Re: The Federated Kingdoms

[Andrew Smith <hobbit@mail.earthlight.co.nz>]

On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, John Cowan wrote:

The Federated Kingdoms first came to my notice when a stray comment in a
newspaper by a Scottish Bishop visiting NZ mentioned the new regional
assemblies in Britain could turn the nation into a federation similar to
Germany.  I wondered how Kemr would fit in a scenario like that and
ferreted the idea away for future consideration.

There are certain differences in the prehistory of the of the FK.  I don't
know what role the Kemrese played in the English War of the Roses.  If
they did not intervene then at the time of the Reformation then a
Plantagenet monarch still rules in London.  Without the dilemma of
providing an heir to Henry VIII the Plantagenet monarch chooses not to
nationalise the monasteries and remains Catholic.  Successive monarchs
marry into the dynasties of France and Spain creating a strong alliance
that stems the impact of Protestantism.  The Stuarts remain in Edinburgh,
possibly permitting the existence of an episcopal reformed church in
Scotland.  Conversion to Protestantism spreads creates a influential
minority, after a period of savage conflicts a sustantial number choose
emmigrantion to the New World as the only peaceful alternative...

Just some of my thoughts on background material to Federation that could
affect some of the details of its nature.  What do our other Kemrese
historians think?

> The modern Federated Kingdoms date from the Act of Federation,
> passed by the English Parliament in 1805 in response to the
> French threat.  The three Kingdoms --- England, Scotland, and
> Cambria --- are officially equal participants, although there
> is a personal union between England and Scotland (i.e. they
> have the same Monarch).
>
Another date for the timeline!
 
> Federation is implemented by a process of mutual representation.
> Each parliament elects two groups of representatives who attend
>  the other two parliaments as full voting members.  This applies
> separately to the Lords Temporal and Commons.  Lords Spiritual
> (bishops) are not so exchanged, because Scotland has no bishops
> and the Cambriese and Anglican Churches cannot agree on who is and 
> who is not a legitimate bishop.  (The Anglican Church is national
> and Protestant, There as Here, though perhaps not quite so
> tolerant historically of "Low Church" viewpoints.)
>
See above for my speculations upon the nature of the Lords Spiritual.
 
> One difference between the English and Scottish parliamentary
> systems and the Cambriese one is that the Royal Assent is not
> quite as much a matter of form in Cambria as it is elsewhere.
> Although the present Monarch, King Gerontius XIII, has never
> refused the Assent, his late father did so or threatened to
> do so on more than one occasion, particularly in connection
> with the Budget of 1911.
>
Another date!  Is this the time when the song 'Gris-Geory coenoscef mew
Badr' first appeared?
 
> Oddly, despite the personal union, Scots law is more different
> from English and Cambriese law than they are from each other.
> Cambria and England never received Roman law (the Codex
> of Justinian) as Scotland did, although there are both Roman
> and Celtic customary legal systems at the base of Cambriese law.
> Nevertheless, Cambria is now more a common-law than a civil-law
> country: jury trials of course exist there, though not quite
> in English or Scottish form.
> 
Common-law country, I will have to take note of that for my web-page
(whatever it means in practice).  How does trial by jury work in Cambria?

> Ireland was never part of the F.K., but was ruled from 1155 to
> 1922 as a dependency of Cambria; the "rule" was often no more
> than nominal in the Northland (Uladh), where the control of
> Goidelic petty kings remained strong.  King Peter II of Cambria,
> armed with the *Laudabiliter* bull from Pope Adrian IV, took
> the submissions of most of the Irish rulers, and created his son
> John (Iewan) *Dominus Hiberniae*.  Eventually an Irish Parliament
> parallel to the Cambriese one evolved, representing at first
> only the interests of the colonists.  This Parliament, however,
> was entirely subordinate to the Cambriese Government.
>
Traditionally the successor to a Gereint is a Costentin, but there are
lots of gaps, considering our current ruler is the thirteenth Gereint.
I'll toss Pedr II and Iewan into the list of what kings I do know.  I
suppose the heditary title of the Crown Prince, 'Don Iwern', was dropped
after 1922, it would not be the most important title. 

<snip> 
> (Parenthentically, I must protest the loose use of "British"
> for the English on Sessiwn Kemres: in the Brithenig Universe,
> the "British" are unquestionably the Chomro.  As JRRT says,
> "[I]n the quest for a quite unnecessary uniformity, the English
> were deprived of their Englishry and the Welsh of their claim
> to be the primary inheritors of the title 'British'."  Not
> so across the interuniversal divide!)
> 
So what is the correct reference for a *British citizen?

- andrew.

Andrew Smith                                  <hobbit@earthlight.co.nz>
Life is short, so am I...