commons. Since Lords Spiritual were for sometime expected to be celibate, or at least heirless, their lordships would not be hereditary.

If his/her talents were forensic, s/he might be started in a career as a barrister, and eventually a judge; and s/he might be appointed a “Lord of Appeal”, ranking as a baron for life. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary . This barony would not be inheritable, most of the time.

If s/he remained in the service, s/he might become an admiral, and eventually a lord of the admiralty. In real-life history these people were often hereditary Lords temporal. Sometimes they were Lords Spiritual, and sometimes knights who were members of the House of Commons. And not all of them were, or ever had been, admirals.

If his/her talents were political, s/he might stand for a seat in the House of Commons. S/he might rise within those ranks, to become a Right Honorable Member. The monarch, in consultation with His/Her Majesty’s Government, might honor him/her with a knighthood; even a baronetcy. Baronet was the highest type of knight and the lowest type of Lord; that was the only rank which could choose whether to serve in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. (Usually when someone says “peer”, “baronet” is understood.) The monarch would not want to give such a person a rank higher than baronet until his/her career in the House of Commons were over. But, while knighthood wasn’t hereditary, I’m not sure the same is true of baronetcy. And anyway a retired house-of-commons big-shot might be created some higher rank than a mere peer.

If there ever are or were Lords of industry in Britain, maybe the humbly-born client child could be steered into becoming some sort of magnate or tycoon. I dunno, maybe I’m getting a little far-fetched now!

—————

However, “Lord” and “Lady” and so on mean something different in my conworlds than they do or did in Britain or Ireland or Europe or Japan (or Auntimoany, probably!). And I’m not sure there’s any hereditary legislative or judicial or government-executive positions.

— — — —

Does any of that spark any interest?

Posted September 14th, 2018 by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

It occurred to me that, if such a system were indeed prevalent in the U.K., the young fosterling might indeed become a Lord, though probably only a life lord rather than a lord whose oldest/youngest son/daughter would inherit his/her lordship.


This I would doubt. England was, I think, far too class conscious in general to allow anything like this to happen.

The rest, possibly!

However, “Lord” and “Lady” and so on mean something different in my conworlds than they do or did in Britain or Ireland or Europe or Japan (or Auntimoany, probably!). And I’m not sure there’s any hereditary legislative or judicial or government-executive positions.


As one might expect, there are "official" meanings & usages (for example, a gravio or noble might be addressed as "lord"); and "unofficial" usages (for example, the "lord of the fair" or some other honorary title).

But let's see. There are seven houses in Parliament (the Ricksthinge).

The House of Nobles certainly includes hereditary lords. In this case, heads of the noble & trading houses. Interestingly enough, this House has technically been open to Daine who own an ancient and respectable trading house, even though it's only recently they've been given the vote and even considered to be "a kind of people".

The House of Divines has no nereditary MPs. With the possible exception of maybe one or two hereditary priestships.

The Freemens Moot is an elective body, but the electors that choose the Freemen often hold semi-hereditary electorships.

The Folksdage is elected by the local population. As I recall, the first Daine to stand for election ever was sent to this House.

Those are the legislative Houses. There are a further three deliberative Houses:

The Hall of Worthies is appointed by the Empress (or co-Emperor, if he had a mind for these kinds of things) from the various churches, abbeys, universities and libraries in conjunction with the hierarchs of those institutions. These are not hereditary seats.

The Deanery of Arbitrators is also an appointed body.

The Guild of Excisioners is also elected, in like manner to the Freemen's Moot.

The throne itself is not heritable --- Emperors are made (and sometimes broken) by a somewhat mysterious group called the Kingmakers. Judgeships at all levels are appointed. It's not unknown for a barrister to take over the parental judgeship, though.

Posted September 15th, 2018 by elemtilas
View Source Quote Report

What are the duties of each house?

Posted September 15th, 2018 by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

What are the duties of each house?


The four Legislative bodies may each individually, severally or jointly propose a Bill for consideration. One thing to be noted is that each of the four Houses kind of caters to a particular constituency within society: the House of Nobles caters to the needs of the wealthy, the inherently powerful, the ritually powerful and authoritative; the House of Divines caters to the spiritual and religious needs of society, and is often a strong spokesman for the poor. The Freemens Moot caters to the needs of the middle classes: tradesmen, merchants, guildsmen and the like. The Folksdage caters to the needs of labourers, unguilded craftesmen, farmers, less wealthy merchants, country folks and so forth.

The two Deliberative bodies, the Hall of Worthies (scholars & experts appointed by the monarch) and the Deanery of Arbitrators (self-appointed experts in many fields), may not as a rule propose legislation, but rather serve as a check against the excesses of the legislators. Their job is to consider the text of a Bill, compare it with competing Bills in Session, compare them with already existing Law and render Opinions as the usefullness, viability, likelihood of accession / veto by the Empress, etc.

Legislative Bills are documents drafted by legislators that are proposed ammendments to the Code of Law. A Bill may be proposed by any member of the four deliberative Houses, and often, competing Bills are proposed in two or more Houses. Once a Bill is adopted by its proposing House, it is sent with its competing Bills to the Hall of Worthies for their consideration. They draft a series of Compromises which they have determined will rectify any differences between the various Bills. They also draft an Opinion in which they offer their wisdom on the contents of the Bill. The original Bills, the Compromise Bills and the Opinions of the Worthies are then sent to the Deanery of Arbitrators who smooth out any conflicting elements and offer their Opinion on the process and the final drafts of the Bills in general. All of this is then sent back to the four deliberative Houses for a final vote. If the Compromise Bill is unanimously approved, or is approved by three quarters of the Houses, the final draft is placed in a sealed portfolio and transported to the vaults of the Bank. If approved by two Houses, the Bill is sent back to the College of Arbitrators who discuss the votes of the other Houses and break the tie either way. If a Bill receives final approval of only one House, it is "tabled" by being placed on a huge round table in the atrium of the Ricksthinge. Watched over by the guards in the atrium, all the tabled Bills that accumulate are gathered at the end of sessions and ceremoniously burned in a festival bonfire. For purposes of future reference, copies are sent to the Archives. Presumably in order to prevent such a folly in future sessions of the Ricksthinge!

At the end of each day, the portfolios are taken and guarded in the vaults of the Bank until the Days of Deliberation, which is the time traditionally set aside for the Emperor to be made informed of their content, to read through them and grant his consent or disconsent to any approved legislation. Consented Bills become Laws and are then inscribed in the Code of Law, which is promulgated the next New Year for general enforcement. Disconsented Bills may be reconsidered by the Deanery of Arbitrators and Hall of Worthies who may work on a resolution that is more satisfactory to the Emperor. If such a resolution can not be reached, the Bill is "tabled"; if reached, it is sent back to the Emperor. If the resolution is again disconsented, the Bill is considered dead and can not be reconsidered until a future session.

When a sufficient number of Bills have been consented or disconsented by the Monarch, he will summon the parliamentarians to a full session called Prorogation. When this summons is read out, all deliberative action ceases and all Bills in Session are "tabled". In effect Parliament is suspended for a time. At the appointed time, the consented Bills are gathered up into a great Folio and bound in read leather into which the Imperial Seal is seared. This, along with the Emperor will go from the Palas down to Parliament for a very important ceremony.

Here, with all the MPs present in the great Hall, the Monarch will sit in majesty and ritually promulgate the Law. The newly bound Folio will be placed before the chosen Reader who will then read out the Preface, noting the session's dates and places of deliberation and the roll of MPs entered into the Folio, followed by the Index of Deliberations and Bills in Consent. This is basically the table of contents of all the new laws plus those not passed. Then, one by one, the summation of each new Law will be read out, along with the roll of Houses passing each Bill, followed by the ritual Words of Imperial Consent. Either the Reader may do this or the Emperor may choose to do this. At the end of the reading of the new laws comes the Index of Deliberations and Bills in Disconsent, which are not read or even published in summary. At the end of the list, the formulaic Words of Imperial Disconsent are uttered. At this time, the Monarch may deliver a second Throne Speech, summing up the work done and whether his government did a good job or not. Sometimes a particuarly irate Emperor might just give the do-nothing MPs a good old harangue.

Parliament is then dissolved until called for again and the People can rest at ease for a while, knowing that no new silly laws will be enacted for a while!

Posted September 16th, 2018 by elemtilas
View Source Quote Report

Will that work?
Would it work in real life, or is its success confined to fiction?

IRL parliaments/legislatures with more than three houses have seldom been attempted, and parliaments with more than two houses have seldom been very effective for very long.
I’ve never heard of a RL parliament with more than four houses.

This all sounds very Avantimannish, so it might be a keeper for fictional purposes anyway, whether it’s practical or not.

Posted September 17th, 2018 by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report
Next page Load rest of pages On page: /
Reply to: Adventurous Jobs, and the Duties of the Rich to the Poor
Enter your message here

Rules | Report Issue | Request Feature | Roadmap Facebook Page | Discord Group
GTX0 © 2009-2020 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett