Conseil du Royaume

[OverKnight]

Hugues stands with a prepared speech.

If the King quotes me, it is only fair that I quote his Majesty.

10 seasons ago the King addressed the Conseil concerning the English and war:

I know what all of you want to hear : that we are going to wage war et bouter l'anglais hors de France.

But that will have to wait. Our treasury has suffered from all these years of war and the costs of another war woudl ruin us. In that spirit, only last year, I concluded a trade agreement with my cousin William which acts as a sort of truce between us.

France is in shambles, our cities stink, our peasants are famished, bands of marauders scour the land... All this must stop...

I will not suffer the peasantry of France to die while her nobles go fight for glory, plunder and pleasure abroad, be it to bring back into the fold provinces that rightfully should belong to my crown. . .

Four seasons later, we were at war, declared by the King, not against the English, but the Germans. I guess we were ready for a war with the Empire, but not England. The King also said:

I will leave la gouvernance du Royaume entre vos mains in the years to come.

Would leaving the governing of the realm in the hands of others include declaring war against the Empire? Trying to cajole and then threaten the standing Seneschal into making an alliance with our sworn enemy? Or pressuring him into taking Caernarvon and Dublin, only to cast him aside when he failed to do exactly what his Majesty demanded of him? Why weren't any of these matters brought to the Conseil when it was in Session or after?

As to the question of my deal with my cousin Guillaume, I prefer to keep the specifics secret for now and until the Senechal is chosen. Diplomacy is a very sensible matter and telling too much too early may well cause it to fail.

Let us simply say that I specifically had asked the previous Senechal to propose an alliance to my cousin Guillaume as a gesture of goodwill before proposing to make an exchange of our lands, something which the Senechal admittedly didn't do. It remains to determine if that was his fault for not conveying the information to the diplomat he sent or a blunder of the diplomat. Whatever the cause, I consider that the fault is to be laid at the Senechal's feet.

Having failed to govern the realm through an unwilling proxy and behind the back of the Conseil, the cycle begins again, yet this time dispensing with the proxy. We have an edict, 2.4, authorizing negotiations, but no specifics, no mention of an Alliance. In fact I doubt the King would even give us these crumbs without prodding. The Conseil has not been consulted on an offer of an Alliance. We have not been given the exact terms for the negotiations. Nor have we been asked about whether an Alliance with England, our old enemy, is wanted or advisable.

The position [Seneschal] must be one of respect and authority, subject only to the greater authority of the King. . .

I have convened this body to help in the governance of the Royaume and to elect a man to second me and deal with the day to day burden of administering France. . .

I do not think that this has been an error, not yet but I should not impose such a burden on men not as well prepared as us Kings and Princes to deal with it. . .

This election is about whether this Conseil is simply a rubber stamp or not. And if the Seneschal, the elected represenative of the Conseil, is only a Clerk or not. Are the Nobles of France to have any say in the affairs of the Kingdom? Do you want an independent Seneschal, or not one at all?

I ask for your vote, I ask for the Conseil to stand up for its rights, I ask you to take what is yours.

I also propose:

Edict 2.9: An alliance with England is authorized.

and

Edict 2.10: An alliance with England shall not be authorized, negotiated or accepted.

Our voice will be heard.